Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF 10-K

Item 1A. Risk Factors Summary of Risk Factors Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in the Shares speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below and should be read in conjunction with the other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the Trust’s financial statements and related notes thereto, and our other filings with the SEC, before making an investment decision regarding the Shares. See “Glossary of Defined Terms” for the definition of certain capitalized terms used in this Annual Report. All other capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein have the meanings given to them in the Trust Agreement. • Extreme volatility of trading prices that many digital assets, including Bitcoin, have experienced in recent periods and may continue to experience, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares; • 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 and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets; • The value of the Shares is dependent on the acceptance of Bitcoin, a new and rapidly evolving industry; • The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of Bitcoin held by the Trust, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations; • The unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of Digital Asset Exchanges may adversely affect the value of digital assets and, consequently, the value of the Shares; • Risks related to the COVID-19 outbreak could negatively impact the value of the Trust’s holdings and significantly disrupt its operations; • The lack of an ongoing redemption program due to the holding period under Rule 144, and the Trust’s ability to halt creations from time to time, results in the lack of an arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price; • The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Exchange Market; • Regulatory changes or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies 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 Exchange Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares; • Changes in the policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) could adversely impact the value of the Shares; 42 Table of Contents • 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 Exchange Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares; • An Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor could be subject to regulation as a money service business or money transmitter, which could result in extraordinary expenses to the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares; • Regulatory changes or interpretations could obligate the Trust or the Sponsor to register and comply with new regulations, resulting in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust; • The Trust may be required to disclose information, including information relating to investors, to regulators; • Conflicts of interest may arise among the Sponsor or its affiliates and the Trust; • The Sponsor’s services may be discontinued, which could be detrimental to the Trust; and • The Custodian may resign or be removed by the Sponsor, which would trigger early termination of the Trust; and; The following risks, some of which have occurred and any of which may occur in the future, can have a material adverse effect on our business or financial performance, which in turn can affect the price of the Shares. These are not the only risks we face. There may be other risks we are not currently aware of or that we currently deem not to be material but may become material in the future. Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets The trading prices of many digital assets, including Bitcoin, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. 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. For instance, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including Bitcoin, over the course of 2017, and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2018 in digital asset trading prices, including for Bitcoin. These drawdowns notwithstanding, digital asset prices, including Bitcoin, increased significantly again during 2019, decreased significantly again in the first quarter of 2020 amidst broader market declines as a result of the novel coronavirus outbreak and increased significantly again over the remainder of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021. Digital asset prices continued to experience significant and sudden changes throughout 2021 followed by steep drawdowns in the fourth quarter of 2021 and to date in 2022. 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. 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 Trust is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of Bitcoin. For additional information that quantifies the volatility of Bitcoin prices, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical Digital Asset Holdings and Bitcoin Prices.” Digital assets such as Bitcoin were only introduced within the past decade, 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 and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets. Digital assets such as Bitcoin were only introduced within the past decade, 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 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 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. • The loss or destruction of a private key required to access a digital asset may be irreversible. If a private key is lost, 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. • 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. 43 Table of Contents • 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, 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. • The foregoing notwithstanding, the Bitcoin Network’s protocol is informally managed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the Bitcoin Network’s source code. The core developers evolve over time, largely based on self- determined participation. To the extent that a significant majority of users and miners adopt amendments to the Bitcoin Network, the Bitcoin Network will be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin. • Over the past several years, digital asset mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first generation application specific integrated circuit machines to “professionalized” mining operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of digital asset mining operations are not sufficiently high, including due to an increase in electricity costs, digital asset miners are more likely to immediately sell tokens earned by mining, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of that digital asset, which would generally tend to reduce that digital asset’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 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. • Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges and are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective. • 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 cryptography underlying Bitcoin could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to take the Trust’s Bitcoin, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, 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 Annual Report. Digital assets represent a new and rapidly evolving industry, and the value of the Shares depends on the acceptance of Bitcoin. The Bitcoin Network was first launched in 2009 and Bitcoins were the first cryptographic digital assets created to gain global adoption and critical mass. Although the Bitcoin Network is the most established digital asset network, the Bitcoin Network and other cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the issuance of digital assets represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares: • Bitcoins have only recently become selectively accepted as a means of payment by retail and commercial outlets, and use of Bitcoins by consumers to pay such retail and commercial outlets remains limited. Banks and other established financial institutions may refuse to process funds for Bitcoin transactions; process wire transfers to or from Digital Asset Exchanges, Bitcoin-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in Bitcoin. As a result, the prices of Bitcoins are largely determined by speculators and miners, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept it as a form of payment in the future. 44 Table of Contents • Banks may not provide banking services, or may cut off banking services, to businesses that provide digital asset-related services or that accept digital assets as payment, which could dampen liquidity in the market and damage the public perception of digital assets generally or any one digital asset in particular, such as Bitcoin, and their or its utility as a payment system, which could decrease the price of digital assets generally or individually. • Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to digital asset networks, such as the Bitcoin Network, and exchanges or businesses that facilitate transactions in Bitcoin may be at an increased risk of having banking services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks. • Users, developers and miners may otherwise switch to or adopt certain digital assets at the expense of their engagement with other digital asset networks, which may negatively impact those networks, including the Bitcoin Network. • In August 2017, the Bitcoin Network underwent a hard fork that resulted in the creation of a new digital asset network called Bitcoin Cash. This hard fork was contentious, and as a result some users of the Bitcoin Cash network may harbor ill will toward the Bitcoin Network. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the Bitcoin Network. • Also in August 2017, the Bitcoin Network was upgraded with a technical feature known as “Segregated Witness” that, among other things, potentially doubles the transactions per second that can be handled on-chain and enables so-called second layer solutions, such as the Lightning Network or payment channels, that have the potential to substantially increase transaction throughput (i.e., millions of transactions per second). As of the date of this Annual Report, wallets and intermediaries that support Segregated Witness or Lightning Network-like technologies do not yet have material adoption. This upgrade may fail to work as expected leading to a decline in support and price of Bitcoin. The Trust is not actively managed and will not have any formal strategy relating to the development of the Bitcoin Network. 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. The governance of decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks, is by voluntary consensus and open competition. As a result, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on the governance of any particular decentralized digital asset network, which may stymie such network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. The foregoing notwithstanding, the protocols for some decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin network, are informally managed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s source code. Core developers’ roles evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation. If a significant majority of users and miners adopt amendments to a decentralized network based on the proposals of such core developers, such network will be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of the relevant digital asset. As a result of the foregoing, it may be difficult to find solutions or marshal sufficient effort to overcome any future problems, especially long-term problems, on digital asset networks. Digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges and efforts to increase the volume and speed of transactions may not be successful. Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges due to the fact that public blockchains generally face a tradeoff between security and scalability. One means through which public blockchains achieve security is decentralization, meaning that no intermediary is responsible for securing and maintaining these systems. For example, a greater degree of decentralization generally means a given digital asset network is less susceptible to manipulation or capture. In practice, this typically means that every single node on a given digital asset network is responsible for securing the system by processing every transaction and maintaining a copy of the entire state of the network. As a result, a digital asset network may be limited in the number of transactions it can process by the capabilities of each single fully participating node. Many developers are actively researching and testing scalability solutions for public blockchains that do not necessarily result in lower levels of security or decentralization, such as off-chain payment channels and sharding. Off-chain payment channels would allow parties to transact without requiring the full processing power of a blockchain. Sharding can increase the scalability of a database, such as a blockchain, by splitting the data processing responsibility among many nodes, allowing for parallel processing and validating of transactions. As of December 31, 2021, the Bitcoin Network could handle a maximum of three transactions per second. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. For example, in August 2017, the Bitcoin network was upgraded with a technical feature known as “Segregated Witness” that potentially doubles the transactions per second that can be handled on-chain. More importantly, Segregated Witness also enables so-called second layer solutions, such as the Lightning Network, or payment channels that greatly increase transaction throughput (i.e., millions of transactions per second). Wallets and “intermediaries,” or connecting nodes that facilitate payment channels, that support Segregated Witness or Lightning Network-like technologies have not seen wide-scale use as of December 31, 2021. Additionally, questions remain regarding Lightning Network services, such as its cost and who will serve as intermediaries. 45 Table of Contents As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Bitcoin Network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2019, Bitcoin transaction fees have increased from $0.18 per Bitcoin transaction, on average, to a high of $60.95 per transaction, on average, on April 20, 2021. As of December 31, 2021, Bitcoin transaction fees stood at $3.10 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for Bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, Bitcoin, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of the Bitcoin Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. Digital assets may have concentrated ownership and large sales or distributions by holders of such digital assets could have an adverse effect on the market price of such digital asset. As of December 31, 2021, the largest 100 Bitcoin wallets held approximately 15% of the Bitcoins in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of Bitcoins, even if they individually only hold a small amount, and it is possible that some of these wallets are controlled by the same person or entity. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of Bitcoin. If the digital asset award for mining blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions on the Bitcoin Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit mining activities, miners may cease expanding processing power or demand high transaction fees, which could negatively impact the value of Bitcoin and the value of the Shares. If the digital asset awards for mining blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Bitcoin Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit mining activities, miners may cease expending processing power to mine blocks and confirmations of transactions on the Bitcoin Blockchain could be slowed. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares: • Over the past several years, digital asset mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit machines to “professionalized” mining operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of digital asset mining operations are not sufficiently high, including due to an increase in electricity costs, digital asset miners are more likely to immediately sell tokens earned by mining, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of that digital asset, which would generally tend to reduce that digital asset’s market price. • A reduction in the processing power expended by miners on the Bitcoin Network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet obtaining control. See “If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Bitcoin Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.” • Miners have historically accepted relatively low transaction confirmation fees on most digital asset networks. If miners demand higher transaction fees for recording transactions in the Bitcoin Blockchain or a software upgrade automatically charges fees for all transactions on the Bitcoin Network, the cost of using Bitcoin may increase and the marketplace may be reluctant to accept Bitcoin as a means of payment. Alternatively, miners could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Bitcoin Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Bitcoin Network. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting through collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Bitcoin Network, the value of Bitcoin and the value of the Shares. • To the extent that any miners cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in mined 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 the 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. If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Bitcoin Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate. 46 Table of Contents 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 dedicated to mining on the Bitcoin Network, it may be able to alter the Blockchain on which transactions in Bitcoin rely by constructing fraudulent blocks or preventing certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all. The malicious actor or botnet could also control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions. Although the malicious actor or botnet would not be able to generate new tokens or transactions using such control, it could “double-spend” its own tokens (i.e., spend the same tokens in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control. To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network or the Bitcoin community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the Blockchain may not be possible. Further, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the Bitcoin Network. For example, in August 2020, the Ethereum Classic Network was the target of two double-spend attacks by an unknown actor or actors that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Ethereum Classic Network. The 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. Any similar attacks on the Bitcoin Network could negatively impact the value of Bitcoin and the value of the Shares. In addition, in May 2019, the Bitcoin Cash network experienced a 51% 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. Any similar attacks on the Bitcoin Network could negatively impact the value of Bitcoin and the value of the Shares. Although there are no known reports of malicious activity on, or control of, the Bitcoin Network, it is believed that certain mining pools may have exceeded the 50% threshold on the Bitcoin Network. The possible crossing of the 50% threshold indicates a greater risk that a single mining pool could exert authority over the validation of Bitcoin transactions, and this risk is heightened if over 50% of the processing power on the network falls within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority. For example, it is believed that a significant amount of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network is located in China. Because the Chinese government has subjected digital assets to heightened levels of scrutiny recently, reportedly forcing several digital asset exchanges to shut down, there is a risk that the Chinese government could also achieve control over a significant amount of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network. If network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of mining pools, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of Bitcoin mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares. A malicious actor may also obtain control over the Bitcoin Network through its influence over core developers by gaining direct control over a core developer or an otherwise influential programmer. To the extent that the Bitcoin ecosystem does not grow, the possibility that a malicious actor may be able to obtain control of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network in this manner will remain heightened. A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The Bitcoin Network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and miners of Bitcoin adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Bitcoin Network, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of Bitcoin running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in August 2017, Bitcoin “forked” into Bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin Network can process. Forks may also occur as a network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum “forked” into Ethereum and a new digital asset, Ethereum Classic, as a result of the Ethereum network community’s response to a significant security breach in which an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to syphon approximately $60 million of ETH held by The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the hack, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a “fork” that effectively reversed the hack. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, now referred to as “Ethereum Classic” with the digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as Ethereum Classic, or ETC. ETC now trades on several Digital Asset Exchanges. A fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of otherwise compatible software that users run. Such a fork could lead to users and miners abandoning the digital asset with the flawed software. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and miners could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This could result in a permanent fork, as in the case of Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. 47 Table of Contents In addition, many developers have previously initiated hard forks in the Blockchain to launch new digital assets, such as Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. To the extent such digital assets compete with Bitcoin, such competition could impact demand for Bitcoin and could adversely impact the value of the Shares. Furthermore, a hard fork can lead to new security concerns. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks, two other digital asset networks, split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum exchanges through at least October 2016. An Ethereum exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of mining power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less mining power, thereby making digital assets that rely on proof-of-work more susceptible to attack. A hard fork may adversely affect the price of Bitcoin at the time of announcement or adoption. For example, the announcement of a hard fork could lead to increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset, in anticipation that ownership of the pre-fork digital asset would entitle holders to a new digital asset following the fork. The increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset may cause the price of the digital asset to rise. After the hard fork, it is possible the aggregate price of the two versions of the digital asset running in parallel would be less than the price of the digital asset immediately prior to the fork. Furthermore, while the Trust would be entitled to both versions of the digital asset running in parallel, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, determine which version of the digital asset is generally accepted as the Bitcoin Network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork. Either of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares. As an illustrative example of a digital asset hard fork, on November 15, 2020, certain Bitcoin Cash developers enacted a proposed update to the Bitcoin Cash Network requiring 8% of mined tokens to be redistributed to the developer pool causing a hard fork and created a network with a token labeled BCHA. For the days following the fork, the price of BCH fluctuated from $246.15 on November 15, 2020 to $256.55 on November 20, 2020. A future fork in the Bitcoin Network could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate. Shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks or “airdrops.” In addition to forks, a digital asset may become subject to a similar occurrence known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promotors of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that such holders will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. For example, in March 2017 the promoters of Stellar Lumens announced that anyone that owned Bitcoin as of June 26, 2017 could claim, until August 27, 2017, a certain amount of Stellar Lumens. The Trust did not participate in the 2017 Stellar Lumen airdrop. On December 1, 2017, the Trust announced that it had irrevocably abandoned (i) all of the rights to Bitcoin Diamond tokens then held by the Trust as a result of the fork in the Blockchain on November 24, 2017 and (ii) all of the rights to Bytether tokens then held by the Trust as a result of the fork in the Blockchain on August 1, 2017. The Trust did not receive any direct or indirect consideration for the abandonment of these rights. As a consequence of the abandonment, the Trust has no right to receive any Bitcoin Diamond tokens or Bytether tokens at any point in the future, the Trust will not accept any Bitcoin Diamond tokens or Bytether tokens, or any payment in respect thereof, at any point in the future and the Trust will not otherwise take any action in the future inconsistent with such abandonment. On December 29, 2017 the Sponsor of the Trust announced that it had declared a distribution and established a record date for the distribution, to shareholders of record as of the close of business on January 8, 2018, of the Incidental Right to the Bitcoin SegWit2X held by the Trust. On April 2, 2018, Grayscale Investments, LLC, as agent of the shareholders of record on the record date of the distribution of rights to Bitcoin SegWit2X tokens, announced that it had, on behalf of such shareholders, abandoned the rights to the Bitcoin SegWit2X tokens because it determined that the costs that would be incurred by it in connection with exercising those rights and selling the Bitcoin SegWit2X tokens would exceed the gross proceeds that would be generated by such sales. Shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. We refer to the right to receive any such benefit as an “Incidental Right” and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.” There are likely to be operational, tax, securities law, regulatory, legal and practical issues that significantly limit, or prevent entirely, shareholders’ ability to realize a benefit, through their Shares in the Trust, from any such Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. For instance, the Custodian may not agree to provide access to the IR Virtual Currency. In addition, the Sponsor may determine that there is no safe or practical way to custody the IR Virtual Currency, or that trying to do so may pose an unacceptable risk to the Trust’s holdings in Bitcoin, or that the costs of taking possession and/or maintaining ownership of the IR Virtual Currency exceed the benefits of owning the IR Virtual Currency. Additionally, laws, regulation or other factors may prevent shareholders from benefitting from the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency even if there is a safe and practical way to custody and secure the IR Virtual Currency. For example, it may be illegal to sell or otherwise dispose of the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, or there may not be a suitable market into which the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency can be sold (immediately after the fork or airdrop, or ever). The Sponsor may also determine, in consultation with its legal advisers, that the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency is, or is likely to be deemed, a security under federal or state securities laws. In such a case, the Sponsor would irrevocably abandon, as of any date on which the Trust creates Shares, such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency if holding it would have an adverse effect on the Trust and it would not be practicable to avoid such effect by disposing of the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency in a manner that would result in shareholders receiving more than 48 Table of Contents insignificant value thereof. In making such a determination, the Sponsor expects to take into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of a “security” under the federal securities law 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. The Trust has informed the Custodian that it is irrevocably abandoning, as of any date on which the Trust creates Shares, any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such date and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such date. In order to avert abandonment of an Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, the Trust will send a notice to the Custodian of its intention to retain such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor intends to evaluate each future fork or airdrop on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Trust’s legal advisers, tax consultants and Custodian. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency.” In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin Network, the Sponsor will, if permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine which network should be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and in doing so may adversely affect the value of the Shares. In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin Network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin Network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin Network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on a variety of then relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of Bitcoin, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Bitcoin Network. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with shareholders, security vendors and the Index Provider on what is generally accepted as Bitcoin and should therefore be considered “Bitcoin” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. Any name change and any associated rebranding initiative by the core developers of Bitcoin may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of Bitcoin and the value of the Shares. From time to time, digital assets may undergo name changes and associated rebranding initiatives. For example, Bitcoin Cash may sometimes be referred to as Bitcoin ABC in an effort to differentiate itself from any Bitcoin Cash hard forks, such as Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision, and in the third quarter of 2018, the team behind Zen rebranded and changed the name of ZenCash to “Horizen.” We cannot predict the impact of any name change and any associated rebranding initiative on Bitcoin. After a name change and an associated rebranding initiative, a digital asset may not be able to achieve or maintain brand name recognition or status that is comparable to the recognition and status previously enjoyed by such digital asset. The failure of any name change and any associated rebranding initiative by a digital asset may result in such digital asset not realizing some or all of the anticipated benefits contemplated by the name change and associated rebranding initiative, and could negatively impact the value of Bitcoin and the value of the Shares. Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of Bitcoins, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations due to a number of factors. The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of the Bitcoins held by the Trust and fluctuations in the price of Bitcoin could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The market price of Bitcoin may be highly volatile, and subject to a number of factors, including: • An increase in the global Bitcoin supply; • Manipulative trading activity on Digital Asset Exchanges, which, in many cases, are largely unregulated; • The adoption of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange, store-of-value or other consumptive asset and the maintenance and development of the open-source software protocol of the Bitcoin Network; • Forks in the Bitcoin Network; • Investors’ expectations with respect to interest rates, the rates of inflation of fiat currencies or Bitcoin, and digital asset exchange rates; • Consumer preferences and perceptions of Bitcoin specifically and digital assets generally; • Fiat currency withdrawal and deposit policies on Digital Asset Exchanges; • The liquidity of Digital Asset Markets and any increase or decrease in trading volume on Digital Asset Markets; 49 Table of Contents • Investment and trading activities of large investors that invest directly or indirectly in Bitcoin; • A “short squeeze” resulting from speculation on the price of Bitcoin, if aggregate short exposure exceeds the number of Shares available for purchase; • An active derivatives market for Bitcoin or for digital assets generally; • Monetary policies of governments, trade restrictions, currency devaluations and revaluations and regulatory measures or enforcement actions, if any, that restrict the use of Bitcoin as a form of payment or the purchase of Bitcoin on the Digital Asset Markets; • Global or regional political, economic or financial conditions, events and situations, such as the novel coronavirus outbreak; • Fees associated with processing a Bitcoin transaction and the speed at which Bitcoin transactions are settled; • Interruptions in service from or closures or failures of major Digital Asset Exchanges; • Decreased confidence in Digital Asset Exchanges due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of Digital Asset Exchanges; • Increased competition from other forms of digital assets or payment services; and • The Trust’s own acquisitions or dispositions of Bitcoin, since there is no limit on the number of Bitcoin that the Trust may acquire. In addition, there is no assurance that Bitcoin will maintain its value in the long or intermediate term. In the event that the price of Bitcoin declines, the Sponsor expects the value of the Shares to decline proportionately. The value of a Bitcoin as represented by the Index Price or by the Trust’s principal market may also be subject to momentum pricing due to speculation regarding future appreciation in value, leading to greater volatility that could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Momentum pricing typically is associated with growth stocks and other assets whose valuation, as determined by the investing public, accounts for future appreciation in value, if any. The Sponsor believes that momentum pricing of Bitcoins has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of Bitcoin, inflating and making the Index Price more volatile. As a result, Bitcoin may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the Index Price and could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of Digital Asset Exchanges, they may experience fraud, security failures or operational problems, which may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and, consequently, the value of the Shares. Digital Asset Exchanges are relatively new and, in some cases, unregulated. Furthermore, while many prominent Digital Asset Exchanges provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance, many Digital Asset Exchanges do not provide this information. Digital Asset Exchanges do not appear to be subject to regulation in a similar manner as other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in Digital Asset Exchanges, including prominent exchanges that handle a significant volume of Bitcoin trading. Many Digital Asset Exchanges are unlicensed, unregulated, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these Digital Asset Exchanges is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80-95% of Bitcoin trading volume on Digital Asset Exchanges was false or non-economic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. Such reports may indicate that the Digital Asset Exchange Market is significantly smaller than expected and that the U.S. makes up a significantly larger percentage of the Digital Asset Exchange Market than is commonly understood. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the Digital Asset Exchange Market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and/or negatively affect the market perception of Bitcoin. In addition, over the past several years, some Digital Asset Exchanges have been closed due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such Digital Asset Exchanges were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such Digital Asset Exchanges. While smaller Digital Asset Exchanges are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger Digital Asset Exchanges more stable, larger Digital Asset Exchanges are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and malware and may be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, the collapse of Mt. Gox, which filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan in late February 2014, demonstrated that even the largest Digital Asset Exchanges could be subject to abrupt failure with consequences for both users of 50 Table of Contents Digital Asset Exchanges and the digital asset industry as a whole. In particular, in the two weeks that followed the February 7, 2014 halt of Bitcoin withdrawals from Mt. Gox, the value of one Bitcoin fell on other exchanges from around $795 on February 6, 2014 to $578 on February 20, 2014. Additionally, in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 Bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets. Further, in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 Bitcoins worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex, a large Digital Asset Exchange. The value of Bitcoin and other digital assets immediately decreased over 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex and the Shares suffered a corresponding decrease in value. In July 2017, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-E, a now defunct Digital Asset Exchange, for facilitating crimes such as drug sales and ransomware attacks. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based cryptocurrency exchange Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. Following the hack, Youbit users were allowed to withdraw approximately 75% of the digital assets in their exchange accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, in January 2018, the Japanese digital asset exchange, Coincheck, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $535 million, and in February 2018, the Italian Digital Asset Exchange, Bitgrail, was hacked, resulting in approximately $170 million in losses. Most recently in May 2019, one of the world’s largest Digital Asset Exchanges, Binance, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $40 million. Negative perception, a lack of stability in the Digital Asset Markets and the closure or temporary shutdown of Digital Asset Exchanges due to fraud, failure or security breaches may reduce confidence in the Bitcoin Network and result in greater volatility in the prices of Bitcoin. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a Digital Asset Exchange used in calculating the Index Price may result in a loss of confidence in the Trust’s ability to determine its Digital Asset Holdings on a daily basis. These potential consequences of such a Digital Asset Exchange’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The Index has a limited history and a failure of the Index Price could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The Index has a limited history and the Index Price is a composite reference rate calculated using volume-weighted trading price data from various Digital Asset Exchanges chosen by the Index Provider. The Digital Asset Exchanges chosen by the Index Provider have also changed over time. For example, effective January 19, 2020, the Index Provider removed Bittrex and added LMAX Digital as part of its scheduled quarterly review. On April 6, 2020, the Index Provider removed itBit and did not add any constituents as part of its scheduled quarterly review. The Index Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Exchanges to the Index in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Digital Asset Exchanges in the Index, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Bitcoin Industry and Market— Bitcoin Value—The Index and the Index Price.” Although the Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of Bitcoin, third parties may be able to purchase and sell Bitcoin on public or private markets not included among the constituent Digital Asset Exchanges of the Index, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of Bitcoin on the various Digital Asset Exchanges, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Exchanges. For example, based on data provided by the Index Provider, on any given day during the year ended December 31, 2021, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot price of any single Digital Asset Exchange included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.64% (8.50% based on Old Index Price) and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of each Digital Asset Exchange included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.32% (8.47% based on Old Index Price). During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot prices of all the Digital Asset Exchanges included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.0003% (0.24% based on Old Index Price). During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot prices of all the Digital Asset Exchanges included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.0003%. All Digital Asset Exchanges that were included in the Index throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of Bitcoins, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The Index Price used to calculate the value of the Trust’s Bitcoin may be volatile, and purchasing activity in the Digital Asset Markets associated with Basket creations may affect the Index Price and Share trading prices, adversely affecting the value of the Shares. The price of Bitcoin on public Digital Asset Exchanges has a very limited history, and during this history, Bitcoin prices on the Digital Asset Markets more generally, and on Digital Asset Exchanges individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While the Index is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual Digital Asset Exchanges, the Index Price, and the price of Bitcoin generally, remains subject to volatility experienced by Digital Asset Exchanges, and such volatility could adversely affect the value of the Shares. For example, since the beginning of the Trust’s operations, the Index Price ranged from $117.03 to $67,352.59 ($117.03 to $67,397.98 based on Old Index Price), with the straight average being $9,535.36 ($9,508.58 based on Old Index Price) through December 31, 2021. In addition, in the twelve months from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021, the Index Price ranged from $29,311.80 to $67,352.59 ($29,235.54 to $67,397.98 based on Old Index Price). The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the constituent Digital Asset Exchanges individually or as a group. The price of Bitcoin more generally has experienced volatility similar to the Index Price during these periods. For additional information on movement of the Index Price and the price of Bitcoin, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical Digital Asset Holdings and Bitcoin Prices.” Furthermore, because the number of Digital Asset Exchanges is limited, the Index will necessarily be composed of a limited number of Digital Asset Exchanges. If a Digital Asset Exchange were subjected to regulatory, volatility or other pricing issues, the Index Provider would have limited ability to remove such Digital Asset Exchange from the Index, which could skew the price of Bitcoin as represented by the Index. Trading on a limited number of Digital Asset Exchanges may result in less favorable prices and decreased liquidity of Bitcoin and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. 51 Table of Contents Purchasing activity associated with acquiring Bitcoin required for the creation of Baskets may increase the market price of Bitcoin on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Increases in the market price of Bitcoin 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 Bitcoin that may result from increased purchasing activity of Bitcoin connected with the issuance of Baskets. Consequently, the market price of Bitcoin may decline immediately after Baskets are created. Decreases in the market price of Bitcoin may also occur as a result of sales in Secondary Markets by other market participants. If the Index Price declines, the trading price of the Shares will generally also decline. Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets or methods of investing in Bitcoin could have a negative impact on the price of Bitcoin and adversely affect the value of the Shares. Bitcoin was the first digital asset to gain global adoption and critical mass, and as a result, it has a “first to market” advantage over other digital assets. As of December 31, 2021, Bitcoin was the largest digital asset by market capitalization and had the largest user base and largest combined mining power. Despite this first to market advantage, as of December 31, 2021, there were over 16,000 alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com, having a total market-capitalization of approximately $2,066.4 billion (including the approximately $875.9 billion market cap of Bitcoin), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding tokens pegged to other assets. In addition, many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned smart contract platforms rather than open platforms like the Bitcoin Network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Solana, Avalanche, Terra or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, Bitcoin and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares. In addition, some digital asset networks, including the Bitcoin Network, may be the target of ill will from users of other digital asset networks. For example, Litecoin is the result of a hard fork of Bitcoin. Some users of the Bitcoin Network may harbor ill will toward the Litecoin Network, and vice versa. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the Bitcoin Network. Investors may invest in Bitcoin through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in Bitcoin and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to Bitcoin and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Sponsor’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles or to invest in Bitcoin directly, which could limit the market for, and reduce the liquidity of, the Shares. In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of Bitcoin are formed and represent a significant proportion of the demand for Bitcoin, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding Bitcoin, could negatively affect the Index Price, the Digital Asset Holdings, the price of the Shares, the NAV and the NAV per Share. Moreover, any reduced demand for Shares of the Trust may cause the Shares of the Trust to trade at a discount to the Digital Asset Holdings per Share. Failure of funds that hold digital assets or that have exposure to digital assets through derivatives to receive SEC approval to list their shares on exchanges could adversely affect the value of the Shares. There have been a growing a 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. The SEC has 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. Furthermore, NYSE Arca previously withdrew the Sponsor’s application with the SEC to list the Trust on a national security exchange. Requests to list the shares of other funds on national securities exchanges have also been submitted to the SEC. Although the SEC approved several futures-based Bitcoin ETFs in October 2021, it has not approved any requests to list the shares of digital asset funds like the Trust to date. The requests to list the shares of digital asset funds submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) and the NYSE Arca in 2019 were withdrawn or received disapprovals. Subsequently, NYSE Arca and CBOE filed several new requests to list shares of various digital asset funds in 2021. Several of those requests were recently denied by the SEC in 2021 and to date in 2022. On October 19, 2021, NYSE Arca filed an application with the SEC pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act to list the Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca. As of the date of this Annual Report, the NYSE Arca 19b-4 application has not been approved by the SEC and the Trust has not sought relief from the SEC under Regulation M to operate an ongoing redemption program, and neither the Sponsor nor the Trust makes any representation as to if or when such approval and relief will be obtained. The exchange listing of shares of digital asset funds would create more opportunities for institutional and retail investors to invest in the digital asset market. If exchange-listing requests are not approved by the SEC and further requests are ultimately denied by the SEC, increased investment interest by institutional or retail investors could fail to materialize, which could reduce the demand for digital assets generally and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares. 52 Table of Contents Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares The Trust faces risks related to the COVID-19 outbreak, which could negatively impact the value of the Trust’s holdings and significantly disrupt its affairs. An outbreak of infectious respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-19 (“COVID-19”) was first detected in China in December 2019 and has now been spread globally. This outbreak has resulted in travel restrictions, closed international borders, enhanced health screenings at ports of entry and elsewhere, disruption of and delays in healthcare service preparation and delivery, prolonged quarantines, cancellations, lower consumer demand, layoffs, defaults and other significant economic impacts, as well as general concern and uncertainty. COVID-19 has had and will likely continue to have serious adverse effects on the economies and financial markets of many countries, resulting in an economic downturn that may adversely affect demand for digital assets generally and impact the value of, and demand for, the digital assets held by the Trust. Although the duration and magnitude of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak or the occurrence of other epidemics or pandemics on the digital assets held by the Trust remains uncertain, the continued spread of COVID-19 and the imposition of related public health measures and travel and business restrictions have resulted in, and will continue to result in, increased volatility and uncertainty in economies and financial markets of many countries, which may include the Digital Asset Markets. For example, digital asset prices, including BTC, decreased significantly in the first quarter of 2020 amidst broader market declines as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. Governmental authorities and regulators throughout the world have, in the past, responded to major economic disruptions with a variety of fiscal and monetary policy changes, such as quantitative easing, new monetary programs and lower interest rates. An unexpected or quick reversal of these policies, or the ineffectiveness of these policies, is likely to increase volatility in economies and financial market generally, and could specifically increase volatility in the Digital Asset Markets, which could adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and the value of the Shares. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the operations of many businesses. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sponsor has made certain adjustments to its operations, including moving all of its employees to a remote working situation as of March 31, 2020. While the operations of the Sponsor and the Trust have not been materially impacted as of the date hereof, there can be no assurance that further developments with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic will not have such an impact. Moreover, the Trust relies on third party service providers to perform certain functions essential to managing the affairs of the Trust. Any disruptions to the Trust’s service providers’ business operations resulting from business restrictions, quarantines or restrictions on the ability of personnel to perform their jobs could have an adverse impact on the Trust’s ability to access critical services and would be disruptive to the affairs of the Trust. The COVID-19 outbreak or a similar pandemic could also cause disruption to Digital Asset Markets, including the closure of Digital Asset Exchanges, which could impact the price of Bitcoin and impact the Index or the Index Provider’s operations, all of which could have a negative impact on the Trust. Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program and the Trust’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 Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the Digital Asset Holdings per Share. 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 Trust does not currently operate an ongoing redemption program and may halt creations from time to time. As a result, the Trust cannot rely on arbitrage opportunities resulting from differences between the value of the Shares and the price of Bitcoin to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price. As a result, the value of the Shares of the Trust may not approximate the value of the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share or meet the Trust’s investment objective, and may trade at a substantial premium over, or substantial discount to, the value of the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share. For example, in the past, the price of the Shares as quoted on OTCQX varied significantly from the Digital Asset Holdings per Share due to these factors, among others, and has historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the Digital Asset Holdings per Share. The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share as a result of the non- current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Exchange Market. The Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share will fluctuate with changes in the market value of Bitcoin, and the Sponsor expects the trading price of the Shares to fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share, as well as market supply and demand. However, the Shares may trade on OTCQX at, above or below the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings 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 Exchange Market is a 24-hour marketplace. During periods when OTCQX is closed but Digital Asset Exchanges are open, significant changes in the price of Bitcoin on the Digital Asset Exchange Market could result in a difference in performance between the value of Bitcoin as measured by the Index and the most recent Digital Asset Holdings per Share or closing trading price. For example, if the price of Bitcoin on the Digital Asset Exchange Market, and the value of Bitcoin as measured by the Index, 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 Bitcoin on the Digital Asset Exchange Market drops significantly during hours OTCQX is closed, shareholders 53 Table of Contents 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 Exchanges (or a substantial number of smaller Digital Asset Exchanges) 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. Shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment if the Shares trade above or below the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share. Historically, the Shares have traded at a substantial premium over the Digital Asset Holdings per Share. More recently, the Shares have traded at a substantial discount to the Digital Asset Holdings per Share. If the Shares trade at a premium, investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. In contrast, if the Shares trade on OTCQX at a discount, investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX. The premium at which the Shares have traded has fluctuated over time. From May 5, 2015 to December 31, 2021, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share was 142% (142% based on Old Index Price) and the average premium was 37% (37% based on Old Index Price). Moreover, the closing price of the Shares as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day, has been quoted at a discount on 217 days (217 days based on Old Index Price). From May 5, 2015 to December 31, 2021, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share was 21% (22% based on Old Index Price) and the average discount was 13% (13% based on Old Index Price). As of December 31, 2021, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a discount of 20% (22% based on Old Index Price) to the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings per Share. As a result, shareholders who purchase Shares on OTCQX may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the premium has decreased from the premium at which they purchased the Shares even if the Digital Asset Holdings per Share remains the same. Likewise, shareholders that purchase Shares directly from the Trust may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the Shares are trading at a discount on OTCQX. Furthermore, shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment even if the Digital Asset Holdings per Share increases because the decrease in any premium or increase in any discount may offset any increase in the Digital Asset Holdings per Share. The amount of the Trust’s assets represented by each Share will decline over time as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses, and as a result, the value of the Shares may decrease over time. The Sponsor’s Fee accrues daily in U.S. dollars at an annual rate based on the Digital Asset Holdings Fee Basis Amount, which is based on the Digital Asset Holdings of the Trust, and is paid to the Sponsor in Bitcoin. See “Item 1. Business—Activities of the Trust—Disposition of Bitcoins, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency” and “Item 1. Business—Activities of the Trust—Hypothetical Expense Example.” As a result, the amount of Trust’s assets represented by each Share declines as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee (or sells Bitcoin in order to raise cash to pay any Additional Trust Expenses), which may cause the Shares to decrease in value over time or dampen any increase in value. The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the value of Bitcoin. The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of Bitcoin and the Digital Asset Exchanges included in the Index that may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. These factors include the following factors: • Unanticipated problems or issues with respect to the mechanics of the Trust’s operations and the trading of the Shares may arise, in particular due to the fact that the mechanisms and procedures governing the creation and offering of the Shares and storage of Bitcoin have been developed specifically for this product; • The Trust could experience difficulties in operating and maintaining its technical infrastructure, including in connection with expansions or updates to such infrastructure, which are likely to be complex and could lead to unanticipated delays, unforeseen expenses and security vulnerabilities; • The Trust could experience unforeseen issues relating to the performance and effectiveness of the security procedures used to protect the Digital Asset Account, or the security procedures may not protect against all errors, software flaws or other vulnerabilities in the Trust’s technical infrastructure, which could result in theft, loss or damage of its assets; or • Service providers may decide to terminate their relationships with the Trust due to concerns that the introduction of privacy enhancing features to the Bitcoin Network may increase the potential for Bitcoin to be used to facilitate crime, exposing such service providers to potential reputational harm. Any of these factors could affect the value of the Shares, either directly or indirectly through their effect on the Trust’s assets. Shareholders do not have the protections associated with ownership of shares in an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act or the protections afforded by the CEA. The Investment Company Act is designed to protect investors by preventing insiders from managing investment companies to their benefit and to the detriment of public investors, such as: the issuance of securities having inequitable or discriminatory provisions; the management of investment companies by irresponsible persons; the use of unsound or misleading methods of computing 54 Table of Contents earnings and asset value; changes in the character of investment companies without the consent of investors; and investment companies from engaging in excessive leveraging. To accomplish these ends, the Investment Company Act requires the safekeeping and proper valuation of fund assets, restricts greatly transactions with affiliates, limits leveraging, and imposes governance requirements as a check on fund management. The Trust is not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act, and the Sponsor believes that the Trust is not required to register under such act. Consequently, shareholders do not have the regulatory protections provided to investors in investment companies. The Trust will not hold or trade in commodity interests regulated by the CEA, as administered by the CFTC. Furthermore, the Sponsor believes that the Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the CEA, and that neither the Sponsor nor the Trustee is subject to regulation by the CFTC as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading adviser in connection with the operation of the Trust. Consequently, shareholders will not have the regulatory protections provided to investors in CEA-regulated instruments or commodity pools. The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on an investment in the Shares. Shares purchased in the private placement may not be resold except in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act and state securities laws, and any such transaction must be approved in advance by the Sponsor. In determining whether to grant approval, the Sponsor will specifically look at whether the conditions of Rule 144 under the Securities Act and any other applicable laws have been met. Any attempt to sell Shares without the approval of the Sponsor in its sole discretion will be void ab initio . See “Item 1. Business—Description of the Shares—Transfer Restrictions” for more information. At this time the Sponsor is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. Therefore, unless the Trust is permitted to, and does, establish a Share redemption program, shareholders will be unable to (or could be significantly impeded in attempting to) sell or otherwise liquidate investments in the Shares, which could have a material adverse impact on demand for the Shares and their value. The Trust and an affiliate of the Trust previously entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC concerning the operation of the Trust’s former redemption program. On April 1, 2014, a program was launched pursuant to which shareholders could request redemptions from Genesis, an affiliate of the Trust and the sole Authorized Participant at that time. On September 23, 2014, Genesis received a letter from the staff of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations summarizing the staff’s findings from an onsite review of Genesis’s broker-dealer activities conducted in June 2014. In its exit report, the staff stated that it had concluded that the Trust’s redemption program, in which shareholders were permitted to request the redemption of their Shares through Genesis, appeared to violate Regulation M under the Exchange Act because such redemptions of Shares took place at the same time the Trust was in the process of creating Shares. On July 11, 2016, Genesis and the Trust entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC whereby they agreed to a cease-and-desist order against future violations of Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M under the Exchange Act. Genesis also agreed to pay disgorgement of $51,650.11 in redemption fees it collected, plus prejudgment interest of $2,105.68, for a total of $53,755.79. The Trust currently has no intention of seeking an exemption from the SEC under Regulation M in order to reinstate its redemption program. There is no guarantee that an active trading market for the Shares will continue to develop. The Shares are qualified for public trading on OTCQX and an active trading market for the Shares has developed. However, there can be no assurance that such trading market will be maintained or continue to develop. In addition, OTCQX can halt the trading of the Shares for a variety of reasons. To the extent that OTCQX halts trading in the Shares, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, investors may not be able to buy or sell Shares, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares. If an active trading market for the Shares does not continue to exist, the market prices and liquidity of the Shares may be adversely affected. On October 19, 2021, NYSE Arca filed an application with the SEC pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act to list the Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca. NYSE Arca must receive approval from the SEC in order to list the Shares. During 2016 and 2017, NYSE Arca and other exchanges filed several requests with the SEC to list the shares of digital asset funds, including the Shares. After the SEC issued disapprovals for a number of these requests, NYSE Arca withdrew its request relating to the Shares. Although the SEC approved several futures-based Bitcoin ETFs in October 2021, it has not approved any requests to list the shares of digital asset funds like the Trust to date. The requests to list the shares of digital asset funds submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) and the NYSE Arca in 2019 were withdrawn or received disapprovals. Subsequently, NYSE Arca and CBOE filed several new requests to list shares of various digital asset funds in 2021. Several of those requests were recently denied by the SEC in 2021 and to date in 2022. As of the date of this Annual Report, the NYSE Arca 19b-4 application has not been approved by the SEC and the Trust has not sought relief from the SEC under Regulation M to operate an ongoing redemption program, and neither the Sponsor nor the Trust makes any representation as to if or when such approval and relief will be obtained. As such, there is no guarantee that we will be successful in listing the Shares on NYSE Arca even once we decide to do so. 55 Table of Contents As the Sponsor and its management have limited history of operating investment vehicles like the Trust, their experience may be inadequate or unsuitable to manage the Trust. The past performances of the Sponsor’s management in other investment vehicles, including their experiences in the digital asset and venture capital industries, are no indication of their ability to manage an investment vehicle such as the Trust. If the experience of the Sponsor and its management is inadequate or unsuitable to manage an investment vehicle such as the Trust, the operations of the Trust may be adversely affected. Furthermore, the Sponsor is currently engaged in the management of other investment vehicles which could divert their attention and resources. If the Sponsor were to experience difficulties in the management of such other investment vehicles that damaged the Sponsor or its reputation, it could have an adverse impact on the Sponsor’s ability to continue to serve as Sponsor for the Trust. Security threats to the Digital Asset Account could result in the halting of Trust operations and a loss of Trust assets or damage to the reputation of the Trust, each of which could result in a reduction in the value of the Shares. Security breaches, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in relation to digital assets. The Sponsor believes that the Trust’s Bitcoins held in the Digital Asset Account will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s Bitcoins and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. To the extent that the Trust, the Sponsor or the Custodian is unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats or otherwise adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, the Trust’s Bitcoins may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack. The Sponsor believes that the security procedures in place for the Trust, including, but not limited to, offline storage, or cold storage, multiple encrypted private key “shards”, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification, are reasonably designed to safeguard the Trust’s Bitcoins. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Trust. The security procedures and operational infrastructure may be breached due to the actions of outside parties, error or malfeasance of an employee of the Sponsor, the Custodian, or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to a Digital Asset Account, the relevant private keys (and therefore Bitcoin) or other data of the Trust. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor or the Custodian to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to the Trust’s infrastructure. As the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently, or may be designed to remain dormant until a predetermined event and often are not recognized until launched against a target, the Sponsor and the Custodian may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. An actual or perceived breach of a Digital Asset Account could harm the Trust’s operations, result in loss of the Trust’s assets, damage the Trust’s reputation and negatively affect the market perception of the effectiveness of the Trust, all of which could in turn reduce demand for the Shares, resulting in a reduction in the value of the Shares. The Trust may also cease operations, the occurrence of which could similarly result in a reduction in the value of the Shares. Bitcoin transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred Bitcoins may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed Bitcoin transactions could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Bitcoin transactions are typically not reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the transaction. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to the Blockchain, an incorrect transfer or theft of Bitcoin generally will not be reversible and the Trust may not be capable of seeking compensation for any such transfer or theft. Although the Trust’s transfers of Bitcoin will regularly be made to or from the Digital Asset Account, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s Bitcoin could be transferred from the Trust’s Digital Asset Account in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties, or to uncontrolled accounts. Such events have occurred in connection with digital assets in the past. For example, in September 2014, the Chinese Digital Asset Exchange Huobi announced that it had sent approximately 900 Bitcoins and 8,000 Litecoins (worth approximately $400,000 at the prevailing market prices at the time) to the wrong customers. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek a corrective transaction with such third party or is incapable of identifying the third party which has received the Trust’s Bitcoins through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred Bitcoins. The Trust will also be unable to convert or recover its Bitcoins transferred to uncontrolled accounts. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek redress for such error or theft, such loss could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The Sponsor may need to find and appoint a replacement custodian, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s Bitcoins. The Sponsor could decide to replace Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC as the custodian of the Trust’s Bitcoins. Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Digital Asset Account to another party will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s Bitcoin to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Trust’s assets. The Sponsor may not be able to find a party willing to serve as the custodian under the same terms as the current Custodian Agreement. To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s Bitcoin. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party but must enter into a modified Custodian Agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Sponsor, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected. 56 Table of Contents The lack of full insurance and shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Transfer Agent and Custodian expose the Trust and its shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s Bitcoins for which no person or entity is liable. The Trust is not a banking institution or otherwise a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, deposits held with or assets held by the Trust are not subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors with FDIC or SIPC member institutions. In addition, neither the Trust nor the Sponsor insure the Trust’s Bitcoins. While the Custodian has advised the Sponsor that it has insurance coverage of up to $320 million that covers losses of the digital assets it custodies on behalf of its clients, including the Trust’s Bitcoin, resulting from theft, shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s Bitcoins. While the Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Sponsor does not know the amount of such capital reserves, and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor have access to such information. The Trust cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. Furthermore, under the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian’s liability with respect to the Trust will never exceed the value of the Bitcoins on deposit in the Digital Asset Account at the time of, and directly relating to, the events giving rise to the liability occurred, as determined in accordance with the Custodian Agreement. In addition, for as long as a cold storage address holds Bitcoin with a value in excess of $100 million (the “Cold Storage Threshold”) for a period of five consecutive business days or more without being reduced to the Cold Storage Threshold or lower, the Custodian’s maximum liability for such cold storage address shall be limited to the Cold Storage Threshold. The Sponsor monitors the value of Bitcoins deposited in cold storage addresses for whether the Cold Storage Threshold has been met by determining the U.S. dollar value of Bitcoins deposited in each cold storage address on business days. The Custodian is not liable for any lost profits or any special, incidental, indirect, intangible, or consequential damages, whether based in contract, tort, negligence, strict liability or otherwise, and whether or not the Custodian has been advised of such losses or the Custodian knew or should have known of the possibility of such damages. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Custodian is liable to the Sponsor and the Trust for the loss of any Bitcoins to the extent that the Custodian directly caused such loss (including if the Trust or the Sponsor is not able to timely withdraw Bitcoin from the Digital Asset Account according to the Custodian Agreement), even if the Custodian meets its duty of exercising best efforts, and the Custodian is required to return to the Trust a quantity equal to the quantity of any such lost Bitcoin. Although the Cold Storage Threshold has never been met for a given cold storage address, to the extent it is met and not reduced within five business days, the Trust would not have a claim against the Custodian with respect to the digital assets held in such address to the extent the value exceeds the Cold Storage Threshold. The shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including those relating to the provision of instructions relating to the movement of Bitcoin, is limited. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s Bitcoin that is not covered by insurance and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the shareholders, under New York law, is limited. The Trust may be required, or the Sponsor may deem it appropriate, to terminate and liquidate at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders. Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust is required to dissolve under certain circumstances. In addition, the Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, dissolve the Trust for a number of reasons, including if the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that it is desirable or advisable for any reason to discontinue the affairs of the Trust. For example, the Sponsor expects that it may be advisable to discontinue the affairs of the Trust if the SEC or a federal court were to determine that Bitcoin is a security under the federal securities laws, among other reasons. See “Description of the Trust Documents—The Trustee—Termination of the Trust.” If the Trust is required to terminate and liquidate, or the Sponsor determines in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement that it is appropriate to terminate and liquidate the Trust, such termination and liquidation could occur at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders, such as when the Actual Exchange Rate of Bitcoin is lower than the Index Price was at the time when shareholders purchased their Shares. In such a case, when the Trust’s Bitcoins are sold as part of its liquidation, the resulting proceeds distributed to shareholders will be less than if the Actual Exchange Rate were higher at the time of sale. See “Item 1. Business—Description of the Trust Agreement—The Trustee—Termination of the Trust” for more information about the termination of the Trust, including when the termination of the Trust may be triggered by events outside the direct control of the Sponsor, the Trustee or the shareholders. The Trust Agreement includes provisions that limit shareholders’ voting rights and restrict shareholders’ right to bring a derivative action. Under the Trust Agreement, shareholders have limited voting rights and the Trust will not have regular shareholder meetings. Shareholders take no part in the management or control of the Trust. Accordingly, shareholders do not have the right to authorize actions, appoint service providers or take other actions as may be taken by shareholders of other trusts or companies where shares carry such rights. The shareholders’ limited voting rights give almost all control under the Trust Agreement to the Sponsor and the Trustee. The Sponsor may take actions in the operation of the Trust that may be adverse to the interests of shareholders and may adversely affect the value of the Shares. 57 Table of Contents Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, shareholders’ statutory right under Delaware law to bring a derivative action (i.e., to initiate a lawsuit in the name of the Trust in order to assert a claim belonging to the Trust against a fiduciary of the Trust or against a third-party when the Trust’s management has refused to do so) is restricted. Under Delaware law, a shareholder may bring a derivative action if the shareholder is a shareholder at the time the action is brought and either (i) was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue or (ii) acquired the status of shareholder by operation of law or the Trust’s governing instrument from a person who was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue. Additionally, Section 3816(e) of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act specifically provides that a “beneficial owner’s right to bring a derivative action may be subject to such additional standards and restrictions, if any, as are set forth in the governing instrument of the statutory trust, including, without limitation, the requirement that beneficial owners owning a specified beneficial interest in the statutory trust join in the bringing of the derivative action.” In addition to the requirements of applicable law and in accordance with Section 3816(e), the Trust Agreement provides that no shareholder will have the right, power or authority to bring or maintain a derivative action, suit or other proceeding on behalf of the Trust unless two or more shareholders who (i) are not “Affiliates” (as defined in the Trust Agreement and below) of one another and (ii) collectively hold at least 10.0% of the outstanding Shares join in the bringing or maintaining of such action, suit or other proceeding. This provision applies to any derivative actions brought in the name of the Trust other than claims under the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Due to this additional requirement, a shareholder attempting to bring or maintain a derivative action in the name of the Trust will be required to locate other shareholders with which it is not affiliated and that have sufficient Shares to meet the 10.0% threshold based on the number of Shares outstanding on the date the claim is brought and thereafter throughout the duration of the action, suit or proceeding. This may be difficult and may result in increased costs to a shareholder attempting to seek redress in the name of the Trust in court. Moreover, if shareholders bringing a derivative action, suit or proceeding pursuant to this provision of the Trust Agreement do not hold 10.0% of the outstanding Shares on the date such an action, suit or proceeding is brought, or such shareholders are unable to maintain Share ownership meeting the 10.0% threshold throughout the duration of the action, suit or proceeding, such shareholders’ derivative action may be subject to dismissal. As a result, the Trust Agreement limits the likelihood that a shareholder will be able to successfully assert a derivative action in the name of the Trust, even if such shareholder believes that he or she has a valid derivative action, suit or other proceeding to bring on behalf of the Trust. See “Item 1. Business—Description of the Trust Agreement—The Sponsor—The Fiduciary and Regulatory Duties of the Sponsor” for more detail. The Sponsor is solely responsible for determining the value of the Digital Asset Holdings and Digital Asset Holdings per Share and any errors, discontinuance or changes in such valuation calculations may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. The Sponsor will determine the Trust’s Digital Asset Holdings and Digital Asset Holdings per Share on a daily basis as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. The Sponsor’s determination is made utilizing data from the operations of the Trust and the Index Price, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such day. If the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate Bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will employ an alternative method to determine the Index Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Bitcoin Industry and Market—Bitcoin Value—The Index and the Index Price— Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable.” There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment as to which of the rules the Sponsor will apply and the Sponsor may make this determination in its sole discretion. The Sponsor may calculate the Index Price in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of Bitcoin. To the extent that the Digital Asset Holdings, Digital Asset Holdings per Share or the Index Price are incorrectly calculated, the Sponsor may not be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the Index Price used to calculate the Digital Asset Holdings and Digital Asset Holdings per Share of the Trust. Any such change in the Index Price could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Extraordinary expenses resulting from unanticipated events may become payable by the Trust, adversely affecting the value of the Shares. In consideration for the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor has contractually assumed all ordinary-course operational and periodic expenses of the Trust. See “Item 1. Business—Expenses; Sales of Bitcoin.” Extraordinary expenses incurred by the Trust, such as taxes and governmental charges; expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust or the interests of shareholders (including in connection with any Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency); or extraordinary legal fees and expenses are not assumed by the Sponsor and are borne by the Trust. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to either (i) sell Bitcoin, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency held by the Trust or (ii) deliver Bitcoin, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in-kind to pay Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor on an as-needed basis. Accordingly, the Trust may be required to sell or otherwise dispose of Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency at a time when the trading prices for those assets are depressed. 58 Table of Contents The sale or other disposition of assets of the Trust in order to pay extraordinary expenses could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares for several reasons. These include the following factors: • The Trust is not actively managed and no attempt will be made to protect against or to take advantage of fluctuations in the prices of Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Consequently, if the Trust incurs expenses in U.S. dollars, the Trust’s Bitcoins, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency may be sold at a time when the values of the disposed assets are low, resulting in a negative impact on the value of the Shares. • Because the Trust does not generate any income, every time that the Trust pays expenses, it will deliver Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to the Sponsor or sell Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Any sales of the Trust’s assets in connection with the payment of expenses will decrease the amount of the Trust’s assets represented by each Share each time its assets are sold or transferred to the Sponsor. • Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery or sale of Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and/or Additional Trust Expenses will be a taxable event to beneficial owners of Shares. Thus, the Trust’s payment of expenses could result in beneficial owners of Shares incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust. Any such tax liability could adversely affect an investment in the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.” The Trust’s delivery or sale of Bitcoin to pay expenses or other operations of the Trust could result in shareholders’ incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust. Assuming that the Trust is treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery of Bitcoin by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses and each sale of Bitcoin by the Trust to pay Additional Trust Expenses will be a taxable event to beneficial owners of Shares. Thus, the Trust’s payment of expenses could result in beneficial owners of Shares incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust. Any such tax liability could adversely affect an investment in the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.” The value of the Shares will be adversely affected if the Trust is required to indemnify the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent or the Custodian under the Trust Documents. Under the Trust Documents, each of the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent and the Custodian has a right to be indemnified by the Trust for certain liabilities or expenses that it incurs without gross negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct on its part. Therefore, the Sponsor, Trustee, Transfer Agent or the Custodian may require that the assets of the Trust be sold in order to cover losses or liability suffered by it. Any sale of that kind would reduce the Digital Asset Holdings of the Trust and the value of the Shares. Intellectual property rights claims may adversely affect the Trust and the value of the Shares. The Sponsor is not aware of any intellectual property rights claims that may prevent the Trust from operating and holding Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. However, third parties may assert intellectual property rights claims relating to the operation of the Trust and the mechanics instituted for the investment in, holding of and transfer of Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Regardless of the merit of an intellectual property or other legal action, any legal expenses to defend or payments to settle such claims would be extraordinary expenses that would be borne by the Trust through the sale or transfer of its Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property rights claim could prevent the Trust from operating and force the Sponsor to terminate the Trust and liquidate its Bitcoin, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. As a result, an intellectual property rights claim against the Trust could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of the Trust and the Shares Regulatory changes or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of Bitcoins, mining activity or the operation of the Bitcoin Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares. As digital assets have grown in both popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, SEC, CFTC, FINRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Justice, The Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS and state financial institution regulators) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the Digital Asset Markets, with particular focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities or fund criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness of exchanges and other service providers that hold digital assets for users. Many of these state and federal agencies have issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or Bitcoin in particular may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate. In August 2021, the chair of the SEC stated that he believed investors using digital asset trading platforms are not adequately protected, and that activities on the platforms can implicate the securities laws, commodities laws and banking laws, raising a number of issues related to protecting investors and consumers, guarding against illicit activity, and ensuring financial stability. The chair expressed a need for the SEC to have additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from “falling between 59 Table of Contents regulatory cracks,” as well as for more resources to protect investors in “this growing and volatile sector.” The chair called for federal legislation centering on digital asset trading, lending, and decentralized finance platforms, seeking “additional plenary authority” to write rules for digital asset trading and lending. It is not possible to predict whether Congress will grant additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how they might impact the ability of Digital Asset Markets to function or how any new regulations that may flow from such authorities might impact the value of digital assets generally and Bitcoin held by the Trust specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Trust and the Shares. Law enforcement agencies have often relied on the transparency of blockchains to facilitate investigations. However, certain privacy-enhancing features have been, or are expected to be, introduced to a number of digital asset networks. If the Bitcoin Network were to adopt any of these features, these features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction-level data. Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, released a report in October 2017 noting the increased use of privacy- enhancing digital assets like Zcash and Monero in criminal activity on the internet. Although no regulatory action has been taken to treat privacy-enhancing digital assets differently, this may change in the future. 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 by senior officials at the SEC indicate that the SEC does not consider Bitcoin or Ethereum to be securities, 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. 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. Finally, the Sponsor discusses the security status of Bitcoin with its external securities lawyers. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that Bitcoin is not a security in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests. However, because of these uncertainties, 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, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on the presence of a security. As is the case with Bitcoin, analyses from counsel typically review the often-complex facts surrounding a particular digital asset’s underlying technology, creation, use case and usage, distribution and secondary-market trading characteristics as well as contributions of the individuals or organizations who appear to be involved in these activities, among other relevant facts, usually drawing on publicly available information. This information, usually found on the Internet, often includes both information that originated with or is attributed to such individuals or organizations, as well as information from third party sources and databases that may or may not have a connection to such individuals or organizations, and the availability and nature of such information can change over time. The Sponsor and counsel often have no independent means of verifying the accuracy or completeness of such information, and therefore of necessity usually must assume that such information is materially accurate and complete for purposes of the Howey and Reves analyses. After having gathered this information, counsel typically analyzes it in light of the Howey and Reves tests, in order to inform a judgment as to whether or not a federal court would conclude that the digital asset in question is or is not a security for purposes of the federal securities laws. Often, certain factors appear to support a conclusion that the digital asset in question is a security, while other factors appear to support the opposite conclusion, and in such a case counsel endeavors to weigh the importance and relevance of the competing factors. This analytical process is further complicated by the fact that, at present, federal judicial case law applying the relevant tests to digital assets is scant, with no federal appellate court having considered the question on the merits, as well as the fact that because each digital asset presents its own unique set of relevant facts, it is not always possible to directly analogize the analysis of one digital asset to another. Because of this factual complexity and the current lack of a well-developed body of federal case law applying the relevant tests to a variety of different fact patterns, the Sponsor has not in the past received, and currently does not expect that it would be able to 60 Table of Contents receive, “opinions” of counsel stating that a particular digital asset is or is not a security for federal securities law purposes. The Sponsor understands that as a matter of practice, counsel is generally able to render a legal “opinion” only when the relevant facts are substantially ascertainable and the applicable law is both well-developed and settled. As a result, given the relative novelty of digital assets, the challenges inherent in fact-gathering for particular digital assets, and the fact that federal courts have only recently been tasked with adjudicating the applicability of federal securities law to digital assets, the Sponsor understands that at present counsel is generally not in a position to render a legal “opinion” on the securities-law status of Bitcoin or any other particular digital asset. The Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding Bitcoin (and therefore would dissolve the Trust) if the Sponsor determines it 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 promoters of XRP 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. The SEC’s action against XRP’s promoters underscores the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets are securities, and demonstrates that such factors as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is and that it has actual usefulness in commercial transactions, ultimately may have no bearing on whether the SEC or a court will find it to be a security. 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. As a result, if the SEC or a federal court were to determine that Bitcoin is a security, it is likely that the value of the Shares of the Trust would decline significantly, and that the Trust itself would be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated. Changes in SEC policy could adversely impact the value of the Shares. The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or the digital assets held by the Trust is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares. In particular, the SEC has not yet approved the listing on a national securities exchange of any digital-asset focused exchange- traded fund (“ETF”). If the SEC were to approve any such ETF in the future, such an ETF may be perceived to be a superior investment product offering exposure to digital assets compared to the Trust because the value of the shares issued by such an ETF would be expected to more closely track the ETF’s net asset value than do Shares of the Trust, and investors may therefore favor investments in such ETFs over investments in the Trust. Any weakening in demand for the Shares compared to digital asset ETF shares could cause the value of the Shares to decline. Competing industries may have more influence with policymakers than the digital asset industry, which could lead to the adoption of laws and regulations that are harmful to the digital asset industry. The digital asset industry is relatively new and does not have the same access to policymakers and lobbying organizations in many jurisdictions compared to industries with which digital assets may be seen to compete, such as banking, payments and consumer finance. Competitors from other, more established industries may have greater access to and influence with governmental officials and regulators and may be successful in persuading these policymakers that digital assets require heightened levels of regulation compared to the regulation of traditional financial services. As a result, new laws and regulations may be proposed and adopted in the United States and elsewhere, or existing laws and regulations may be interpreted in new ways, that disfavor or impose compliance burdens on the digital asset industry or crypto asset platforms, which could adversely impact the value of Bitcoin and therefore the value of the Shares. 61 Table of Contents 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 Exchange Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares. Various foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the digital asset network, the Digital Asset Markets, and their users, particularly Digital Asset Exchanges and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example, if China or other foreign jurisdictions were to ban or otherwise restrict mining activity, including by regulating or limiting manufacturers’ ability to produce or sell semiconductors or hard drives in connection with 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 cryptocurrencies 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 cryptocurrency trading and mining activities, citing concerns about high energy consumption and its desire to promote financial stability. Regulators in the Inner Mongolia and other regions of China have proposed regulations that would create penalties for companies engaged in cryptocurrency mining activities and introduce heightened energy saving requirements on industrial parks, data centers and power plants providing electricity to cryptocurrency 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. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Bitcoin Industry and Market—Government Oversight.” 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. The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or Bitcoin is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares. If regulators or public utilities take actions that restrict or otherwise impact mining activities, there may be a significant decline in such activities, which could adversely affect the Bitcoin Network and the value of the Shares. Concerns have been raised about the electricity required to secure and maintain digital asset networks. For example, as of December 31, 2021, over 179 million tera hashes are performed every second in connection with mining on the Bitcoin Network. Although measuring the electricity consumed by this process is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. The operations of the Bitcoin Network and other digital asset networks may also consume significant amounts of energy. Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a network’s total energy consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations. Driven by concerns around energy consumption and the impact on public utility companies, various states and cities have implemented, or are considering implementing, moratoriums on mining activity in their jurisdictions. A significant reduction in mining activity as a result of such actions could adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin Network by making it easier for a malicious actor or botnet to manipulate the relevant blockchain. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Bitcoin Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Bitcoin Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the relevant blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.” If regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Bitcoin Network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares. If regulators subject an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to regulation as a money service business or money transmitter, this could result in extraordinary expenses to the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares. To the extent that the activities of any Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor cause it to be deemed a “money services business” under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN, such Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate the Authorized Participant to implement anti-money laundering programs, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain certain records. Similarly, the activities of an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may require it to be licensed as a money transmitter or as a digital asset business, such as under the New York State Department of Financial Services’ BitLicense regulation. 62 Table of Contents Such additional regulatory obligations may cause the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to incur extraordinary expenses. If the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor decided to seek the required licenses, there is no guarantee that they will timely receive them. An Authorized Participant may instead decide to terminate its role as Authorized Participant of the Trust, or the Sponsor may decide to discontinue and wind up the Trust. An Authorized Participant’s decision to cease acting as such may decrease the liquidity of the Shares, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares, and termination of the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to the shareholders. Additionally, to the extent an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor is found to have operated without appropriate state or federal licenses, it may be subject to investigation, administrative or court proceedings, and civil or criminal monetary fines and penalties, all of which would harm the reputation of the Trust or the Sponsor, decrease the liquidity, and have a material adverse effect on the price of, the Shares. Regulatory changes or interpretations could obligate the Trust or the Sponsor to register and comply with new regulations, resulting in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust. Current and future legislation, CFTC and SEC rulemaking and other regulatory developments may impact the manner in which Bitcoins are treated. In particular, Bitcoin may be classified by the CFTC as a “commodity interest” under the CEA or may be classified by the SEC as a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws. The Sponsor and the Trust cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of Bitcoins 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 and the Sponsor may be subject to additional regulation under the CEA and CFTC regulations. The Sponsor 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 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 determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s Bitcoins 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 and the Sponsor may be subject to additional requirements under the Investment Company Act and the Sponsor may be required to register as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act. Such additional registration may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or non-recurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s Bitcoins at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders. The treatment of the Trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes is uncertain. The Sponsor intends to take the position that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust, the Trust will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax. Rather, if the Trust is a grantor trust, each beneficial owner of Shares will be treated as directly owning its pro rata share of the Trust’s assets and a pro rata portion of the Trust’s income, gain, losses and deductions will “flow through” to each beneficial owner of Shares. The Trust has taken certain positions with respect to the tax consequences of Incidental Rights and its receipt of IR Virtual Currency. If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge any of these positions the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Sponsor has delivered the Pre-Creation Abandonment Notices to the former custodian and the Custodian stating that the Trust is irrevocably abandoning, effective immediately prior to each Creation Time, all Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such time. The Trust has also abandoned Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency through Affirmative Actions. There can be no complete assurance that these abandonments will be treated as effective for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If the Trust were treated as owning any asset other than Bitcoins as of any date on which it creates Shares, it would likely cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Because of the evolving nature of digital currencies, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital currencies, including forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences. Assuming that the Trust is currently a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, certain future developments could render it impossible, or impracticable, for the Trust to continue to be treated as a grantor trust for such purposes. 63 Table of Contents If the Trust is not properly classified as a grantor trust, the Trust might be classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, due to the uncertain treatment of digital currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes (as discussed below in “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Currency”), there can be no assurance in this regard. If the Trust were classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the tax consequences of owning Shares generally would not be materially different from the tax consequences described herein, although there might be certain differences, including with respect to timing of the recognition of taxable income or loss. In addition, tax information reports provided to beneficial owners of Shares would be made in a different form. If the Trust were not classified as either a grantor trust or a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it would be classified as a corporation for such purposes. In that event, the Trust would be subject to entity-level U.S. federal income tax (currently at the rate of 21%) on its net taxable income and certain distributions made by the Trust to shareholders would be treated as taxable dividends to the extent of the Trust’s current and accumulated earnings and profits. Any such dividend distributed to a beneficial owner of Shares that is a non-U.S. person for U.S. federal income tax purposes would be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax at a rate of 30% (or such lower rate as provided in an applicable tax treaty). The treatment of digital currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes is uncertain. As discussed in the section entitled “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Currency” below, assuming that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each beneficial owner of Shares will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of an undivided interest in the Bitcoin (and, if applicable, any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency) held in the Trust. Due to the new and evolving nature of digital currencies and the absence of comprehensive guidance with respect to digital currencies, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital currency are uncertain. In 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released a notice (the “Notice”) discussing certain aspects of “convertible virtual currency” (that is, digital currency that has an equivalent value in fiat currency or that acts as a substitute for fiat currency) for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, in particular, stating that such digital currency (i) is “property” (ii) is not currency” for purposes of the rules relating to foreign currency gain or loss and (iii) may be held as a capital asset. In 2019, the IRS released a revenue ruling and a set of “Frequently Asked Questions” (the “Ruling & FAQs”) that provide some additional guidance, including guidance to the effect that, under certain circumstances, hard forks of digital currencies are taxable events giving rise to ordinary income and guidance with respect to the determination of the tax basis of digital currency. However, the Notice and the Ruling & FAQs do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital currencies. Moreover, although the Ruling & FAQs address the treatment of hard forks, there continues to be uncertainty with respect to the timing and amount of the income inclusions. There can be no assurance that the IRS will not alter its position with respect to digital currencies in the future or that a court would uphold the treatment set forth in the Notice and the Ruling & FAQs. It is also unclear what additional guidance on the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued in the future. Any such alteration of the current IRS positions or additional guidance could result in adverse tax consequences for shareholders and could have an adverse effect on the value of Bitcoin. Future developments that may arise with respect to digital currencies may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For example, the Notice addresses only digital currency that is “convertible virtual currency,” and it is conceivable that, as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence, the Trust will hold certain types of digital currency that are not within the scope of the Notice. Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisers regarding the tax consequences of owning and disposing of Shares and digital currencies in general. Future developments regarding the treatment of digital currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes could adversely affect the value of the Shares. As discussed above, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital currency, such as Bitcoin, are uncertain, and it is unclear what guidance on the treatment of digital currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued in the future. It is possible that any such guidance would have an adverse effect on the prices of digital currency, including on the price of Bitcoin in the Digital Asset Markets, and therefore may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. Because of the evolving nature of digital currencies, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital currencies, including forks, airdrops and similar occurrences. Such developments may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Moreover, certain future developments could render it impossible, or impracticable, for the Trust to continue to be treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Future developments in the treatment of digital currency for tax purposes other than U.S. federal income tax purposes could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The taxing authorities of certain states, including New York, (i) have announced that they will follow the Notice with respect to the treatment of digital currencies for state income tax purposes and/or (ii) have issued guidance exempting the purchase and/or sale of digital currencies for fiat currency from state sales tax. However, it is unclear what further guidance on the treatment of digital currencies for state tax purposes may be issued in the future. 64 Table of Contents The treatment of digital currencies for tax purposes by non-U.S. jurisdictions may differ from the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal, state or local tax purposes. It is possible, for example, that a non-U.S. jurisdiction would impose sales tax or value- added tax on purchases and sales of digital currencies for fiat currency. If a foreign jurisdiction with a significant share of the market of Bitcoin users imposes onerous tax burdens on digital currency users, or imposes sales or value-added tax on purchases and sales of digital currency for fiat currency, such actions could result in decreased demand for Bitcoin in such jurisdiction. Any future guidance on the treatment of digital currencies for state, local or non-U.S. tax purposes could increase the expenses of the Trust and could have an adverse effect on the prices of digital currencies, including on the price of Bitcoin in the Digital Asset Markets. As a result, any such future guidance could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. A U.S. tax-exempt shareholder may recognize “unrelated business taxable income” a consequence of an investment in Shares. Under the guidance provided in the Ruling & FAQs, hard forks, airdrops and similar occurrences with respect to digital currencies will under certain circumstances be treated as taxable events giving rise to ordinary income. In the absence of guidance to the contrary, it is possible that any such income recognized by a U.S. tax-exempt shareholder would constitute “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”). A tax-exempt shareholder should consult its tax adviser regarding whether such shareholder may recognize UBTI as a consequence of an investment in Shares. Non-U.S. Holders may be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax on income derived from forks, airdrops and similar occurrences. The Ruling & FAQs do not address whether income recognized by a non-U.S. person as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence could be subject to the 30% withholding tax imposed on U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” income. Non-U.S. Holders (as defined under “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences --Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders” below) should assume that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including the Sponsor) is likely to withhold 30% of any such income recognized by a non-U.S. Holder in respect of its Shares, including by deducting such withheld amounts from proceeds that such non-U.S. Holder would otherwise be entitled to receive in connection with a distribution of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Risk Factors Related to Potential Conflicts of Interest Potential conflicts of interest may arise among the Sponsor or its affiliates and the Trust. The Sponsor and its affiliates have no fiduciary duties to the Trust and its shareholders other than as provided in the Trust Agreement, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of the Trust and its shareholders. The Sponsor will manage the affairs of the Trust. Conflicts of interest may arise among the Sponsor and its affiliates, including the Index Provider and the Authorized Participants, on the one hand, and the Trust and its shareholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, the Sponsor may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the Trust and its shareholders. These potential conflicts include, among others, the following: • The Sponsor has no fiduciary duties to, and is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than, the Trust and its shareholders in resolving conflicts of interest, provided the Sponsor does not act in bad faith; • The Trust has agreed to indemnify the Sponsor and its affiliates pursuant to the Trust Agreement; • The Sponsor is responsible for allocating its own limited resources among different clients and potential future business ventures, to each of which it owes fiduciary duties; • The Sponsor and its staff also service affiliates of the Sponsor, including several other digital asset investment vehicles, and their respective clients and cannot devote all of its, or their, respective time or resources to the management of the affairs of the Trust; • The Sponsor, its affiliates and their officers and employees are not prohibited from engaging in other businesses or activities, including those that might be in direct competition with the Trust; • Affiliates of the Sponsor have substantial direct investments in Bitcoin that they are permitted to manage taking into account their own interests without regard to the interests of the Trust or its shareholders, and any increases, decreases or other changes in such investments could affect the Index Price and, in turn, the value of the Shares; • There is an absence of arm’s-length negotiation with respect to certain terms of the Trust, and, where applicable, there has been no independent due diligence conducted with respect to the Trust; • Several employees of the Sponsor and the Sponsor’s parent company, Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“DCG”), are FINRA-registered representatives who maintain their licenses through Genesis; 65 Table of Contents • DCG is (i) the sole member and parent company of the Sponsor and Genesis, the only acting Authorized Participant as of the date of this Annual Report, (ii) the indirect parent company of the Index Provider, (iii) a minority interest holder in Coinbase, which operates Coinbase Pro, one of the Digital Asset Exchanges included in the Index, and which is also the parent company of the Custodian, representing less than 1.0% of its equity and (iv) a minority interest holder in Kraken, one of the Digital Asset Exchanges included in the Index, representing less than 1.0% of its equity; • DCG has investments in a large number of digital assets and companies involved in the digital asset ecosystem, including exchanges and custodians. DCG’s positions on changes that should be adopted in the Bitcoin Network could be adverse to positions that would benefit the Trust or its shareholders. Additionally, before or after a hard fork on the Bitcoin Network, DCG’s position regarding which fork among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin Network should be considered the “true” Bitcoin Network could be adverse to positions that would most benefit the Trust; • DCG has been vocal in the past about its support for digital assets other than Bitcoin. Any investments in, or public positions taken on, digital assets other than Bitcoin by DCG, could have an adverse impact on the price of Bitcoin; • The Sponsor decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for the Trust; • The Sponsor and Genesis, which acts as Authorized Participant and distributor and marketer for the Shares, are affiliated parties that share a common parent company, DCG; • While the Index Provider does not currently utilize data from over-the-counter markets or derivatives platforms, it may decide to include pricing from such markets or platforms in the future, which could include Genesis; and • The Sponsor may appoint an agent to act on behalf of the shareholders, including in connection with the distribution of any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, which agent may be the Sponsor or an affiliate of the Sponsor. By purchasing the Shares, shareholders agree and consent to the provisions set forth in the Trust Agreement. See “Item 1. Business - Description of the Trust Agreement.” For a further discussion of the conflicts of interest among the Sponsor, the distributor, the marketer, the Authorized Participant, the Index Provider, the Trust and others, see “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence.” Because the Sponsor and the Trust’s sole Authorized Participant are affiliated with each other, the Trust’s Baskets will not be exchanged for Bitcoin in arm’s-length transactions. The Sponsor’s parent company, DCG, is also the parent company of Genesis Global Trading, Inc., a registered broker dealer currently acting as the sole Authorized Participant, distributor and marketer for the Shares. The Trust issues Creation Baskets in exchange for deposits of Bitcoin. See “Item 1. Business - Description of Creation of Shares.” As the sole Authorized Participant, Genesis is currently the only entity that may place orders to create Creation Baskets. As a result, the issuance of Creation Baskets does not occur on an arm’s-length basis. While additional Authorized Participants may be added at any time, subject to the discretion of the Sponsor, the Sponsor may be disincentivized from replacing affiliated service providers due to its affiliated status. In connection with this conflict of interest, shareholders should understand that affiliated service providers will receive fees for providing services to the Trust. Clients of the affiliated service providers may pay commissions at negotiated rates that are greater or less than the rate paid by the Trust. The Sponsor may have an incentive to resolve questions between Genesis, on the one hand, and the Trust and shareholders, on the other hand, in favor of Genesis (including, but not limited to, questions as to the calculation of the Basket Amount). The Index Provider is an affiliate of the Sponsor and the Trust. On December 31, 2020, CoinDesk, Inc., an affiliate of the Sponsor and a wholly owned subsidiary of DCG, acquired CoinDesk Indices, Inc., formerly known as TradeBlock, Inc., the Index Provider. As a result of this acquisition, the Index Provider is a wholly owned subsidiary of CoinDesk, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DCG. The Index Provider publishes the Index and the Index Price, which are used by the Sponsor to calculate the Digital Asset Holdings of the Trust. The Sponsor’s Fee accrues daily in U.S. dollars at an annual rate based on the Digital Asset Holdings Fee Basis Amount, which is based on the Digital Asset Holdings of the Trust, and is paid in Bitcoin. The number of Bitcoin that accrues each day as the Sponsor’s Fee is determined by reference to the Index Price published by the Index Provider. The Index Provider selects the exchanges that are included in the Index and also developed the methodology and algorithm that provide the Index Price based on the exchanges included in the Index. The Index Provider formally re-evaluates the weighting algorithm used by the Index quarterly and may decide to change the way in which the Index is calculated based on this periodic review or in other extreme circumstances. 66 Table of Contents If the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate Bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will employ an alternative method to determine the Index Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Bitcoin Industry and Market—Bitcoin Value—The Index and the Index Price—Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable.” There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment as to which of the rules the Sponsor will apply and the Sponsor may make this determination in its sole discretion. Because such a determination could reflect negatively upon the Index Provider, lead to a decrease in the Index Provider’s revenue or otherwise adversely affect the Index Provider, and because of their affiliation, the Index Provider may be incentivized to resolve any questions regarding, or changes to, the manner in which the Index is constructed and in which the Index Price is calculated in a way that favors the Sponsor. In addition, although the Index does not currently include data from over-the-counter markets or derivatives platforms, the Index Provider may decide to include pricing from such markets or platforms in the future, which could include data from Genesis. Any impact on the accuracy or perceived accuracy of the Index Price could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares. DCG is a minority interest holder in both Coinbase, Inc. and Kraken, which operate two of the Digital Asset Exchanges included in the Index Price. DCG, the sole member and parent company of the Sponsor, holds minority interests of less than 1.0% in each of Coinbase, Inc., which operates Coinbase Pro, and Kraken. The Sponsor values its digital assets by reference to the Index Price. The Index Price is the price in U.S. dollars of a Bitcoin derived from the Digital Asset Exchanges that are reflected in the Index developed by CoinDesk Indices, Inc. as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. Coinbase Pro and Kraken are two of such Digital Asset Exchanges included in the Index. Although DCG does not exercise control over Coinbase Pro or Kraken, it is possible that investors could have concerns that DCG could influence market data provided by these Digital Asset Exchanges in a way that benefits DCG, for example by artificially inflating the values of Bitcoin in order to increase the Sponsor’s fees. This could make the Trust’s Shares less attractive to investors than the shares of similar vehicles that do not present these concerns, adversely affect investor sentiment about the Trust and negatively affect Share trading prices. DCG holds a minority interest in the parent company of the Custodian, which could lead DCG to cause the Sponsor to take actions that favor the Custodian’s interests over the Trust’s interests. Coinbase, Inc. is also the parent company of the Custodian, Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC. The Custodian serves as a fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf, and is responsible for safeguarding the Bitcoin and Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency held by the Trust, and holding the private keys that provide access to the Trust’s digital wallets and vaults. DCG’s minority interest of less than 1.0% in the parent company of the Custodian may present risks to shareholders to the extent DCG causes the Sponsor to favor the Custodian’s interests over the interests of the Trust or its shareholders with respect to, for example, fees charged and the quality of service provided by the Custodian. Similarly, it is possible that investors could have concerns that DCG’s interest in Coinbase, Inc. could cause it to refrain from taking actions that are in the best interests of the Trust but that could harm the Custodian. This could make the Trust’s Shares less attractive to investors than the shares of similar vehicles that do not present these concerns, adversely affect investor sentiment about the Trust and negatively affect Share trading prices. Shareholders cannot be assured of the Sponsor’s continued services, the discontinuance of which may be detrimental to the Trust. Shareholders cannot be assured that the Sponsor will be willing or able to continue to serve as sponsor to the Trust for any length of time. If the Sponsor discontinues its activities on behalf of the Trust and a substitute sponsor is not appointed, the Trust will terminate and liquidate its Bitcoins. Appointment of a substitute sponsor will not guarantee the Trust’s continued operation, successful or otherwise. Because a substitute sponsor may have no experience managing a digital asset financial vehicle, a substitute sponsor may not have the experience, knowledge or expertise required to ensure that the Trust will operate successfully or continue to operate at all. Therefore, the appointment of a substitute sponsor may not necessarily be beneficial to the Trust and the Trust may terminate. See “Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence—The Sponsor.” Although the Custodian is a fiduciary with respect to the Trust’s assets, it could resign or be removed by the Sponsor, which would trigger early termination of the Trust. The Custodian is a fiduciary under § 100 of the New York Banking Law and a qualified custodian for purposes of Rule 206(4)- 2(d)(6) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and is licensed to custody the Trust’s Bitcoins in trust on the Trust’s behalf. However, during the initial term, the Custodian may terminate the Custodian Agreement for Cause (as defined in “Description of the Custodian Agreement—Termination”) at any time, and after the initial term, the Custodian can terminate the Agreement for any reason upon the notice period provided under the Custodian Agreement. If the Custodian resigns or is removed without replacement, the Trust will dissolve in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement. 67 Table of Contents Shareholders may be adversely affected by the lack of independent advisers representing investors in the Trust. The Sponsor has consulted with counsel, accountants and other advisers regarding the formation and operation of the Trust. No counsel was appointed to represent investors in connection with the formation of the Trust or the establishment of the terms of the Trust Agreement and the Shares. Moreover, no counsel has been appointed to represent an investor in connection with the offering of the Shares. Accordingly, an investor should consult his, her or its own legal, tax and financial advisers regarding the desirability of the value of the Shares. Lack of such consultation may lead to an undesirable investment decision with respect to investment in the Shares. An affiliate of the Sponsor is a leading online news publication and data provider in the digital asset industry whose publications could influence trading prices and demand for Bitcoins. Both the Sponsor and CoinDesk are subsidiaries of DCG. CoinDesk is a leading news publication and data provider, which plays a large role in aggregating, creating and disseminating news and other editorial content across the global digital asset industry. Although CoinDesk’s policy is to shield its editorial operations from DCG’s control, it is possible that CoinDesk’s news coverage could influence trading prices and demand for digital assets, including Bitcoin, and it is also possible that consumers of CoinDesk content may not appreciate that CoinDesk’s owner has substantial financial interests in digital assets, despite information to that effect on CoinDesk’s website. As a result, some consumers of CoinDesk’s content may place greater weight on such content than they would if they were aware of DCG’s ownership stake, and this could cause the trading prices of digital assets, including Bitcoin, to be higher than they would be otherwise. Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments Not applicable. Item 2. Properties None. Item 3. Legal Proceedings None. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures Not applicable. 68 Table of Contents PART II