iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF
For the period ended Sep 30, 2026. Filed Nov 6, 2026.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's report for each of its first three quarters. The financial statements are not audited. It shows how the business has moved since the last annual report, and what management says changed.
Sep 30, 2026 · Filed Nov 6, 2026
ETHB$28.65-0.9%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-Q
Period ended 2026-06-30; filed 2026-08-11.
0001437749-26-027003
Item 1A. Risk FactorsUnregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of ProceedsDefaults Upon Senior SecuritiesCurrent report: 10-Q
Period ended 2026-09-30; filed 2026-11-06.
0001437749-26-035531
Item 1A. Risk FactorsUnregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of ProceedsDefaults Upon Senior SecuritiesMine Safety DisclosuresThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 47 previous paragraphs and 75 current paragraphs.
34 unchanged; 12 reworded; 26 added; 1 removed; 0 previous and 3 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 13 previous and 13 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (26)
Current report
In September 2026, Bitget, a digital asset platform, reported that a security breach resulted in unauthorized transfers of approximately $388 million in digital assets and the temporary suspension of withdrawals. According to reports from blockchain security firms, hacks and exploits across the digital asset industry resulted in approximately $768 million in reported gross losses during September 2026, some of which were subsequently recovered. According to the FBI, on October 29, 2026, unauthorized third parties transferred more than $6 billion in digital assets from wallets attributed to Binance, the largest digital asset trading platform by trading volume. Blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs characterized the incident as the largest theft of digital assets on record. A security incident involving a major trading platform may affect confidence in, and trading activity across, the broader ether and crypto markets, including on the Constituent Platforms. Because the Index is based on prices from a limited number of Constituent Platforms, any resulting disruption on those platforms could affect the Index price. To the extent that ether is compromised in a hack or is acquired by exchanging other stolen assets for ether, that ether cannot be frozen by an issuer, and any sale of that ether in the market could exert downward pressure on the price of ether or lead to the suspension of key ether markets, including decentralized finance protocols. Such incidents, particularly one of this scale, may undermine confidence in digital asset platforms, networks and markets, adversely affect liquidity and trading activity, lead to withdrawal suspensions or other disruptions at digital asset platforms, increase regulatory and enforcement scrutiny, affect the liquidity or value of ether held by the Trust, and contribute to volatility or declines in the price of ether and the value of the Shares.
Current report
Since 2020, a number of companies engaged in businesses outside the digital asset industry have begun to hold their corporate treasuries in digital assets instead of in fiat currency (“digital asset treasury companies”). In some cases, these companies have raised funds through financing or securities offerings and applied the proceeds to purchase digital assets, including ether.
Current report
Digital asset treasury companies are a relatively new phenomenon and it is difficult to predict their long-term sustainability, and therefore their impact to digital asset markets, and to the Trust. In 2026, certain digital asset treasury companies have experienced significant declines in their market valuations, which may limit their ability to raise additional financing to acquire digital assets, including ether, or increase pressure to sell their existing holdings. Digital asset treasury companies may increase procyclical dynamics in the market because they may purchase digital assets, such as ether, when prices are rising and they may in certain circumstances be forced to sell such assets when prices are decreasing, potentially causing downward pressure on ether prices in a falling market (causing prices to fall faster than they otherwise would). Digital asset treasury companies could cause greater volatility in digital asset markets, including markets for ether. Negative events or sentiment surrounding digital asset treasury companies could affect the market for ether. The increase of consolidated positions in ether held by digital asset treasury companies could affect the operation of the Ethereum blockchain. One digital asset treasury company, BitMine Immersion Technology Inc. (“BitMine Immersion”), held approximately 2.8% of ether’s supply as of November 3, 2025. If BitMine Immersion or another similarly situated digital asset treasury company begins to operate validators, it could gain influence in how the Ethereum blockchain operates. The foregoing or similar events involving digital asset treasury companies could adversely affect holders of Shares in the Trust.
Current report
Tokenization of the Shares by unaffiliated third parties could adversely affect the liquidity and trading price of the Shares.
Current report
On September 17, 2026, the SEC issued temporary, conditional exemptive relief permitting certain Tokenized Securities Venues (“TSVs”) to facilitate trading in tokenized NMS stocks, including exchange-traded products such as the Shares. Under this relief, the Shares may be tokenized by an unaffiliated third party and made available for trading on a TSV without the Trust’s or Sponsor’s affirmative consent, provided that the TSV gives the Trust prior written notice and the Trust does not object within 30 calendar days after receiving such notice. The Trust may not receive the notice sent by a TSV or may choose not to object to one or more of such notices. The Trust may also consider whether it will tokenize the Shares using an on-chain transfer agent. On September 1, 2026, the SEC also proposed amendments to its rules governing registered transfer agents, including changes addressing tokenized securities recordkeeping and the processing and safeguarding of securities. The proposal has not been adopted, and any final rules could affect the manner in which tokenized Shares are recorded or transferred, potentially creating additional costs or operational risks for the intermediaries involved.
Current report
Unaffiliated third parties, including issuers and trading platforms located outside the United States, also offer tokens and other digital instruments that are designed to track the price of, or provide economic exposure to, U.S.-listed equity securities, including exchange-traded products, and such instruments may reference the Shares. These instruments are not issued, sponsored or endorsed by the Trust or the Sponsor, are not subject to the notice and objection process that applies to TSVs, are generally not offered to U.S. persons and may not be registered with, or subject to oversight by, the SEC. As a result, the Trust and the Sponsor may not be aware that such instruments exist. Depending on their structure, they may take the form of derivative contracts with, or debt securities issued by, the third party, and they may or may not be backed by Shares held by a third party’s custodian. Such instruments may not confer any rights to assets held by the Trust or the Sponsor, and a holder’s rights instead are tied to the third party’s assets, custody and recordkeeping arrangements or its creditworthiness and performance.
Current report
If tokenized Shares were made available for trading on a TSV, or tokens referencing the Shares were offered outside the TSV framework, the Trust and the Sponsor would not control the trading or pricing mechanisms of the relevant venue or issuer or the custody arrangements for such tokens. Trading on separate venues, including at times when NASDAQ is closed, could fragment liquidity or cause such tokens to trade at prices that significantly differ from the market price of the Shares on NASDAQ or the Trust’s NAV, potentially adversely affecting the liquidity or trading price of the Shares. In addition, investors may not understand how such tokens differ from the Shares, and any failure, mispricing, insolvency, security breach, regulatory action or other adverse development involving such tokens or the venues or issuers that offer them, or any confusion about their relationship to the Trust, could adversely affect the reputation of the Trust or the Sponsor or the price or demand for the Shares.
Current report
private keys, it does not eliminate the risk of theft or compromise, including through vulnerabilities in the hardware or software used to generate or safeguard private keys. For example, beginning in July 2026, attackers reportedly exploited a firmware vulnerability affecting certain Coldcard hardware wallets to derive private keys and steal approximately $116 million in bitcoin without physically accessing the affected devices. The loss, theft, compromise or destruction of a private key required to access a digital asset may be irreversible. If a private key is lost, stolen, destroyed or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key is accessible, the owner would be unable to access the digital asset corresponding to that private key and the private key will not be capable of being restored by the digital asset network, resulting in the total loss of the value of the digital asset linked to the private key.
Current report
asset transactions and the number of transactions that can be processed in a given period (known as “throughput”). These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective or may result in unforeseen problems or issues, and such upgrades may fail, resulting in potentially irreparable damage to the Ethereum network and the value of ether.
Current report
Trust’s ether, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. In addition, because a significant amount of ether is held in accounts whose public keys have already been exposed, a sufficiently advanced quantum computer could be used to misappropriate that ether, even if the Trust’s own ether were not compromised, undermining confidence in the Ethereum network and depressing the price of ether, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, normal operations and functionality of the Ethereum network may be negatively affected. Such losses of functionality could lead to the Ethereum network losing attractiveness to users, nodes, validators, or other stakeholders, thereby dampening demand for ether. Even if another digital asset other than ether were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Current report
On August 18, 2026, the SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, which would establish registration exemptions for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets and a conditional safe harbor addressing when a crypto asset ceases to be subject to an investment contract. The proposal has not been adopted, may be revised or withdrawn, and does not address exchange-traded products such as the Trust. The Sponsor cannot predict whether Regulation Crypto Assets will be adopted or how these or other regulatory developments could affect digital asset markets, the price of ether or the value of the Shares.
Current report
Notwithstanding the SEC’s current interpretation that ether is not itself a security, a court could reach a different conclusion under existing law, or future legislative or regulatory developments could result in ether being treated as a security under the federal securities laws. Any such determination or development could materially adversely affect the Trust and the value of the Shares.
Current report
On October 5, 2026, the CFTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (“Regulation CTX”) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (“Regulation CAM”), seeking comment on potential rules governing certain retail crypto asset transactions and an optional federal registration framework for crypto asset trading venues. The CFTC has not proposed or adopted rules through this notice, and any subsequent rulemaking could affect the operation of digital asset trading platforms, trading activity or liquidity in ether markets, which could adversely affect the price of ether and the value of the Shares.
Current report
The treatment of digital assets and Staking Activities for U.S. federal income tax purposes is uncertain.
Current report
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 ether (and, if applicable, any Incidental Rights and IR Digital Asset) 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.
Current report
In 2014, the IRS released a notice (the “Notice”) discussing certain aspects of “convertible virtual currency” (that is, digital currency that has an equivalent value in fiat currency or that acts as a substitute for fiat currency) for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, in particular, stating that such digital currency (i) is “property” (ii) is not “currency” for purposes of the rules relating to foreign currency gain or loss and (iii) may be held as a capital asset. In 2019, the IRS released a revenue ruling and a set of “Frequently Asked Questions” (the “Ruling & FAQs”) that provide some additional guidance, including guidance to the effect that, under certain circumstances, hard forks of digital currencies are taxable events giving rise to ordinary income and guidance with respect to the determination of the tax basis of digital currency. Moreover, in 2023, the IRS released a revenue ruling that provided guidance on digital currency staking, including guidance to the effect that staking rewards will, under certain circumstances, be treated as giving rise to taxable income (the “2023 Staking Tax Guidance”). In 2025, the IRS released the 2025 Staking Tax Guidance establishing a safe harbor pursuant to which, if all the requirements listed in the 2025 Staking Tax Guidance are satisfied, a trust’s authorization pursuant to its trust agreement to stake its digital assets will not prevent the trust from qualifying as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which safe harbor was clarified, modified, and superseded in October 2026 by a further revenue procedure (the “2026 Staking Tax Guidance” and, together with the 2023 Staking Tax Guidance and the 2025 Staking Tax Guidance, the “Staking Tax Guidance”). Under the 2026 Staking Tax Guidance, if all of its requirements are satisfied, neither the authorization to stake nor the resulting staking will prevent the trust from qualifying as an investment trust and a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Sponsor intends to take the position that the Staking Activities meet the requirements of the 2026 Staking Tax Guidance and are consistent with the Trust’s qualification as a grantor trust. However, there can be no assurance that the Staking Activities will be conducted in a manner so as to qualify or remain qualified for the safe harbor of the 2026 Staking Tax Guidance. If the IRS were to successfully challenge the position that the Staking Activities meet the requirements of the 2026 Staking Tax Guidance and are otherwise consistent with the Trust’s qualification as a grantor trust, the Trust would not qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Current report
The Notice, the Ruling & FAQs, and the Staking Tax Guidance do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets and staking activities. Moreover, although the Ruling & FAQs address the treatment of hard forks, there continues to be uncertainty with respect to the timing and amount of the income inclusions.
Current report
Future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For example, the Notice addresses only digital currency that is “convertible virtual currency,” and it is conceivable that, as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence, the Trust will hold certain types of digital assets that are not within the scope of the Notice.
Current report
There can be no assurance that the IRS will not alter its position with respect to digital assets in the future or that a court would uphold the treatment set forth in the Notice, the Ruling & FAQs and the Staking Tax Guidance. It is also unclear what additional guidance on the treatment of digital assets or staking activities for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued in the future. Legislation could also increase the tax liability of the Trust or its Shareholders or adversely affect the Trust’s grantor trust status. Any future legislation or guidance on the treatment of digital assets or staking activities for U.S. federal income tax purposes could increase the expenses of the Trust and could have an adverse effect on the prices of digital currencies, including on the price of ether in the digital asset markets. As a result, any such future legislation or guidance could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.
Current report
Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisers regarding the tax consequences of owning and disposing of Shares and digital assets, as well as staking activities, in general.
Current report
Future developments regarding the treatment of digital assets and Staking Activities for U.S. federal income tax purposes could adversely affect the value of the Shares.
Current report
As discussed above, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets, such as ether, are uncertain, and it is unclear what guidance or legislation on the treatment of digital currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued or enacted 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 ether in digital asset platforms, and therefore may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.
Current report
Because of the evolving nature of digital assets, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets, including forks, airdrops and similar occurrences. Such developments may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Moreover, certain future developments (including the potential issuance of IRS guidance or enactment of legislation that is contrary or otherwise adverse to the position taken by the Trust regarding the U.S. federal income tax characterization of staking activities) could render it impossible, or impracticable, for the Trust to continue to be treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Current report
In the normal course of business, the Trust expects to receive certain Staking Consideration that gives rise to taxable income, and, in addition, it is possible that the Trust could incur a taxable gain in connection with the sale of ether (such as sales of ether to obtain fiat currency with which to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or Trust expenses, and including deemed sales of ether as a result of the Trust using ether to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or its expenses). In each case, such event may not be 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. In addition, to fund cash distributions of Staking Consideration, the Trust may sell Staking Consideration and/or a portion of its ether, which may result in taxable income to Shareholders.
Removed paragraphs (1)
Previous report
As part of determining whether ether 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 theHowey andReves 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 ether as a security (or not). Finally, the Sponsor discusses the security status of ether with its securities lawyers. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in making a good faith determination that it believes ether is not presently a security under federal law notwithstanding the uncertainties inherent in theHowey andReves tests. In light of these uncertainties and the fact-based nature of the analysis, the Sponsor acknowledges that ether may currently be a security, based on the facts as they exist today, or may in the future be found by the SEC or a federal court to be a security under the federal securities laws 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.
Reworded paragraphs (12)
Previous wording
The prices of some digital assets, including ether, may continue to fluctuate in response to actual or perceived political, legislative, regulatory and enforcement developments in the United States. Following the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the current administration has stated policy positions and taken actions that some market participants may view as supportive of the digital asset industry, including actions directed at promoting U.S. leadership in digital assets and financial technology and encouraging greater regulatory clarity for blockchain technology and digital assets. In addition, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (“GENIUS Act”), which establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins, was enacted in July 2025. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (the “CLARITY Act”), which is intended to establish a federal market-structure framework for certain digital assets, passed the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2025 and was advanced by the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in May 2026. In July 2026, Senate Republicans released updated bill text for the CLARITY Act. Although negotiations regarding the legislation remain ongoing, the CLARITY Act has not been enacted, and its prospects remain uncertain.
Current wording
The prices of some digital assets, including ether, may continue to fluctuate in response to actual or perceived political, legislative, regulatory and enforcement developments in the United States. Following the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the current administration has stated policy positions and taken actions that some market participants may view as supportive of the digital asset industry, including actions directed at promoting U.S. leadership in digital assets and financial technology and encouraging greater regulatory clarity for blockchain technology and digital assets. In addition, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (“GENIUS Act”), which establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins, was enacted in July 2025. Throughout 2026, proposed regulations implementing the GENIUS Act have been issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Office of Foreign Assets Control addressing the requirements with respect to payment stablecoins and their issuers, including reserve, redemption, prudential risk and anti-money laundering requirements. As a result, the regulatory framework implementing the GENIUS Act remains pending and its final scope and effects are uncertain. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (the “CLARITY Act”), which is intended to establish a federal market-structure framework for certain digital assets, passed the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2025 and was advanced by the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in May 2026. On September 15, 2026, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to consideration of the CLARITY Act by a vote of 49–50. The CLARITY Act has not been enacted, and its prospects remain uncertain. In the absence of comprehensive federal market-structure legislation, the SEC and CFTC have continued to pursue regulatory initiatives under their existing authorities, including rulemaking proposals, interpretations and guidance concerning digital assets. These initiatives may be revised, withdrawn or challenged and may not eliminate regulatory uncertainty for digital asset market participants.
Previous wording
Market expectations regarding the administration, Congress, federal regulators, or future legislation or rulemaking may contribute to increases in digital asset prices or valuations. There can be no assurance that those expectations will be realized, that any enacted or proposed legislation or regulation will benefit the digital asset industry generally or ether specifically, or that digital asset prices will rise or maintain their current levels. Delays in, changes to, or adverse developments relating to implementation of the GENIUS Act, enactment of the CLARITY Act or similar legislation, or other federal or state regulatory actions could negatively affect market sentiment, liquidity, trading activity, or the prices of digital assets, including ether. Any resulting decline in the price of ether could cause a reduction in the value of the Shares and cause 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.
Current wording
Market expectations regarding the administration, Congress, federal regulators, or future legislation or rulemaking may contribute to increases in digital asset prices or valuations. There can be no assurance that those expectations will be realized, that any enacted or proposed legislation or regulation will benefit the digital asset industry generally or ether specifically, or that digital asset prices will rise or maintain their current levels. Delays in, changes to, or adverse developments relating to implementation of the GENIUS Act, enactment of the CLARITY Act or similar legislation, or other federal or state regulatory actions, including SEC and CFTC rulemaking, interpretations and guidance, could negatively affect market sentiment, liquidity, trading activity, or the prices of digital assets, including ether. Any resulting decline in the price of ether could cause a reduction in the value of the Shares and cause 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.
Previous wording
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 the 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 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. As established by the Order, the Bitcoin Reserve will not contain ether, and there can be no assurance, and there is no present indication, that it would be changed to include ether in the future. The Digital Asset Stockpile is intended to be capitalized initially with digital assets other than bitcoin forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings, which could include ether; however, there will be no new acquisitions of ether as part of the Digital Asset Stockpile. The anticipation of a U.S. government-funded strategic cryptocurrency reserve may have motivated large-scale purchases of ether in the expectation of the U.S. government potentially acquiring ether to fund such an expected reserve, and the market price of ether may have decreased as a result of the ultimate content of the Order, which did not ultimately provide for acquisition of ether as part of the Bitcoin Reserve, though ether could be held as part of the Digital Asset Stockpile. While legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which would direct the acquisition of one million bitcoin by the federal government over a five-year period, no such similar federal legislation has been introduced that would provide for acquiring ether. Even if such legislation providing for the acquisition of ether were to be introduced at the federal level, it could fail to pass. In addition, in May 2026, legislation styled the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would, among other things, establish the Bitcoin Reserve and a Digital Asset Stockpile in statute and require the consolidation of digital assets held by federal agencies within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Bills have also been introduced in several state legislatures to authorize the acquisition of bitcoin by state governments or their instrumentalities, some of which have failed to pass; however, the Sponsor is not aware as of the date of this report that similar legislation at the state level has been introduced in respect of ether, in the same quantity as legislation in respect of bitcoin. If now or in th…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Current wording
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 the 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 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. As established by the Order, the Bitcoin Reserve will not contain ether, and there can be no assurance, and there is no present indication, that it would be changed to include ether in the future. The Digital Asset Stockpile is intended to be capitalized initially with digital assets other than bitcoin forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings, which could include ether; however, there will be no new acquisitions of ether as part of the Digital Asset Stockpile. The anticipation of a U.S. government-funded strategic cryptocurrency reserve may have motivated large-scale purchases of ether in the expectation of the U.S. government potentially acquiring ether to fund such an expected reserve, and the market price of ether may have decreased as a result of the ultimate content of the Order, which did not ultimately provide for acquisition of ether as part of the Bitcoin Reserve, though ether could be held as part of the Digital Asset Stockpile. While legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which would direct the acquisition of one million bitcoin by the federal government over a five-year period, no such similar federal legislation has been introduced that would provide for acquiring ether. Even if such legislation providing for the acquisition of ether were to be introduced at the federal level, it could fail to pass. In addition, in May 2026, legislation styled the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would, among other things, establish the Bitcoin Reserve and a Digital Asset Stockpile in statute and require the consolidation of digital assets held by federal agencies within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. On September 16, 2026, the House Committee on Financial Services approved the legislation, as amended, by a vote of 28–21, advancing it for consideration by the full House of Representatives. Bills have also been introduced in several state legislatures to authorize the acquisition of bitcoin by state governments or their instrumentalities, some of which have failed to pass; however, the Sponsor is not awa…
Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.
Previous wording
On March 13, 2024, the Ethereum network underwent a planned fork called “Dencunˮ implementing a series of EIPs. EIP 4844, which some commentators perceive to be the most significant EIP within the Dencun series, is intended to improve the economics of Layer 2s by reducing transaction fees for Layer 2s who batch transactions executed on the Layer 2s and upload them as a batch (or as a single proof) onto the main Layer 1 Ethereum network. Among other objectives, the Dencun software upgrade was designed to provide Layer 2 scaling solutions a designated storage space on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, called Binary Large Objects (“blobs”), which attach large data chunks to transactions on the Layer 1 Ethereum network and are recorded on its blockchain. The data in blobs become inaccessible on the Layer 1 Ethereum network after a temporary period (three weeks), unlike the previous method of storing batched data from Layer 2s on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, which was stored permanently. The cost of accessing the temporary storage in blobs is expected by proponents of the Dencun upgrade to be substantially lower than the cost of storing the data on the Ethereum Layer 1 network permanently, making Layer 2s more cost-efficient to operate and, some commentators hope, more attractive as a scaling solution. Immediately following the upgrade, some Layer 2s reportedly experienced reduced transaction fees when batching transactions to the main Layer 1 Ethereum network, which in turn lowered the transaction costs for executing transactions on such Layer 2s, but this also is believed to have resulted in ether prices (ether being the native asset of the Layer 1 Ethereum network) dropping as well, due in part to the reduced demand for ether to pay the transaction costs of recording data on the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Decreased ether prices could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. Additionally, some Layer 2s, such as Blast, reportedly experienced outages and other disruptions in the aftermath of the Dencun upgrade, which in the case of Blast halted block production on the Blast Layer 2 blockchain for a period of time, though it was reportedly restored afterward. As with any change to software code, planned forks such as Dencun could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, security risks, problematic incentive structures, or otherwise fail to work as intended or achieve the expected benefits that proponents hope for in the short term or the long term, which could also have an adverse effect on adoption of the Ethereum network and the value of ether, and therefore the Shares.
Current wording
On March 13, 2024, the Ethereum network underwent a planned fork called “Dencun” implementing a series of EIPs. EIP 4844, which some commentators perceive to be the most significant EIP within the Dencun series, is intended to improve the economics of Layer 2s by reducing transaction fees for Layer 2s who batch transactions executed on the Layer 2s and upload them as a batch (or as a single proof) onto the main Layer 1 Ethereum network. Among other objectives, the Dencun software upgrade was designed to provide Layer 2 scaling solutions a designated storage space on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, called Binary Large Objects (“blobs”), which attach large data chunks to transactions on the Layer 1 Ethereum network and are recorded on its blockchain. The data in blobs become inaccessible on the Layer 1 Ethereum network after a temporary period (three weeks), unlike the previous method of storing batched data from Layer 2s on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, which was stored permanently. The cost of accessing the temporary storage in blobs is expected by proponents of the Dencun upgrade to be substantially lower than the cost of storing the data on the Ethereum Layer 1 network permanently, making Layer 2s more cost-efficient to operate and, some commentators hope, more attractive as a scaling solution. Immediately following the upgrade, some Layer 2s reportedly experienced reduced transaction fees when batching transactions to the main Layer 1 Ethereum network, which in turn lowered the transaction costs for executing transactions on such Layer 2s, but this also is believed to have resulted in ether prices (ether being the native asset of the Layer 1 Ethereum network) dropping as well, due in part to the reduced demand for ether to pay the transaction costs of recording data on the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Decreased ether prices could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
In December 2025, the Ethereum network implemented the Fusaka hard fork, which was designed to expand data capacity, reinforce defenses against denial-of-service attacks, and introduce new tools for developers and users, among others. The main feature of the Fusaka upgrade is a new way of handling the data in the blobs introduced by the Dencun upgrade, which was designed to create improvements for Layer 2s to store data on the main Ethereum network. The Ethereum core developers have announced a further planned upgrade, referred to as Glamsterdam, which is expected to be implemented in the second half of 2026. As with any change to software code, planned forks such as Glamsterdam could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, security risks, problematic incentive structures, or otherwise fail to work as intended or achieve the expected benefits that proponents hope for in the short term or the long term, which could also have an adverse effect on adoption of the Ethereum network and the value of ether, and therefore the Shares.
Current wording
In December 2025, the Ethereum network implemented the Fusaka hard fork, which was designed to expand data capacity, reinforce defenses against denial-of-service attacks, and introduce new tools for developers and users, among others. The main feature of the Fusaka upgrade is a new way of handling the data in the blobs introduced by the Dencun upgrade, which was designed to create improvements for Layer 2s to store data on the main Ethereum network. The Ethereum core developers have announced a further planned upgrade, referred to as Glamsterdam, which was activated on the Sepolia testnet on October 6, 2026 and is currently expected to be implemented on the Ethereum mainnet in the fourth quarter of 2026, although a mainnet activation date has not been announced. The Ethereum core developers have also identified a subsequent planned upgrade, referred to as Hegotá, which is currently targeted for 2027. As with any change to software code, planned forks such as Glamsterdam could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, security risks, problematic incentive structures, or otherwise fail to work as intended or achieve the expected benefits that proponents hope for in the short term or the long term, which could also have an adverse effect on adoption of the Ethereum network and the value of ether, and therefore the Shares.
Previous wording
Forks may also occur as a digital asset network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum underwent a hard fork between the Layer 1 Ethereum network and a new digital asset running on a “forked” branch of the network, Ethereum Classic, as a result of the Ethereum network community’s response to a significant security breach. In June 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to syphon approximately $60 million of ether held by The DAO, a decentralized autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the hack, and after a contentious debate, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a hard fork that effectively reversed the hack, and this network constitutes the Layer 1 Ethereum network. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, now referred to as “Ethereum Classic”, which is not backwards compatible with the Layer 1 Ethereum network and is considered a forked branch, with the native digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as Ethereum Classic, or ETC. ETC now trades on several digital asset platforms. Following the July 2016 hard fork between the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks, new security concerns surfaced. Replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum exchanges through at least October 2016. An Ethereum exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision networks split in November 2018, and security concerns could similarly surface in connection with future hard forks.
Current wording
Forks may also occur as a digital asset network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum underwent a hard fork between the Layer 1 Ethereum network and a new digital asset running on a “forked” branch of the network, Ethereum Classic, as a result of the Ethereum network community’s response to a significant security breach. In June 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to siphon approximately $60 million of ether held by The DAO, a decentralized autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the hack, and after a contentious debate, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a hard fork that effectively reversed the hack, and this network constitutes the Layer 1 Ethereum network. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, now referred to as “Ethereum Classic”, which is not backwards compatible with the Layer 1 Ethereum network and is considered a forked branch, with the native digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as Ethereum Classic, or ETC. ETC now trades on several digital asset platforms. Following the July 2016 hard fork between the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks, new security concerns surfaced. Replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum exchanges through at least October 2016. An Ethereum exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision networks split in November 2018, and security concerns could similarly surface in connection with future hard forks.
Previous wording
An unplanned fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of Ethereum Client software that nodes run and use to access the Ethereum network. For example, such an unplanned fork reportedly occurred in the Go-Ethereum (“Geth”) client, which is a popular Ethereum Client that many nodes use to access the Ethereum network and whose developers are financially supported by the Ethereum Foundation. In November 2020, a bug was discovered in Geth (but not the other Ethereum Clients at the time, such as Besu, OpenEthereum, and Nethermind), and a patch was released that all nodes using the Geth client were supposed to download and apply simultaneously. However, not all nodes using Geth did so, resulting in the non-patched Geth nodes temporarily running a different version of the Ethereum blockchain than the patched Geth nodes and nodes using other Ethereum Clients. This temporarily created two conflicting versions of the Ethereum blockchain, causing the nodes using the non-patched Geth version to be unable to reach consensus with the rest of the nodes on the Ethereum blockchain, interrupting the non-patch Geth nodes’ access to the Ethereum network. For example, Infura, which is a node operator that provides services to major Ethereum smart contracts, wallet software providers like MetaMask, ether trading platforms, and other market participants, reportedly ran numerous nodes using the Geth client. Infura’s Geth client running nodes reportedly used the outdated, non-patched Geth version initially, which is said to have caused those nodes to be on the minority blockchain, impacting transaction execution, validation, and recording on the main Layer 1 Ethereum network for Infura’s customers - such as Ethereum-based smart contracts, wallet providers like MetaMask, ether trading platforms, etc. - until Infura was able to apply the software update released by the Geth client developers to Infura’s nodes that use Geth as their Ethereum Client. Ultimately, the problem was reportedly fixed by releasing a new upgraded version of Geth that all nodes using the Geth client were to promptly download. This reportedly harmonized the conflicting versions and restored synchronization among Geth nodes, fixing the problem and restoring access to the Ethereum network, including for Infura and its customers.
Current wording
An unplanned fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of Ethereum Client software that nodes run and use to access the Ethereum network. For example, such an unplanned fork reportedly occurred in the Go-Ethereum (“Geth”) client, which is a popular Ethereum Client that many nodes use to access the Ethereum network and whose developers are financially supported by the Ethereum Foundation. In November 2020, a bug was discovered in Geth (but not the other Ethereum Clients at the time, such as Besu, OpenEthereum, and Nethermind), and a patch was released that all nodes using the Geth client were supposed to download and apply simultaneously. However, not all nodes using Geth did so, resulting in the non‑patched Geth nodes temporarily running a different version of the Ethereum blockchain than the patched Geth nodes and nodes using other Ethereum Clients. This temporarily created two conflicting versions of the Ethereum blockchain, causing the nodes using the non‑patched Geth version to be unable to reach consensus with the rest of the nodes on the Ethereum blockchain, interrupting the non‑patched Geth nodes’ access to the Ethereum network. For example, Infura, which is a node operator that provides services to major Ethereum smart contracts, wallet software providers like MetaMask, ether trading platforms, and other market participants, reportedly ran numerous nodes using the Geth client. Infura’s Geth client running nodes reportedly used the outdated, non-patched Geth version initially, which is said to have caused those nodes to be on the minority blockchain, impacting transaction execution, validation, and recording on the main Layer 1 Ethereum network for Infura’s customers - such as Ethereum‑based smart contracts, wallet providers like MetaMask, ether trading platforms, etc. - until Infura was able to apply the software update released by the Geth client developers to Infura’s nodes that use Geth as their Ethereum Client. Ultimately, the problem was reportedly fixed by releasing a new upgraded version of Geth that all nodes using the Geth client were to promptly download. This reportedly harmonized the conflicting versions and restored synchronization among Geth nodes, fixing the problem and restoring access to the Ethereum network, including for Infura and its customers.
Previous wording
In the future, if an accidental or unintentional fork similar to what happened within the Geth client in November 2020 were to reoccur within Geth (or any other major Ethereum Client), or were to happen to the Ethereum network as a whole (instead of being limited to a single Ethereum Client, in this case Geth), such a fork could lead to nodes, users and validators losing confidence in the Ethereum network and abandoning it in favor of other blockchain protocols. Furthermore, it is possible that, in a future unplanned fork, a substantial number of nodes, users and validators could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains, resulting in a permanent fork. Moreover, following the Merge, nodes on the Ethereum network must run two Ethereum Clients, i.e., an Execution Client and a Consensus Client paired together, with the implementations selected at the discretion of the node operator. There are multiple groups independently developing and implementing their respective Execution Clients and Consensus Clients; while some individual Execution Clients or Consensus Clients are more popular or widely adopted than others, there remains heterogeneity among Ethereum Clients. Each Execution Client and Consensus Client needs to interoperate effectively with the other Execution Client and Consensus Client. Although this diversity of Ethereum Clients is perceived by some to promote decentralization of the Ethereum network, it comes at a potential cost: if there are any unanticipated or undiscovered flaws, bugs, software defects, or interoperability failures causing any individual Execution Client to fail to interoperate effectively with any other individual Execution Client or any Consensus Client, the Ethereum network as a whole could suffer an unplanned fork, major disruption, catastrophic outage, system failure, loss of confidence or adoption among users or validators, or a variety of other problems. Any of these events could cause ether to decline in value, adversely affecting the price of Shares.
Current wording
Execution Client and a Consensus Client paired together, with the implementations selected at the discretion of the node operator. There are multiple groups independently developing and implementing their respective Execution Clients and Consensus Clients; while some individual Execution Clients or Consensus Clients are more popular or widely adopted than others, there remains heterogeneity among Ethereum Clients. Each Execution Client and Consensus Client needs to interoperate effectively with the other Execution Client and Consensus Client. Although this diversity of Ethereum Clients is perceived by some to promote decentralization of the Ethereum network, it comes at a potential cost: if there are any unanticipated or undiscovered flaws, bugs, software defects, or interoperability failures causing any individual Execution Client to fail to interoperate effectively with any other individual Execution Client or any Consensus Client, the Ethereum network as a whole could suffer an unplanned fork, major disruption, catastrophic outage, system failure, loss of confidence or adoption among users or validators, or a variety of other problems. Any of these events could cause ether to decline in value, adversely affecting the price of Shares.
Previous wording
If a digital asset is determined or asserted to be a security, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants’ ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars. For example, in 2020 the SEC filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through XRP sales that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. In the years prior to the SEC’s action, XRP’s market capitalization at times reached over $140 billion. However, in the weeks following the SEC’s complaint, XRP’s market capitalization fell to less than $10 billion, which was less than half of its market capitalization in the days prior to the complaint. Although the SEC and Ripple reached a settlement in August 2025 to resolve the enforcement action and to dismiss their respective court appeals, which has largely been viewed as positive in the digital assets market, there remains continued uncertainty as to the regulatory framework that will be applied by the SEC and courts to digital assets. Such uncertainty may remain until legislation providing a regulatory framework is adopted. There is currently legislation being considered that addresses this regulatory uncertainty, but it is unclear if the proposed legislation will be passed.
Current wording
If a digital asset is determined or asserted to be a security, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants’ ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars. For example, in 2020 the SEC filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through XRP sales that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. In the years prior to the SEC’s action, XRP’s market capitalization at times reached over $140 billion. However, in the weeks following the SEC’s complaint, XRP’s market capitalization fell to less than $10 billion, which was less than half of its market capitalization in the days prior to the complaint. Although the SEC and Ripple reached a settlement in August 2025 to resolve the enforcement action and to dismiss their respective court appeals, which has largely been viewed as positive in the digital assets market, there remains continued uncertainty as to the regulatory framework that will be applied by the SEC and courts to digital assets. Such uncertainty may remain until legislation providing a regulatory framework is adopted.
Previous wording
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. 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. The United Kingdom’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (the “FSMA”) received royal assent in June 2023. According to publicly available government materials, the FSMA brings digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets. In addition, the Parliament of the European Union approved the text of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”) in April 2023, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. Certain parts of MiCA became effective as of June 2024 and the remainder became effective as of December 2024. 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. Foreign laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of one or more digital assets by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the digital asset economy in the European Union, China, Japan, Russia and the United States and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of ether. Moreover, other events, such as the interruption in telecommunications or internet services, cyber-related terrorist acts, civil disturbances, war or other catastrophes, could also negatively affect the digital asset economy in one or more jurisdictions. For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 led to volatility in digital asset prices, with an initial steep decline followed by a sharp rebound in prices. The effect of any future regulatory change or other events on the Trust or ether is impossible to predict, and such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.
Current wording
Regulation (“MiCA”) in April 2023, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. Certain parts of MiCA became effective as of June 2024 and the remainder became effective as of December 2024. 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. The transitional period for crypto-asset service providers under MiCA ended on July 1, 2026. In June 2026, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority published final cryptoasset rules, which are expected to take effect in October 2027. Foreign laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of one or more digital assets by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the digital asset economy in the European Union, China, Japan, Russia and the United States and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of ether. Moreover, other events, such as the interruption in telecommunications or internet services, cyber-related terrorist acts, civil disturbances, war or other catastrophes, could also negatively affect the digital asset economy in one or more jurisdictions. For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 led to volatility in digital asset prices, with an initial steep decline followed by a sharp rebound in prices. The effect of any future regulatory change or other events on the Trust or ether is impossible to predict, and such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.
Previous wording
The regulatory landscape surrounding Staking Activities is highly uncertain and may expose the Sponsor, the Ether Custodian, Staking Services Providers, and the Trust and its Shareholders to unforeseen litigation or potential SEC enforcement actions. For example, there is a risk that the Staking Arrangements could constitute an “investment contract” under the federal securities laws and therefore be deemed a security, requiring registration or reliance on an exemption from registration. In May 2025, staff of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement (the “SEC Staking Statement”) expressing the view that certain staking activities do not involve the offer and sale of securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws, and we believe that the Staking Arrangements satisfy the criteria set forth in this statement. However, the SEC Staking Statement is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the SEC, and has no legal force or effect. In addition, on March 17, 2026, the SEC issued the Interpretive Release, in which the SEC reached a similar conclusion with respect to certain staking activities. Although the Interpretive Release represents the official position of the SEC, it is not itself a statute or binding rule, and a court or future administration could take a different view. Accordingly, there is a risk that a court could disagree with the views expressed in the SEC Staking Statement or that the SEC could withdraw the statement. In that case, or if ether were deemed a security, there would also be a risk that a Staking Provider could be deemed to be acting as a broker-dealer, on the basis that the Staking Provider is receiving a commission for effecting the staking transactions and receipt of Staking Consideration.
Current wording
The regulatory landscape surrounding Staking Activities is highly uncertain and may expose the Sponsor, the Ether Custodian, Staking Services Providers, and the Trust and its Shareholders to unforeseen litigation or potential SEC enforcement actions. For example, there is a risk that the Staking Arrangements could constitute an “investment contract” under the federal securities laws and therefore be deemed a security, requiring registration or reliance on an exemption from registration. In May 2025, staff of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement (the “SEC Staking Statement”) expressing the view that certain staking activities do not involve the offer and sale of securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws, and the Sponsor believes that the Staking Arrangements satisfy the criteria set forth in this statement. However, the SEC Staking Statement is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the SEC, and has no legal force or effect. In addition, on March 17, 2026, the SEC issued the Interpretive Release, in which the SEC reached a similar conclusion with respect to certain staking activities. Although the Interpretive Release represents the official position of the SEC, it is not itself a statute or binding rule, and a court or future administration could take a different view. Accordingly, there is a risk that a court could disagree with the views expressed in the SEC Staking Statement or that the SEC could withdraw the statement. In that case, or if ether were deemed a security, there would also be a risk that a Staking Provider could be deemed to be acting as a broker-dealer, on the basis that the Staking Provider is receiving a commission for effecting the staking transactions and receipt of Staking Consideration.
Previous wording
c) 2,560,000 Shares (64 Baskets) were redeemed during the quarter ended June 30, 2026.
Current wording
c) 840,000 Shares (21 Baskets) were redeemed during the quarter ended September 30, 2026.
Rearranged current paragraphs (3)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
Additionally, some Layer 2s, such as Blast, reportedly experienced outages and other disruptions in the aftermath of the Dencun upgrade, which in the case of Blast halted block production on the Blast Layer 2 blockchain for a period of time, though it was reportedly restored afterward. As with any change to software code, planned forks such as Dencun could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, security risks, problematic incentive structures, or otherwise fail to work as intended or achieve the expected benefits that proponents hope for in the short term or the long term, which could also have an adverse effect on adoption of the Ethereum network and the value of ether, and therefore the Shares.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
In the future, if an accidental or unintentional fork similar to what happened within the Geth client in November 2020 were to reoccur within Geth (or any other major Ethereum Client), or were to happen to the Ethereum network as a whole (instead of being limited to a single Ethereum Client, in this case Geth), such a fork could lead to nodes, users and validators losing confidence in the Ethereum network and abandoning it in favor of other blockchain protocols. Furthermore, it is possible that, in a future unplanned fork, a substantial number of nodes, users and validators could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains, resulting in a permanent fork. Moreover, following the Merge, nodes on the Ethereum network must run two Ethereum Clients, i.e., an
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
A number of foreign jurisdictions have 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. 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. The United Kingdom’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (the “FSMA”) received royal assent in June 2023. According to publicly available government materials, the FSMA brings digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets. In addition, the Parliament of the European Union approved the text of the Markets in Crypto-Assets