iShares Bitcoin Premium Income ETF 10-Q

Item 1A. Risk Factors Except as set forth below, there have been no material changes to the Risk Factors of the registrant’s Amendment No. 4 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2026 and declared effective on June 12, 2026. The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. The trading prices of many digital assets, including bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. The average annualized one-year trailing volatility of bitcoin over the past ten years to date remains elevated at 64.02%. Over the course of 2021, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for bitcoin. In the 2021-2022 cycle, the price of bitcoin peaked at $67,734 and bottomed at $15,632, marking a steep 77% drawdown. After reaching an all-time high of approximately $126,000 in October 2025, the price of bitcoin declined to below $60,000 in June 2026, representing a drawdown of more than 50%, and there can be no assurance that the price of bitcoin will not decline further. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin’s history, including in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022, 2024, and 2025-2026. Bitcoin has continued to experience significant volatility, and significant price declines, since late 2025. For example, bitcoin lost approximately 14% of its value according to some sources in mid-October 2025 as part of wider digital asset market turmoil, widely attributed to global trade tensions, which triggered a number of dislocations in the digital asset market (the “October 2025 Flash Crash”), including liquidations of up to $20 billion in collateral in the form of various digital assets (including, but not limited to, bitcoin) securing trades (particularly perpetual futures contracts and various forms of financing transactions), along with reported service interruptions, halted orders, forced unwinding of trades, and other issues, across centralized and decentralized exchanges. As of the date of this prospectus, the price of bitcoin remains significantly below its October 2025 all-time high, and digital asset prices continue to fluctuate significantly. Extreme volatility may persist, and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may still be experiencing a bubble or may experience a bubble again in the future. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), one of the largest digital asset platforms by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). Since these events, (collectively, the “2022 Events”), regulatory actions continued. In April 2025, the DOJ issued a policy memo ending “regulation by prosecution” for crypto actors, refocusing on fraud, illicit finance, and aligning enforcement with executive directives. Acting CFTC Chairman directed staff to follow the DOJ’s new policy, pausing certain prosecutions. In July 2025, BlockFi reached a $35 million settlement with the DOJ, clearing legal hurdles for creditor distributions. As a result of these events, the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by these events, digital asset prices, including bitcoin, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, following the 2022 Events, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of the digital asset industry increased, including from, among others, the DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress, as well as state regulators and authorities, and the digital asset industry remains subject to significant attention from regulators, legislators, and policymakers. These events are continuing to develop and the full facts are continuing to emerge. It is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Trust, its service providers or to the digital asset industry as a whole. The prices of some digital assets, including bitcoin, 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. 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 bitcoin 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 bitcoin. Any resulting decline in the price of bitcoin 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. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares, and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. 14 Table of Contents 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 (the “U.S. Treasury Department”) to establish two offices to administer and maintain a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” (the “Bitcoin Reserve”) and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile (the “Digital Asset Stockpile”), respectively. The Bitcoin Reserve is intended to be capitalized with bitcoin forfeited as part of U.S. criminal or civil proceedings or in satisfaction of penalties imposed by executive agencies. The Digital Asset Stockpile is intended to be capitalized initially with other digital assets forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Following the issuance of the Order, bitcoin markets developed expectations that the United States may begin acquiring and holding bitcoin, which many viewed as a positive development for bitcoin prices. The Order directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Department of Commerce to develop budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional bitcoin for the Bitcoin Reserve. Legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives that would direct the acquisition of one million bitcoin by the federal government over a five-year period, to be held in trust in secure storage by the U.S. Treasury. The bill proposed funding the bitcoin acquisition using remittances from the Federal Reserve, revaluations of Federal Reserve gold certificates, and other mechanisms characterized as budget-neutral (such as transfers from federal agencies using bitcoin acquired through asset forfeitures). 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. Treasury Department. Bills were also introduced in several state legislatures to authorize the acquisition of bitcoin by state governments or their instrumentalities, some of which have failed to pass. As of the date of this report, these initiatives remain subject to significant uncertainty. While some administrative steps have reportedly been taken, there is no assurance that the federal government or any state government will announce or implement bitcoin acquisition plans, or that any such plans will meet market expectations. Even if government acquisitions occur or legislation requiring acquisitions is enacted, the price of bitcoin may decline if there are implementation challenges, unexpected difficulties, policy or legal reversals, or changes in political priorities, any of which may negatively impact Share value. Executive orders such as the Order are subject to change and can be reversed or overturned. The enduring existence and size of the Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile, and the passage and implementation of legislation at the federal or state level, remain subject to complex challenges and uncertainty that make it difficult to evaluate their effect on the value of bitcoin and the Shares, now or in the future. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of bitcoin, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. While the Trust is actively managed, it will not take any actions to take advantage of, or mitigate the impacts of, volatility in the price of bitcoin. The value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of bitcoin as a digital asset, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, or compromise of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset, and the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies such as the Bitcoin blockchain. Digital assets such as bitcoin were only introduced in 2009, and the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies over time, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares: ● Digital asset networks, including the bitcoin peer-to-peer network and associated blockchain ledger (such blockchain, the “Bitcoin blockchain” and together with the peer-to-peer network, the “Bitcoin network”), and the software used to operate them are in the early stages of development. Given the recentness of the development of digital asset networks, digital assets may not function as intended and parties may be unwilling to use digital assets, which would dampen the growth, if any, of digital asset networks. Because bitcoin is a digital asset, the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, compromise, or destruction of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset. ● Digital assets, including bitcoin, are controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public key and private key or keys relating to the Bitcoin network address, or “wallet,” at which the digital asset is held. Private keys must be safeguarded and kept private in order to prevent a third party from accessing the digital asset held in such wallet. 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. 15 Table of Contents ● Digital asset networks are dependent upon the internet. A disruption of the internet or a digital asset network, such as the Bitcoin network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including bitcoin, and, consequently, their value. ● The acceptance of software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and miners in a digital asset network, such as the Bitcoin network, could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, including the Bitcoin blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks. ● Governance of the Bitcoin network is by voluntary consensus and open competition. As a result, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on the governance of the Bitcoin network, which may stymie the Bitcoin network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. In particular, it may be difficult to find solutions or martial sufficient effort to overcome any future problems on the Bitcoin network, especially long-term problems. ● Over the past decade, bitcoin mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) machines to “professionalized” mining operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of bitcoin mining operations are not sufficiently high, including due to an increase in electricity costs or a decline in the market price of bitcoin, or if bitcoin mining operations are unable to arrange alternative sources of financing (e.g., if lenders refuse to make loans to such miners), bitcoin miners are more likely to immediately sell more bitcoin than they otherwise would, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of bitcoin, which would generally tend to reduce bitcoin’s market price. ● To the extent that any miners cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in solved blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Bitcoin blockchain until a block is mined by a miner who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee. Any widespread delays in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in a digital asset network. ● Digital asset mining operations can consume significant amounts of electricity, which may have a negative environmental impact and give rise to public opinion against allowing, or government regulations restricting, the use of electricity for mining operations. Additionally, miners may be forced to cease operations during an electricity shortage or power outage, or if electricity prices increase where the mining activities are performed. ● There are a small number of major suppliers of bitcoin mining hardware globally, and a significant amount of bitcoin mining hardware manufacturing is located in China. Mining hardware manufacturers may fail to supply the mining hardware due to their inability to manufacture sufficient mining hardware, whether due to shortages of components or resources such as semiconductors, or due to default, insolvency, or changes of laws and trade restrictions (including export/import restrictions, quotas or tariffs). Trade policies such as export/import restrictions, quotas or tariffs may reduce the ability of bitcoin mining hardware suppliers to supply miners with bitcoin mining hardware or create a shortage or lack of components necessary for their manufacture or repair. If bitcoin miners are unable to source mining hardware from those suppliers (for example due to overwhelming global demand for bitcoin miners, or due to trade restrictions, or other causes) at commercially reasonable prices, or at all, and replacement or substitute sources of bitcoin mining hardware prove to be unavailable, there could be a negative impact on bitcoin mining globally. These could affect the Bitcoin network by making it more difficult for transactions to be confirmed, increasing transaction costs, or affecting the Bitcoin network’s security, among other negative effects, any of which could negatively affect the value of bitcoin and consequently the Shares. ● Many digital asset networks, including the Bitcoin network, face significant scaling challenges and may periodically be upgraded with various features designed to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective, and such upgrades may fail, resulting in potentially irreparable damage to the Bitcoin network and to the value of bitcoin. ● The open-source structure of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Bitcoin network, means that developers and other contributors are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols. As a result, the developers and other contributors of a particular digital asset may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the network or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies whose interests are at odds with other participants in a particular digital asset network. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the protocol of the Bitcoin network could damage that network. ● Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital assets have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. The cryptographic algorithms securing the Bitcoin network, in particular its elliptic-curve signature scheme, could prove vulnerable to advances in computing technology, particularly quantum computing. Quantum computing technology is an emerging phenomenon which, because it is still developing, makes it difficult to predict its 16 Table of Contents ultimate effect on the future value of bitcoin and other digital assets. However, if quantum computing technology is able to advance and significantly increase its capacity relative to the capacity of today’s leading quantum computers, it could potentially undermine the viability of many of the cryptographic algorithms used across the world’s information technology infrastructure, including the cryptographic algorithms used for digital assets like bitcoin. In particular, bitcoin relies on public-key cryptography, including elliptic-curve signature schemes, to authorize transfers, and a sufficiently advanced quantum computer could potentially derive private keys from public keys that have been revealed on-chain or during the process of broadcasting and confirming transactions. The extent of this risk may depend on, among other things, address types, whether addresses are reused, whether public keys have been exposed, the timing and manner of transfers, and the wallet-generation, key-management and transaction-signing practices of the Bitcoin Custodian and other service providers. If quantum computing is able to advance in that way, there is a risk that quantum computing could result in the cryptography underlying the Bitcoin network becoming ineffective, which, if realized, could compromise the security of the Bitcoin network, or allow a malicious actor to compromise the wallets holding bitcoin owned by the Trust or others on the Bitcoin network, which would result in losses to Shareholders. While various actors in the Bitcoin community are taking steps to enable the use of post-quantum or quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms, there is no guarantee that new post-quantum or quantum-resistant architectures will be built and appropriate transitions will be implemented across the network at scale in a timely manner or that any such transition would occur without bugs, security vulnerabilities, increased transaction costs, reduced network functionality or other disruption; any such changes could require the achievement of broad consensus within the Bitcoin network community and a fork (or multiple forks), and there can be no assurance that such consensus would be achieved or the changes implemented successfully. See “-Changes in the governance of a digital asset network may not receive sufficient support from users and miners, which may negatively affect that digital asset network’s ability to grow and respond to challenges” and “-A temporary or permanent ”fork“ could adversely affect the value of the Shares.” If any of the foregoing were to occur, it could result in losses to Shareholders. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to compromise the security of the Bitcoin network or take the Trust’s bitcoin, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. In addition, because a significant amount of bitcoin is held in addresses whose public keys have already been exposed, a sufficiently advanced quantum computer could be used to misappropriate that bitcoin, even if the Trust’s own bitcoin were not compromised, undermining confidence in the Bitcoin network and depressing the price of bitcoin, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, the functionality of the Bitcoin network may be negatively affected such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for bitcoin. Even if another digital asset other than bitcoin 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. Moreover, because digital assets, including bitcoin, have been in existence for a short period of time and are continuing to develop, there may be additional risks in the future that are impossible to predict as of the date of this report. A determination that bitcoin or any other digital asset is a “ security ” may adversely affect the value of bitcoin and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust. Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered a “security” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Public, though non‑binding, statements made in the past by senior officials at the SEC and endorsed by its previous Chairman in a letter to a member of Congress appeared to indicate that the SEC did not consider bitcoin to be a security, at least currently, and the staff has provided informal assurances to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. On the other hand, the SEC has brought enforcement actions against the promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities. Whether a digital asset is a security under the federal securities laws depends on whether it is included in the lists of instruments making up the definition of “security” in the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act. Digital assets as such do not appear in any of these lists, although each list includes the terms “investment contract” and “note,” and the SEC has typically analyzed whether a particular digital asset is a security by reference to whether it meets the tests developed by the federal courts interpreting these terms, known as the Howey and Reves tests, respectively. For many digital assets, whether or not the Howey or Reves tests are met is difficult to resolve definitively, and substantial legal arguments can often be made both in favor of and against a particular digital asset qualifying as a security under one or both of the Howey and Reves tests. Adding to the complexity, the SEC staff has indicated that the security status of a particular digital asset can change over time as the relevant facts evolve. On March 17, 2026, the SEC issued an interpretive release (the “Interpretive Release”) regarding the application of the federal securities laws to certain types of digital assets and certain transactions involving digital assets. In the Interpretive Release, the SEC stated that, based on its current understanding of the digital asset markets, bitcoin, among other digital assets, is a digital commodity and not itself a security. Although the Interpretive Release represents the official position of the SEC, it is not itself a statute or binding rule, does not supersede or replace the Howey test, is based on the SEC’s current understanding of the digital asset markets, and may be refined, revised or expanded. In addition, a court, regulator, or future administration could take a different view, and future legislation, rulemaking, enforcement positions, judicial decisions or other developments could result in bitcoin, the Trust, the Shares or transactions involving bitcoin being treated differently than contemplated by the Interpretive Release. Any such developments could adversely affect the Trust and the value of the Shares. As part of determining whether bitcoin is a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, the Sponsor takes into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under the federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, and other materials relevant to the status of bitcoin as a security (or not). Finally, the Sponsor discusses the security status of bitcoin with its external securities lawyers. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that bitcoin is not a security in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests. In light of these uncertainties and the fact-based nature of the analysis, the Sponsor acknowledges that bitcoin may in the future be found by the SEC or a federal court to be a security notwithstanding the Sponsor’s prior conclusion; and the Sponsor’s prior conclusion, even if reasonable under the circumstances and made in good faith, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on the presence of a security. 17 Table of Contents The Sponsor may dissolve the Trust if the Sponsor determines bitcoin is a security under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because the SEC or a federal court subsequently makes that determination. Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset is or is not a security often leave room for interpretation, for so long as the Sponsor believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that the Trust’s bitcoin is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that bitcoin could at some future point be determined to be a security. Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that bitcoin is a security, or a court decision, to that effect would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of Bitcoin, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. 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. In addition, if bitcoin is determined to be a security, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under SEC rules, which could necessitate the Trust’s liquidation. In this case, the Trust and the Sponsor may be deemed to have participated in an illegal offering of securities and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be able to register the Trust under the Investment Company Act at such time or take such other actions as may be necessary to ensure the Trust’s activities comply with applicable law, which could force the Sponsor to liquidate the Trust. Moreover, whether or not the Sponsor or the Trust were subject to additional regulatory requirements as a result of any SEC or federal court determination that its assets include securities, the Sponsor may nevertheless decide to terminate the Trust, in order, if possible, to liquidate the Trust’s assets while a liquid market still exists. For example, in response to the SEC’s action against the issuer of XRP, certain significant market participants announced they would no longer support XRP and announced measures, including the delisting of XRP from major digital asset trading platforms. The sponsor of the Grayscale XRP Trust subsequently dissolved this trust and liquidated its assets. If the SEC or a federal court were to determine that bitcoin is a security, it is likely that the value of the Shares would decline significantly, and that the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated. Regulatory changes or actions in foreign jurisdictions may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of one or more digital assets, mining activity or the operation of their networks or the digital asset platform market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares. Various foreign jurisdictions have adopted, and may continue to adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect digital asset networks (including the Bitcoin network), the digital asset markets (including the bitcoin market), and their users, particularly digital asset platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example, if China or other foreign jurisdictions were to ban or otherwise restrict manufacturers’ ability to produce or sell semiconductors or hard drives in connection with bitcoin mining, it would have a material adverse effect on digital asset networks (including the Bitcoin network), the digital asset market, and as a result, impact the value of the Shares. A number of foreign jurisdictions have recently taken regulatory action aimed at digital asset activities. China has made transacting in crypto assets illegal for Chinese citizens in mainland China, and additional restrictions may follow. Both China and South Korea have banned initial coin offerings entirely and regulators in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong, have opined that initial coin offerings may constitute securities offerings subject to local securities regulations. In May 2021, the Chinese government announced renewed efforts to restrict crypto asset trading and mining activities. Regulators in the Inner Mongolia and other regions of China have proposed regulations that would create penalties for companies engaged in crypto asset mining activities and introduce heightened energy saving requirements on industrial parks, data centers and power plants providing electricity to crypto asset miners. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority published final rules in October 2020 banning the sale of derivatives and exchange traded notes that reference certain types of digital assets, contending that they are “ill-suited” to retail investors citing extreme volatility, valuation challenges and association with financial crime. 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. 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 bitcoin. 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 bitcoin is impossible to predict, and such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares. 18 Table of Contents Furthermore, legal claims have been filed in the United Kingdom by an entity associated with an individual named Craig Wright. The entity alleges that the private keys to bitcoin purportedly worth several billion dollars were rendered inaccessible to it in a hack, and advances a series of novel legal theories in support of its request that the court compel certain core developers associated with the Bitcoin network to either somehow transfer the bitcoin out of the bitcoin address to which the entity no longer can access the private keys to a new bitcoin address that it currently does control, or alternatively amend the source code to the Bitcoin network itself to restore its access to the stranded bitcoin. In 2022, the High Court dismissed the claims, finding that the entity had not established a serious issue to be tried. However, in February 2023, the Court of Appeals unanimously overruled the High Court’s decision, holding that there was a serious issue to be tried. If a court decides to grant the relief requested, it is possible that wide-ranging and fundamental changes to the source code, operations, and governance of, and basic principles underlying, the Bitcoin network might be required, and a loss of public confidence in the Bitcoin network could result. Alternatively, bitcoin could face obstacles to use or in the United Kingdom, which could reduce adoption. Courts in other jurisdictions could take similar positions. These or other possible outcomes could lead to a decrease in the value of bitcoin, which could negatively impact the value of the Shares. Regulatory changes or interpretations could obligate the Trust, the Trustee, the Advisor or the Sponsor to register and comply with new regulations, resulting in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust. Current and future federal or state legislation, CFTC and SEC rulemaking and other regulatory developments may impact the manner in which bitcoin are treated. In particular, although the Interpretive Release classified bitcoin as a digital commodity and not a security under U.S. federal securities laws, bitcoin may nonetheless in the future be classified by the CFTC as a “commodity interest” under the CEA, or a court or a future SEC administration could conclude that bitcoin is a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws notwithstanding the Interpretive Release. The Sponsor, the Trustee and the Trust cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of bitcoin under the law. In the face of such developments, the required registrations and compliance steps may result in extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust. If the Sponsor decides to terminate the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances, the Trust may be dissolved or liquidated at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders. To the extent that bitcoin is deemed to fall within the definition of a “commodity interest” under the CEA, the Trust, the Trustee and the Sponsor may be subject to additional regulation under the CEA and CFTC regulations. The Sponsor or the Trustee may be required to register as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading adviser with the CFTC and become a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”) and may be subject to additional regulatory requirements with respect to the Trust, including disclosure and reporting requirements. These additional requirements may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or nonrecurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor or the Trustee determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Trustee will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s bitcoin at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders. To the extent that bitcoin is deemed to fall within the definition of a security under U.S. federal securities laws, the Trust, the Trustee and the Sponsor may be subject to additional requirements under the Investment Company Act and the Sponsor or the Trustee may be required to register as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Such additional registration may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or non‑recurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor or the Trustee determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Trustee will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s bitcoin at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders. Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds a) None. b) Not applicable. c) None. Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities None. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures. Not applicable.