Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund LLC

Previous wording

The limited history of the Digital Asset Reference Rate;

Current wording

The limited history of the Index Prices;

Previous wording

Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program and the Fund’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Digital Asset Reference Rates and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.

Current wording

Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program, and the Fund’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index

Previous wording

The Manager’s services may be discontinued, which could be detrimental to the Fund;

Current wording

The Manager’s services may be discontinued, which could be detrimental to the Fund; and

Previous wording

If the Custodian resigns or is removed by the Manager, or otherwise, without replacement, it could trigger early termination of the Fund; and

Current wording

If the Custodian resigns or is removed by the Manager, or otherwise, without replacement, it could trigger early termination of the Fund.

Previous wording

Digital assets were only introduced within the past two decades, and some of the Fund Components were developed even more recently, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, 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, or validators, 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:

Current wording

Digital assets were only introduced within the past two decades, and some of the Fund Components were developed even more recently, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recency of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners, or validators, 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:

Previous wording

ERC-20 tokens rely on the ERC-20 standard and the Ethereum blockchain to function and any adverse impact on the ERC-20 standard and/or the Ethereum blockchain could have an adverse impact on the value of certain digital assets held by the Fund and the value of the Shares.

Current wording

ERC-20 tokens rely on the ERC-20 standard and the Ethereum blockchain to function and any adverse impact on the ERC-20 standard and/or the Ethereum blockchain could have an adverse impact on the value of certain digital assets that may be held by the Fund and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The foregoing notwithstanding, the underlying software for some Digital Asset Networks and protocols, such as the Bitcoin network, is informally or formally managed or developed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s or protocol’s source code. Core developers’ roles may evolve over time, generally based on self-determined participation. Because the governance of these Digital Asset Networks and protocols, including those underlying certain of the Fund Components, is ultimately managed by the voluntary consensus and open competition, even Digital Asset Networks and protocols with a more centralized development team may be unable to successfully or efficiently implement beneficial updates to the network or protocol’s source code because a dispersed group of individuals, rather than a single, centralized actor, may be able to control network governance decisions.

Current wording

Because the governance of these Digital Asset Networks and protocols, including those underlying certain of the Fund Components, is ultimately managed by the voluntary consensus and open competition, even Digital Asset Networks and protocols with a more centralized development team may be unable to successfully or efficiently implement beneficial updates to the network or protocol’s source code because a dispersed group of individuals, rather than a single, centralized actor, may be able to control network governance decisions.

Previous wording

As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of Digital Asset Networks, average transaction 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, 2021, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.50 per transaction on January 8, 2023, to as high as $124.17 per transaction on April 20, 2024. As of June 30, 2024, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees stood at $1.63 per Bitcoin transaction. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for digital assets (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, digital assets, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Current wording

As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of Digital Asset Networks, average transaction 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, 2022, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.38 per transaction on September 8, 2024, to as high as $124.17 per transaction on April 20, 2024. As of June 30, 2025, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees stood at $1.36 per Bitcoin transaction. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for digital assets (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, digital assets, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Many digital assets have concentrated ownership. For example, as of June 30, 2024 the largest 100 Bitcoin wallets held approximately 16% of the Bitcoin in circulation, the largest 100 Ether wallets held approximately 23% of the Ether in circulation, the largest 100 SOL wallets held approximately 23% of the SOL in circulation, the largest 100 XRP wallets held approximately 94% of the XRP in circulation, and the largest 100 AVAX wallets held approximately 6% of the AVAX in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of digital assets, 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 certain digital assets with highly concentrated ownership.

Current wording

Many digital assets have concentrated ownership. For example, as of June 30, 2025 the largest 100 Bitcoin wallets held approximately 15% of the Bitcoin in circulation, the largest 100 Ether wallets held approximately 21% of the Ether in circulation, the largest 100 SOL wallets held approximately 29% of the SOL in circulation, the largest 100 XRP wallets held approximately 86% of the XRP in circulation, and the largest 100 ADA wallets held approximately 29% of the ADA in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of digital assets, 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 certain digital assets with highly concentrated ownership.

Previous wording

For example, in August 2020, the Ethereum Classic network, a PoW 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 attack resulted in reorganizations of the Ethereum Classic blockchain that allowed the attacker or attackers to reverse previously recorded transactions in excess of over $5.0 million and $1.0 million.

Current wording

For example, in proof-of-work networks, if a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a majority of the processing power on a proof-of-work network, it may be able to alter the Blockchain 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. For example, in August 2020, the Ethereum Classic network, a proof-of-work 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 over $5.0 million and $1.0 million. In addition, in May 2019, the Bitcoin Cash network, a proof-of-work network, experienced a >50% attack when two large mining pools reversed a series of transactions in order to stop an unknown miner from taking advantage of a flaw in a recent Bitcoin Cash protocol upgrade. Although this particular attack was arguably benevolent, the fact that such coordinated activity was able to occur may negatively impact perceptions of the Bitcoin Cash network. Although the two attacks described above took place on proof-of-work-based networks, it is possible that a similar attack may occur on other Digital Asset Networks, which could negatively impact the value of a relevant Fund Component and the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

If a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a majority, or, in some cases, more than 33%, of the processing power dedicated to mining or the voting power to validate on a particular Digital Asset Network, it may be able to alter the relevant blockchain on which transactions in that digital asset 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 may not be able to generate new digital assets or transactions using such control, it may be able to “double-spend” its own digital assets (i.e., spend the same digital assets 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 or validating power on the relevant Digital Asset Network or the digital asset community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the relevant blockchain may not be possible. Further, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the relevant Digital Asset Network.

Current wording

“>50% attack” where, if a malicious actor, validator, botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 50% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum network, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the Ethereum network and the ability to manipulate future transactions on the blockchain, including censoring transactions, double-spending and fraudulent block propagation, potentially for an extended period or even permanently. In theory, the minority non-attackers might reach social consensus to reject blocks proposed by the malicious majority attacker, reducing the attacker’s ability to engage in malicious activity, but there can be no assurance this would happen or that non-attackers would be able to coordinate effectively. 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 (over 50%). To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the validating power on the Ethereum network or the Ethereum community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the Ethereum Blockchain may not be possible.

Previous wording

It is believed that certain mining pools and groups of validators have also collectively exceeded the 50% threshold on some Digital Asset Networks, such as the Bitcoin network. The crossing of the 50% threshold indicates a greater risk that a single mining pool or small group of mining pools, for example, could exert authority over the validation of digital asset transactions. This risk is heightened if over 50% of the processing or validating power on the Digital Asset Network falls within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority, which could allow a government or government agency to regulate a significant number of miners or validators and achieve control over a significant amount of processing or validating power on a Digital Asset Network, and such risk may be significantly heightened for certain Digital Asset Networks, including the Ethereum network, if over 66% falls within such a jurisdiction. To the extent that such events occur on the Digital Asset Network of a Fund Component, if the network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of mining pools or groups of validators, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of mining processing or validating power of such network, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the processing or validating power on such Digital Asset Network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

If groups of coordinating or connected processing power that together have more than any control thresholds applicable to a Digital Asset Network, they could exert authority over the processing of an affected Fund Component transactions. This risk is heightened if the processing power on the network within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority exceeds those thresholds. If network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of processing power, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of the network, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the Digital Asset Network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

A malicious actor may also obtain control over a Digital Asset Network through its influence over core developers by gaining direct control over a core developer or an otherwise influential programmer. To the extent that a digital asset ecosystem does not grow, the possibility that a malicious actor may be able to obtain control of the processing or validating power on the relevant Digital Asset Network in this manner will remain heightened.

Current wording

A malicious actor may also obtain control over a Digital Asset Network through its influence over core developers by gaining direct control over a core developer or an otherwise influential programmer. The less that a Digital Asset Network ecosystem grows, the greater the possibility that a malicious actor may be able to maliciously influence the Digital Asset Network in this manner. Moreover, it is possible that an individual or group controlling processing power exceeding the requisite thresholds to manipulate the Digital Asset Network are in fact part of the initial or current core developer group, or are otherwise influential members of the Digital Asset Network’s community. To the extent that the initial or current core developer groups also control more the requisite amount of processing power, the risk of this particular group of users causing the Digital Asset Network to adopt updates to the core protocol that this particular group wants to be implemented will be even greater, and should this materialize, it may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Forks may also occur as a Digital Asset Network’s community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in June 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to syphon approximately $60 million of Ethereum held by The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the exploit, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a “fork” that effectively reversed the exploit. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, referred to as “Ethereum Classic” with the digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as ETC. ETC now trades on several Digital Asset Trading Platforms.

Current wording

Forks may also occur as a Digital Asset Network’s community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, 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 distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the exploit, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a “fork” that effectively reversed the exploit. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, referred to as “Ethereum Classic” with the digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as ETC. ETC now trades on several Digital Asset Trading Platforms.

Previous wording

In the event of a hard fork of the Digital Asset Network of a Fund Component, the Manager will, as permitted by the terms of the LLC Agreement, use its discretion to determine, in good faith, which Digital Asset Network, among a group of incompatible forks of such Digital Asset Network, is generally accepted as the Digital Asset Network for such digital asset and should therefore be considered the appropriate Digital Asset Network for the Fund’s purposes. The Manager will base its determination on a variety of then relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the Manager’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of such Digital Asset Network, users, services, businesses, validators or miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, validating or mining power on, and community engagement with, such Digital Asset Network. There is no guarantee that the Manager will choose the Digital Asset Network or digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Manager’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Manager may also disagree with shareholders, security vendors and the Reference Rate Provider on what is generally accepted as such Digital Asset Network and digital asset going forward and should therefore be considered the Digital Asset Network and digital asset going forward for the Fund’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

Current wording

In the event of a hard fork of the Digital Asset Network of a Fund Component, the Manager will, as permitted by the terms of the LLC Agreement, use its discretion to determine, in good faith, which Digital Asset Network, among a group of incompatible forks of such Digital Asset Network, is generally accepted as the Digital Asset Network for such digital asset and should therefore be considered the appropriate Digital Asset Network for the Fund’s purposes. The Manager will base its determination on a variety of then relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the Manager’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of such Digital Asset Network, users, services, businesses, validators or miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, validating or mining power on, and community engagement with, such Digital Asset Network. There is no guarantee that the Manager will choose the Digital Asset Network or digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Manager’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Manager may also disagree with shareholders, security vendors and the Index Provider on what is generally accepted as such Digital Asset Network and digital asset going forward and should therefore be considered the Digital Asset Network and digital asset going forward for the Fund’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

Previous wording

When the Fund and the Manager, acting on behalf of the Fund, sell or deliver, as applicable, digital assets, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized Participant, a Liquidity Provider or other similarly eligible financial institutions that are subject to federal and state licensing requirements and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations. When an Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider sources digital assets in connection with the creation of the Shares or facilitates transactions in digital assets at the direction of the Fund or the Manager, it directly faces its counterparty and, in all instances, the Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider, as applicable, follow policies and procedures designed to ensure that it knows the identity of its counterparty. The Authorized Participant is a registered broker-dealer and therefore subject to AML and countering the financing of terrorism obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act as administered by FinCEN and further overseen by the SEC and FINRA.

Current wording

When the Fund and the Manager, acting on behalf of the Fund, sell or deliver, as applicable, digital assets, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized Participant, a Liquidity Provider or other similarly eligible financial institutions that are subject to federal and state licensing requirements and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations. When an Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider sources digital assets in connection with the creation of the Shares or facilitates transactions in digital assets at the direction of the Fund or the Manager, it directly faces its counterparty and, in all instances, the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider, as applicable, follow policies and procedures designed to ensure that it knows the identity of its counterparty. The Authorized Participant is a registered broker-dealer and therefore subject to AML and countering the financing of terrorism obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act as administered by FinCEN and further overseen by the SEC and FINRA.

Previous wording

These events have also led to significant negative publicity around digital asset market participants including DCG, Genesis and DCG’s other affiliated entities. This publicity could negatively impact the reputation of the Manager and have an adverse effect on the trading price and/or the value of the Shares. Moreover, sales of a significant number of Shares of the Fund as a result of these events could have a negative impact on the trading price of the Shares.

Current wording

These events have led to significant negative publicity around digital asset market participants including DCG, Genesis and DCG’s other affiliated entities. This publicity could negatively impact the reputation of the Manager and have an adverse effect on the trading price and/or the value of the Shares. Moreover, sales of a significant number of Shares of the Fund as a result of these events could have a negative impact on the trading price of the Shares.

Previous wording

These events have led to a substantial increase in regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of the industry as a whole and of Digital Asset Trading Platforms in particular, including from the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase (the “Coinbase Complaint”), alleging that they solicited U.S. investors to buy, sell, and trade “crypto asset securities” through their unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance.US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. Coinbase, Binance and Kraken all continue to litigate these charges against the SEC. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint have led, and may in the future lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices.

Current wording

These events have also led to a substantial increase in regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of the industry as a whole and of Digital Asset Trading Platforms in particular, including from the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase (the “Coinbase Complaint”), alleging that they solicited U.S. investors to buy, sell, and trade “crypto asset securities” through their unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance.US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint have led, and may in the future lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants as well.

Previous wording

Negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the Digital Asset Markets and/or the closure or temporary shutdown of Digital Asset Trading Platforms due to fraud, business failure, security breaches or government mandated regulation, and associated losses by customers may reduce confidence in Digital Asset Networks and result in greater volatility in the prices of digital assets. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a Digital Asset Trading Platform used in calculating any of the Digital Asset Reference Rates may result in a loss of confidence in the Fund’s ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. These potential consequences of such a Digital Asset Trading Platform’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the Digital Asset Markets and/or the closure or temporary shutdown of Digital Asset Trading Platforms due to fraud, business failure, security breaches or government mandated regulation, and associated losses by customers may reduce confidence in Digital Asset Networks and result in greater volatility in the prices of digital assets. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a Digital Asset Trading Platform used in calculating any of the Index Prices may result in a loss of confidence in the Fund’s ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. These potential consequences of such a Digital Asset Trading Platform’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

An increase in the global supply of such digital asset;

Current wording

an increase in the global supply of such digital asset that is publicly available for trading;

Previous wording

The value of a digital asset as represented by the applicable Digital Asset Reference Rate or by the principal market for such digital asset 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 Manager believes that momentum pricing of many digital assets has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of the digital assets held by the Fund, inflating and making the applicable Digital Asset Reference Rate more volatile. As a result, any particular digital asset held by the Fund may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the applicable Digital Asset Reference Rate and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The value of a digital asset as represented by the applicable Index Price or by the principal market for such digital asset 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 Manager believes that momentum pricing of many digital assets has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of the digital assets held by the Fund, inflating and making the applicable Index Price more volatile. As a result, any particular digital asset held by the Fund may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the applicable Index Price and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Digital Asset Reference Rates have a limited history and a failure of a Digital Asset Reference Rate could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Index Prices have a limited history and a failure of an Index Price could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Each Digital Asset Reference Rate has a limited history and is an average reference rate calculated using volume-weighted trading price data from various Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Reference Rate Provider. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Reference Rate Provider have also changed over time. Although each Digital Asset Reference Rate is designed to accurately capture the market price of the digital asset it tracks, third parties may be able to purchase and sell such digital assets on public or private markets not included among the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms of such Digital Asset Reference Rate, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Digital Asset Reference Rate. Moreover, there have been variances in the prices of digital assets on the various Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms, in the past. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical Fund Component Prices.”

Current wording

Each Index Price has a limited history and is an average reference rate calculated using volume-weighted trading price data from various Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider have also changed over time. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in such Index Prices, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Digital Asset Industry and Market—Fund Component Value—The Index Prices.” Although each Index Price is designed to accurately capture the market price of the digital asset it tracks, third parties may be able to purchase and sell such digital assets on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Trading Platforms of such Index Price, 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 digital assets on the various Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms, in the past.

Previous wording

For example, based on data provided by the Reference Rate Provider, on any given day during the twelve months ended June 30, 2024, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of Bitcoin on any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Digital Asset Reference Rate was 1.47% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Digital Asset Reference Rate was 1.33%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Digital Asset Reference Rate was 0.01%. Further, on any given day during the twelve months ended June 30, 2024, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of Ethereum on any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the

Current wording

For example, based on data provided by the Index Provider, on any given day during the twelve months ended June 30, 2025, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of Bitcoin on any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index Price was 0.59% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index Price was 0.23%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index Price was 0.003%. Further, on any given day during the twelve months ended June 30, 2025, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of Ether on any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index Price was 2.30% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index Price was 0.42%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index Price was 0.005%. All Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were included in the relevant Index Price throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index Prices, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of such digital asset, which could adversely affect the value of the Fund.

Previous wording

The Digital Asset Reference Rate used to calculate the value of a Fund Component may be volatile, and purchasing activity in the Digital Asset Markets associated with Basket creations or selling activity following Basket redemptions, if permitted, may affect the relevant Digital Asset Reference Rate and Share trading prices, adversely affecting the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The Index Price used to calculate the value of a Fund Component may be volatile, and purchasing activity in the Digital Asset Markets associated with Basket creations or selling activity following Basket redemptions, if permitted, may affect the relevant Index Price and Share trading prices, adversely affecting the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

The prices of digital assets on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms have a very limited history, and during this history, digital asset prices on the Digital Asset Markets more generally, and on Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While each Digital Asset Reference Rate is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms, each Digital Asset Reference Rate, and the price of digital assets generally, remains subject to volatility experienced by Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and such volatility can adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Current wording

The prices of digital assets on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms have a very limited history, and during this history, digital asset prices on the Digital Asset Markets more generally, and on Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While each Index Price is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms, each Index Price, and the price of digital assets generally, remains subject to volatility experienced by Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and such volatility can adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Furthermore, because the number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms is limited, each Digital Asset Reference Rate will necessarily be calculated by reference to a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms. If a Digital Asset Trading Platform were subjected to regulatory, volatility or other pricing issues, the Reference Rate Provider would have limited ability to remove such Digital Asset Trading Platform from the group of trading venues used by it to calculate the relevant Digital Asset Reference Rate, which could skew the price of the digital asset as represented by such Digital Asset Reference Rate. Trading on a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms may result in less favorable prices and decreased liquidity of one or more digital assets and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

Current wording

Furthermore, because the number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms is limited, each Index Price will necessarily be calculated by reference to a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms. If a Digital Asset Trading Platform were subjected to regulatory, volatility or other pricing issues, the Index Provider would have limited ability to remove such Digital Asset Trading Platform from the group of trading venues used by it to calculate the relevant Index Price, which could skew the price of the digital asset as represented by such Index Price. Trading on a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms may result in less favorable prices and decreased liquidity of one or more digital assets and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Purchasing activity associated with acquiring digital assets required for the creation of Baskets may increase the market price of digital assets on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Increases in the market price of digital assets may also occur as a result of the purchasing activity of other market participants. Other market participants may attempt to benefit from an increase in the market price of any particular digital asset that may result from increased purchasing activity of such digital asset connected with the issuance of Baskets. Consequently, the market price of any particular digital asset may decline immediately after Baskets are created. Decreases in the market price of digital assets may also occur as a result of sales in Secondary Markets by other market participants. If any of the Digital Asset Reference Rates decline, the value of the Shares will generally also decline.

Current wording

Purchasing activity associated with acquiring digital assets required for the creation of Baskets may increase the market price of digital assets on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Increases in the market price of digital assets may also occur as a result of the purchasing activity of other market participants. Other market participants may attempt to benefit from an increase in the market price of any particular digital asset that may result from increased purchasing activity of such digital asset connected with the issuance of Baskets. Consequently, the market price of any particular digital asset may decline immediately after Baskets are created. Decreases in the market price of digital assets may also occur as a result of sales in Secondary Markets by other market participants. If any of the Index Prices decline, the value of the Shares will generally also decline.

Previous wording

Investors may invest in digital assets through means other than an investment in the Shares, including through direct investments in digital assets and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to one or more digital assets and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Fund. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Manager’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles or to invest in such digital assets 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 Fund tracking the price of one or more digital assets are formed and represent a significant proportion of the demand for any particular digital asset, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding such digital asset, could negatively affect any of the Digital Asset Reference Rates, the NAV, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Moreover, any reduced demand for Shares of the Fund may cause the Shares of the Fund to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share.

Current wording

Investors may invest in digital assets through means other than an investment in the Shares, including through direct investments in digital assets and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to one or more digital assets and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Fund. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Manager’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles or to invest in such digital assets 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 Fund tracking the price of one or more digital assets are formed and represent a significant proportion of the demand for any particular digital asset, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding such digital asset, could negatively affect any of the Index Prices, the NAV, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Moreover, any reduced demand for Shares of the Fund may cause the Shares of the Fund to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share.

Previous wording

Prices of the Fund Components may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and U.S. Dollar Coin (“USDC”)), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment.

Current wording

Prices of the Fund Components may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and USDC), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment.

Previous wording

There have been a growing number of attempts to list on national securities exchanges the shares of funds that hold digital assets or that have exposures to digital assets through derivatives. These investment vehicles attempt to provide institutional and retail investors exposure to markets for digital assets and related products. Until recently, the SEC had repeatedly denied such requests. In January 2018, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management outlined several questions that sponsors would be expected to address before the SEC will consider granting approval for funds holding “substantial amounts” of cryptocurrencies or “cryptocurrency-related products.” The questions, which focus on specific requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”), generally fall into one of five key areas: valuation, liquidity, custody, arbitrage and potential manipulation. The SEC has not explicitly stated whether each of the questions set forth would also need to be addressed by entities with similar products and investment strategies that instead pursue registered offerings under the Securities Act, although such entities would need to comply with the registration and prospectus disclosure requirements of the Securities Act. After several years of the SEC denying requests to list shares of various digital asset funds holding Bitcoin on national securities exchanges, including the request to list the shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) on NYSE Arca in June 2022, the Manager petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the SEC’s final order denying approval to list shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) on NYSE Arca as an exchange-traded product. In August 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Manager’s petition and vacated the SEC’s order as arbitrary and capricious. The SEC did not seek panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. In October 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the SEC. Ultimately, on January 10, 2024, the SEC approved NYSE Arca’s 19b-4 application to list the shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) on NYSE Arca as an exchange-traded product, as well as requests to list shares of various other digital asset funds holding Bitcoin on national securities exchanges. Subsequently, the SEC approved NYSE Arca’s similar 19b-4 applications to list the shares of Grayscale Ethereum Trust (ETH) and Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust (ETH), as well as requests to list the shares of various other investment vehicles that hold Ether on national securities exchanges.

Current wording

There have been a growing number of attempts to list on national securities exchanges the shares of funds that hold digital assets or that have exposures to digital assets through derivatives. These investment vehicles attempt to provide institutional and retail investors exposure to markets for digital assets and related products. Until recently, the SEC had repeatedly denied such requests. In January 2018, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management outlined several questions that sponsors would be expected to address before the SEC will consider granting approval for funds holding “substantial amounts” of cryptocurrencies or “cryptocurrency-related products.” The questions, which focus on specific requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”), generally fall into one of five key areas: valuation, liquidity, custody, arbitrage and potential manipulation. The SEC has not explicitly stated whether each of the questions set forth would also need to be addressed by entities with similar products and investment strategies that instead pursue registered offerings under the Securities Act, although such entities would need to comply with the registration and prospectus disclosure requirements of the Securities Act. After several years of the SEC denying requests to list shares of various digital asset funds holding Bitcoin on national securities exchanges, including the request to list the shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF on NYSE Arca in June 2022, the Manager petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the SEC’s final order denying approval to list shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF on NYSE Arca as an exchange-traded product. In August 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Manager’s petition and vacated the SEC’s order as arbitrary and capricious. The SEC did not seek panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. In October 2023, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the SEC. Ultimately, on January 10, 2024, the SEC approved NYSE Arca’s 19b-4 application to list the shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF on NYSE Arca as an exchange-traded product, as well as requests to list shares of various other digital asset funds holding Bitcoin on national securities exchanges. Subsequently, the SEC approved NYSE Arca’s similar 19b-4 applications to list the shares of Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF and Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF, as well as requests to list the shares of various other investment vehicles that hold Ether on national securities exchanges.

Previous wording

Moreover, even though NYSE Arca’s requests with respect to the Grayscale Trusts holding Bitcoin and Ether were approved, there is no guarantee that a similar application to list Shares of the Fund on NYSE Arca, or another national securities exchange, would be approved. In particular, Bitcoin is the only digital asset that the SEC has publicly indicated it does not currently view as a security, although the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based exchange-traded products, has implicitly taken the view that Ether is not a security. The Manager believes that the SEC is unlikely to approve a request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product that holds a digital asset that the SEC believes is a security. Moreover, even if the SEC took the view that a digital asset was not a security, based on prior spot exchange-traded product disapprovals, the existence of a CFTC-regulated futures market for the relevant digital asset would be central to the SEC’s approval of any request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product holding such digital asset. As of the date hereof, there are only CFTC-regulated futures markets for Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash and Dogecoin. As such, there exist significant barriers to obtaining regulatory approval to list the shares of other digital asset investment vehicles, including the Shares of the Fund. Investors should not assume that recent approvals of spot Bitcoin and spot Ether exchange-traded products will subsequently lead to approval of spot exchange-traded products holding other digital assets, such as the Fund. Accordingly, there is no guarantee that the Manager will be successful in listing the Shares of the Fund on NYSE Arca even once the Manager decides to do so.

Current wording

On October 15, 2024, NYSE Arca filed an application with the SEC pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act to list the Shares of the Fund on NYSE Arca. On July 1, 2025 the SEC granted approval of the NYSE Arca 19b-4 application, but shortly after approval, the SEC notified NYSE Arca that the SEC intended to review the application further, and the approval was stayed. Therefore, as of the date of this filing, the NYSE Arca 19b-4 application has not been approved by the SEC and the Fund has not obtained relief from the SEC under Regulation M, and the Fund makes no representation as to when or if such approval and relief will be obtained. Even though NYSE Arca’s requests with respect to the Grayscale Trusts holding Bitcoin and Ether were approved, there is no guarantee that a similar application to list Shares of the Fund on NYSE Arca, or another national securities exchange, would be approved. In particular, Bitcoin is the only digital asset that the SEC has publicly indicated it does not currently view as a security, although the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based exchange-traded products, has implicitly taken the view that Ether is not a security. The Manager believes that the SEC is unlikely to approve a request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product that holds a digital asset that the SEC believes is a security. Moreover, even if the SEC took the view that a digital asset was not a security, based on prior spot exchange-traded product disapprovals, the existence of a CFTC-regulated futures market for the relevant digital asset would be central to the SEC’s approval of any request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product holding such digital asset. As of the date hereof, there are only CFTC-regulated futures markets for Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dogecoin, Polkadot, Avalanche, Chainlink, Stellar, Solana, Hedera, Cardano and XRP. As such, there exist significant barriers to obtaining regulatory approval to list the shares of other digital asset investment vehicles, including the Shares of the Fund. Investors should not assume that recent approvals of spot Bitcoin and spot Ether exchange-traded products will subsequently lead to approval of spot exchange-traded products holding other digital assets, such as the Fund. Accordingly, there is no guarantee that the Manager will be successful in listing the Shares of the Fund on NYSE Arca.

Previous wording

The Fund relies on the Custodian, the Authorized Participant and other third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to managing the affairs of the Fund. In addition, the Authorized Participant may rely on one or more Liquidity Providers to source the Fund Components in connection with the creation of Shares. Any disruptions to such service providers’ business operations, resulting from business failures, financial instability, security failures, government mandated regulation or operational problems could have an adverse impact on the Fund’s ability to access critical services and be disruptive to the operations of the Fund and require the Manager to replace such service provider. Moreover, the Manager could decide to replace a service provider to the Fund, or a Liquidity Provider could be replaced for other reasons.

Current wording

The Fund relies on the Custodian, the Authorized Participants and other third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to managing the affairs of the Fund. In addition, the Authorized Participant may rely on one or more Liquidity Providers to source the Fund Components in connection with the creation of Shares. Any disruptions to such service provider’s business operations, resulting from business failures, financial instability, security failures, government mandated regulation or operational problems could have an adverse impact on the Fund’s ability to access critical services and be disruptive to the operations of the Fund and require the Manager to replace such service provider. Moreover, the Manager could decide to replace a service provider to the Fund, or a Liquidity Provider could be replaced for other reasons.

Previous wording

To the extent that Manager is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian, the Manager may be required to terminate the Fund and liquidate the Fund’s digital assets. In addition, to the extent that the Manager finds a suitable party and must enter into a modified Custodian Agreement that is less favorable for the Fund or Manager and/or transfer the Fund’s assets in a relatively short time period, the safekeeping of the Fund’s digital assets may be adversely affected, which may in turn adversely affect value of the Shares. Likewise, if the Manager and/or the Authorized Participant is required to replace any other service provider, they may not be able to find a party willing to serve in such capacity in a timely manner or at all. If the Manager decides, or is required, to replace the

Current wording

To the extent that Manager is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian, the Manager may be required to terminate the Fund and liquidate the Fund’s digital assets. In addition, to the extent that the Manager finds a suitable party and must enter into a modified Custodian Agreement that is less favorable for the Fund or Manager and/or transfer the Fund’s assets in a relatively short time period, the safekeeping of the Fund’s digital assets may be adversely affected, which may in turn adversely affect value of the Shares. Likewise, if the Manager and/or the Authorized Participant is required to replace any other service provider, they may not be able to find a party willing to serve in such capacity in a timely manner or at all. If the Manager decides, or is required, to replace the Authorized Participant and/or if a Liquidity Provider is replaced or required to be replaced, this could negatively impact the Fund’s ability to create new Shares, which would impact the Shares’ liquidity and could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

Previous wording

Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program, and the Fund’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Digital Asset Reference Rates, and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share;

Current wording

Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program and the Fund’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Prices (or Digital

Previous wording

Shares purchased in the private placement are subject to a holding period under Rule 144. Pursuant to Rule 144, the minimum holding period for Shares purchased in the private placement is six months. In addition, the Fund does not currently operate an ongoing redemption program and may halt creations from time to time. As a result, the Fund cannot rely on arbitrage opportunities resulting from differences between the value of the Shares and the price of the Fund Component to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the relevant Digital Asset Reference Rate. As a result, the value of the Shares of the Fund may not approximate the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share or meet the Fund’s investment objective, and the Shares may trade at a substantial premium over, or substantial discount to, the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share. For example, in the past, the price of the Shares as quoted on OTCQX varied significantly from the NAV per Share due to these factors, among others, and has historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.

Current wording

Shares purchased in the private placement are subject to a holding period under Rule 144. Pursuant to Rule 144, the minimum holding period for Shares purchased in the private placement is six months. In addition, the Fund does not currently operate an ongoing redemption program and may halt creations from time to time. As a result, the Fund cannot rely on arbitrage opportunities resulting from differences between the value of the Shares and the price of the Fund Component to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the relevant Index Prices (or Digital Asset Reference Rates, prior to July 1, 2025). As a result, the value of the Shares of the Fund may not approximate the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share or meet the Fund’s investment objective, and the Shares may trade at a substantial premium over, or substantial discount to, the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share. For example, in the past, the price of the Shares as quoted on OTCQX varied significantly from the NAV per Share due to these factors, among others, and has historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.

Previous wording

The Fund’s NAV per Share will fluctuate with changes in the market value of the Fund Components, and the Manager expects the trading price of the Shares to fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Fund’s NAV per Share, as well as market supply and demand. However, the Shares may trade on OTCQX at, above or below the Fund’s NAV per Share for a variety of reasons. For example, OTCQX is open for trading in the Shares for a limited period each day, but the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market is a 24-hour marketplace. During periods when OTCQX is closed but Digital Asset Trading Platforms are open, significant changes in the price of the Fund Components on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market could result in a difference in performance between the value of the Fund Components as measured by the Digital Asset Reference Rates and the most recent NAV per Share or closing trading price. For example, if the price of the Fund Components on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and the value of the Fund Components as measured by the Digital Asset Reference Rates, moves significantly in a negative direction after the close of OTCQX, the trading price of the Shares may “gap” down to the full extent of such negative price shift when OTCQX reopens. If the price of the Fund Components on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market drops significantly during hours OTCQX 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 rapidly negative market. Even during periods when OTCQX is open, large Digital Asset Trading Platforms (or a substantial number of smaller Digital Asset 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.

Current wording

The Fund’s NAV per Share will fluctuate with changes in the market value of the Fund Components, and the Manager expects the trading price of the Shares to fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Fund’s NAV per Share, as well as market supply and demand. However, the Shares may trade on OTCQX at, above or below the Fund’s NAV per Share for a variety of reasons. For example, OTCQX is open for trading in the Shares for a limited period each day, but the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market is a 24-hour marketplace. During periods when OTCQX is closed but Digital Asset Trading Platforms are open, significant changes in the price of the Fund Components on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market could result in a difference in performance between the value of the Fund Components as measured by the Index Prices and the most recent NAV per Share or closing trading price. For example, if the price of the Fund Components on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and the value of the Fund Components as measured by the Index Prices, moves significantly in a negative direction after the close of OTCQX, the trading price of the Shares may “gap” down to the full extent of such negative price shift when OTCQX reopens. If the price of the Fund Components on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market drops significantly during hours OTCQX 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 rapidly negative market. Even during periods when OTCQX is open, large Digital Asset Trading Platforms (or a substantial number of smaller Digital Asset 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.

Previous wording

For example, from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2024, the Shares quoted on OTCQX traded at a discount to the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share based on the DLCS Methodology. From July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2024, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share was 63% based on the DLCS Methodology and the average discount was 43% based on the DLCS Methodology. As of June 28, 2024, the last business day of the period, the Fund’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a discount of 31% to the Fund’s NAV per Share based on the DLCS Methodology. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2024, has been quoted at a discount on 501 days.

Current wording

For example, from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, the Shares quoted on OTCQX traded at a discount to the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share based on the DLCS Methodology (changed to the CD5 Methodology effective June 5, 2025). From July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share was 63% based on the DLCS Methodology (changed to the CD5 Methodology effective June 5, 2025) and the average discount was 35% based on the DLCS Methodology (changed to the CD5 Methodology effective June 5, 2025). As of June 30, 2025, the last business day of the period, the Fund’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a discount of 2% to the Fund’s NAV per Share based on the DLCS Methodology. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, has been quoted at a discount on 751 days.

Previous wording

From November 22, 2019 to June 30, 2022, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share was 294% based on the Target Coverage Ratio Methodology and the average premium was 52% based on the Target Coverage Ratio Methodology. Over the same period, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share was 42% based on the Target Coverage Ratio Methodology and the average discount was 22% based on the Target Coverage Ratio Methodology. Moreover, from November 22, 2019 to June 30, 2022, the closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between November 22, 2019 to June 30, 2022, was quoted at a discount on 211 days, as calculated under the Target Coverage Ratio Methodology.

Current wording

From July 1, 2025 to September 2, 2025, the Shares quoted on OTCQX traded at both discounts and premiums to the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share based on the CD5 Methodology. From July 1, 2025 to September 2, 2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share was less than 1% based on the CD5 Methodology, the average premium was less than 1%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Fund’s NAV per Share was 10% based on the CD5 Methodology, and the average discount was 6%. As of September 2, 2025, the Fund’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a discount of 8% to the Fund’s NAV per Share based on the CD5 Methodology.

Previous wording

While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in the Fund Components, the net asset value of the Fund relates primarily to the value of the Fund Components, and fluctuations in the price of such Fund Components could materially and adversely affect the value of the Shares. A substantial majority of the Fund Components are concentrated in Bitcoin and Ether, which represented approximately 70.41% and 23.76%, respectively, of the Fund’s net asset value as of June 30, 2024, and as a result, the underlying value of the Shares depends disproportionately on the value of Bitcoin and Ether. Any future decline in the value of these digital assets would be expected to have a greater effect on the value of the Shares than any other of the Fund Components. The value of digital assets are extremely volatile, and both Bitcoin and Ether have in the past experienced significant declines in value.

Current wording

While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in the Fund Components, the net asset value of the Fund relates primarily to the value of the Fund Components, and fluctuations in the price of such Fund Components could materially and adversely affect the value of the Shares. A substantial majority of the Fund Components are concentrated in Bitcoin and Ether, which represented approximately 79.83% and 11.33%, respectively, of the Fund’s net asset value as of June 30, 2025, and as a result, the underlying value of the Shares depends disproportionately on the value of Bitcoin and Ether. Any future decline in the value of these digital assets would be expected to have a greater effect on the value of the Shares than any other of the Fund Components. The value of digital assets are extremely volatile, and both Bitcoin and Ether have in the past experienced significant declines in value.