What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1A. Risk Factors

2026-05-15 compared with 2025-11-14 · 109 added, 394 removed, 1 unchanged (100% of the section changed)

You should carefully consider

the risk factors discussed below as well as the risk factors discussed in “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report, which could

materially affect our business, financial condition or future results.

Other than as described herein, there have been no material changes

in our risk factors from those disclosed in our Annual Report.

The risks described

below, in our Annual Report and subsequent Quarterly Reports, are not the only risks facing the Trust.

Additional risks and

uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our

business, financial condition and/or operating results.

Effective October 8,

2025, the Trust allows for staking.

Certain of the Trust’s risk factors, as set forth below, have been updated to reflect this

Risks Associated with Ether and the Ethereum

Moving from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake

(PoS) Consensus Mechanism.

In September 2022, the Ethereum network moved

from a proof-of-work to a proof-of-stake mechanism called Serenity, or Ethereum 2.0.

Unlike proof-of-work, in which miners expend computational

resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended,

in proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded

coins in proportion to the total amount of coins staked.

Any malicious activity, such as disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise

violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a portion of the staked coins.

To the extent the Sponsor

determines to stake a portion of the Trust’s ether, the Sponsor plans to engage one or more third party staking services providers

(each a “Staking Services Provider”) to conduct such staking activities (“Staking Activities”).Should any of the

Trust’s Staking Services Providers engage in malicious activity or perform poorly, then such Staking Services Providers may be blacklisted

which could negatively impact the Trust’s abilities to engage in Staking Activities and/or otherwise result in the Trust earning

reduced staking rewards.

Proof-of-stake is viewed as more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work.

There is no guarantee that

the Ethereum community will embrace Ethereum 2.0, and the new protocol may never fully scale.

The possibility exists that Ethereum 2.0 may never

achieve the goals of the Ethereum community, which may have a negative impact on the market value of ether, and consequently the NAV of

Staking introduces a risk of loss of ether,

which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Staking introduces a risk of loss of ether.

of the Trust’s assets, including potentially staked assets, are subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors or customers of

institutions with FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation membership.

The Ethereum network imposes three types of sanctions

for validator misbehavior or inactivity, which would result in a portion of staked ether being destroyed or “burned”:

slashing and inactivity leaks.

A validator may face penalties if it fails to

take certain actions, such as providing a timely attestation to a block proposed by another validator.

Under this scenario, a validator’s

staked ether could be burned in an amount equal to the reward to which it would have been entitled for performing the actions.

A more severe sanction (i.e., “slashing”)

is imposed if a validator commits malicious acts related to the proposal or attestation of blocks with invalid transactions.

can result in the validator having a portion of its staked ether immediately burned.

After this initial slashing, the validator is queued

for forceful removal from the Ethereum network’s validator “pool,” and more of the validator’s stake is burned

over a period regardless of whether the validator makes any further slashable errors, at which point the validator is automatically removed

from the validator pool.

Staked ether may also be burned through a process

known as an “inactivity leak,” which is triggered if the Ethereum protocol has gone too long without finalizing a new block.

For a new block to be successfully added to the blockchain, validators that account for at least two-thirds of all staked ether must agree

on the validity of a proposed block.

This means that if validators representing more than one-third of the total staked ether are offline,

no new blocks can be finalized.

To prevent this, an inactivity leak causes the ether staked by the inactive validators to gradually “bleed

away” until these inactive validators represent less than one-third of the total stake, thereby allowing the remaining active validators

to finalize proposed blocks.

This provides a further incentive for validators to remain online and continue performing validation activities.

There can be no guarantee that penalties, slashing

or inactivity leaks and resulting losses will not occur as a result of the Staking Activities, if they are undertaken.

Furthermore, a

staking provider’s liability to the Trust is limited, and a staking provider may lack the assets or insurance in order to support

the recovery of any losses incurred.

There can be no guarantee that the Trust would recover any of its staked assets, or the value thereof,

if it is subject to sanctions imposed by the Ethereum network.

Staked ether tokens will be inaccessible

for a variable period of time, determined by a range of factors, which could result in certain liquidity risk to the Trust.

The Sponsor may, from time to time, stake a portion

of the Trust’s ether on behalf of the Trust through one or more Staking Services Providers.

Under current Ethereum network protocols,

staked ether tokens are permitted to be un-staked by the holder of such ether tokens.

However, as part of the “activating”

and “exiting” processes of staking, staked ether tokens will be inaccessible for a variable period of time determined by a

range of factors, including network congestion, resulting in certain liquidity risks that the Sponsor plans to manage.

“Activation” is the funding of a validator

to be included in the active set, thereby allowing the validator to participate in the Ethereum network’s proof-of-stake consensus

“Exit” is the request to exit from the active set and no longer participate in the Ethereum network’s proof-of-stake

consensus protocol.

As part of these “activating” and “exiting” processes of staking on the Ethereum network,

any staked ether will be inaccessible for a period of time.

The duration of activating and exiting periods are dependent on a range of

factors, including network conditions.

However, depending on demand, un-staking can take between hours, days or weeks to complete.

can result in certain liquidity risk to the Trust, which the Sponsor will seek to manage through a range of risk management methods.

Even in the event the Trust is then permitted

to operate an ongoing redemption program due to the time involved in “exiting” the staking process there is a risk that the

Trust could become unable to timely meet excessive redemption requests in amounts that are greater than the portion of the Trust’s

ether that remains un-staked, leading to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the

Trust’s redemption program.

Moreover, any staked ether which must be un-staked in order to fulfill a redemption (to the extent such

redemption cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust’s ether that has not been staked) will be un-staked only after

the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction, and such transaction is processed

by the Ethereum network.

The Staking Services Provider will not be able to change the addresses on the Ethereum network to which staked

ether is to be withdrawn or to which ether rewards shall be sent.

The Trust will be dependent on third parties

to effectively execute the Trust’s Staking Activities.

The amount of staking rewards that the Trust’s

staking activity will generate will be dependent on the performance of the Staking Services Providers, including the adequacy and reliability

of the hardware and software utilized by the Staking Services Providers.

If the Staking Services Providers experience service outages

or otherwise are unable to optimally execute the staking of the Trust’s ether, the Trust’s staking rewards may be adversely

The Trust will not stake its ether until

it has determined that the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines that the Trust may do so without undue legal or regulatory risk,

such as, without limitation, the risk of jeopardizing the Trust’s ability to qualify as a grantor trust for tax purposes, which

could harm the value of the Shares.

The Trust’s investment objective is to seek

to track the performance of ether, as measured by the performance of the Index adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities,

and to reflect rewards from staking a portion of the Trust’s ether, to the extent the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines

that the Trust may do so without undue legal or regulatory risk, such as, without limitation, the risk of jeopardizing the Trust’s

ability to qualify as a grantor trust for tax purposes.

If the Sponsor determines the Trust is not able to so carry out staking activities,

the Trust may cease some or all of its staking activities.

Staking on the Ethereum network involves delegating ether to validators and

carries risks discussed further below.

Staked ether may be subject to community-determined penalties for validator misbehavior, or slashing.

If the Staking Provider causes the Trust’s staked ether to be subject to such slashing losses, the Trust could suffer losses of

the staked ether.

Additionally, the staking process includes protocol-defined warm-up, activation and withdrawal periods, during which

staked ether is temporarily locked and inaccessible.

These phases affect when ether begins earning rewards, participates in consensus

and becomes available for transfer or redelegation.

The Staking Provider will stake the Trust’s

ether as the node operator and will operate a validator node to stake the Trust’s ether.

The Staking Provider will perform its staking

services in collaboration with the Custodians, as the ether will be staked directly from the Trust’s ether accounts with the Custodians.

The Trust will maintain control of the ether while it is staked because it will remain in the Trust’s account with the Custodians

(i.e., it will be kept in a separate account for which the Trust is the beneficial and record owner and will not be commingled with other

parties’ accounts with the Custodians).

Staking will be a passive activity for the Trust, as it will not operate its own staking

The Trust’s role will be limited to evaluating and contracting with one or more Staking Providers and instructing the Staking

Provider on when to stake and/or unstake the Trust’s ether.

The rewards owed or paid to the Custodians as

compensation for the Staking Services Providers reduce the amount of ether rewards that are generated from the Trust’s Staking Program

that are available as the assets of the Trust.

Each Staking Services Provider that generates staking rewards will be entitled to compensation

determined as a portion of the staking rewards, which is generally expected to be determined by a fixed percentage of the overall rewards

amount (the “Staking Provider Consideration”).

The portion of the consideration paid to the Sponsor for arranging for the

staking of the Trust’s ether (the “Sponsor’s Staking Portion”) will be comprised of an aggregate of 25% of the

gross proceeds generated from staking (“Staking Consideration”).

Of the Sponsor’s Staking Portion, the Sponsor will

pay the Staking Services Provider for their services under the Staking Services Agreement and the Trust’s Custodians in connection

with staking activities.

The Trust will receive and retain the remainder of the gross Staking Consideration.

The staking rewards earned

by the Trust will accrue to the Trust’s account with the Custodians and will generally be staked in the same way as the Trust’s

already staked ether.

Block rewards and transaction fees are not considered staking rewards and will not accrete to the Trust.

The Trust may be negatively impacted by

Staking Activities.

The Ethereum network uses a proof-of-stake consensus

mechanism to secure and operate the network, meaning that the voting power of a validator in the network is determined by the amount of

stake delegated to them by ether token holders.

In proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly

selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the total amount of coins staked.

The more stake delegated to

a validator, the more voting power they have, the higher the likelihood is that the validator will be selected to propose and validate

blocks and the higher the associated reward will be.

This, in turn, leads to higher ether earnings for the ether tokenholders who chose

to stake with the validator in question.

If an ether tokenholder chooses to engage in staking,

they must either choose a specific validator to stake with or have sufficient ether to be selected as a validator by the Ethereum network

The choice of validator can potentially impact the amount of staking rewards the tokenholder receives.

The factors determining

this amount include, but are not limited to:

● Validator commission rate:

a validator can choose

to set a non-zero commission rate specifying the percentage of staking rewards they are taking from the stakers.

For example, if a validator

has a commission rate of 10%, then 10% of such staker’s staking rewards are given to the validator.

● Validator performance:

a validator with bad performance

will receive reduced staking rewards for the applicable period, and ether tokenholders who have delegated their stake to such validator

will also receive reduced rewards for such period when they withdraw their stake from such validator.

If any Staking Services Provider experiences operational

or other difficulties, terminates their services, fails to comply with regulations, raises their prices or disputes key intellectual property

rights sold or licensed to, the Trust, the Trust could suffer losses.

The Trust may also suffer the consequences of such Staking Services

Provider’s mistakes.

For example, if the Trust’s Custodians or Staking Services Provider selected to act as validators fail

to behave as expected, default, fail to perform, suffer cybersecurity attacks, experience security issues or encounter other problems,

the assets of the Trust may be irretrievably lost.

The failure or capacity restraints of vendors and services, a cybersecurity breach

involving any service providers or the termination or change in terms or price or commission rate of a vendor, third-party software license

or service agreement on which the Trust relies, could disrupt the Trust’s Staking Activities or cause losses.

Replacing any Staking

Services Provider or addressing other issues with vendors and service providers could entail significant delay, expense and disruption

for the Trust.

As a result, if these vendors and service providers experience difficulties, are subject to cybersecurity breaches, terminate

their services, dispute the terms of intellectual property agreements or raise their prices, and the Sponsor is unable to replace them

with other vendors and service providers, particularly on a timely basis, the Trust’s Staking Activities could be interrupted or

disrupted, and the Trust could suffer a loss.

The Ethereum network dictates requirements for

participation in the network’s protocols and may reduce rewards if the relevant activities are not performed correctly.

or poorly performing validators may also be “blacklisted”, meaning that ether tokenholders may decide to no longer delegate

stake to such actors thereby resulting in such actors not being selected to validate and they would therefore be unable to receive staking

rewards therefrom.

Should any of the Trust’s Staking Services Providers engage in malicious activity or perform poorly, then such

Staking Services Providers may be blacklisted which could negatively impact the Trust’s abilities to engage in Staking Activities

and/or otherwise result in the Trust earning reduced staking rewards.

Staking requires that the Trust lock up the staked

ether and become subject to an unbonding period to unstake the staked ether, meaning that the Trust cannot transfer the staked ether during

the time that the ether is staked and during which it is being unbonded.

The unbonding period may be longer than anticipated based on

network activity.

Note that the duration of the bonding period may depend on a range of factors including network load.

Due to the time involved in “exiting”

the staking process, there is a risk that the Trust could become unable to timely meet excessive redemption requests in amounts that are

greater than the portion of the Trust’s ether that remains un-staked, leading to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme

scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program.

Moreover, any staked ether which must be un-staked in

order to fulfill a redemption (to the extent such redemption cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust’s ether that

has not been staked, or through another mechanism to manage liquidity in connection with redemption orders) will be un-staked only after

the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction through the Custodians, and

such transaction is processed by the Ethereum network.

The Staking Provider will not be able to transfer unstaked ether or Staking Provider

Consideration to another address on the Ethereum network.

In addition, depending on the anticipated length

of the unbonding period, the staked ether may be classified as illiquid under the Trust’s liquidity risk management program.

addition, if ether is determined to be a security under the 1933 Act, it could be subject to significant constraints in terms of any transfer

or disposal of such ether.

In such event, the Trust may consider ether to be an “illiquid security”, which it defines as a

security that the Trust reasonably expects cannot be sold or disposed of in current market conditions in seven calendar days or less without

the sale or disposition significantly changing the market value of the security.

Rewards for staked ether may be accrued even before

the staked ether is unbonded.

Once accrued, such ether rewards are considered part of the Trust’s assets, even if unbonding has

not occurred.

The Sponsor and the Trust will manage liquidity in accordance with the Trust’s liquidity risk policies and procedures

and will monitor staking and bonding/unbonding activity closely on a daily basis.

For more information on the Trust’s liquidity

risk policies and procedures, see “Staking of the Trust’s Assets—Liquidity Risk Policies and Procedures.”

There is no guarantee that the Trust will receive

any rewards with respect to staked ether.

Past rewards are not indicative of future returns.

The staking rewards that the Trust may receive

from staking ether, if any, may be affected by, among other factors:

● the total amount of ether staked by users of

the Ethereum network;

● the total amount of ether staked by the Trust;

● changes to the Ethereum network as a result of

protocol governance decisions;

● changes to validator fees or commission rates

set by the validators, including the commission charged by the taking Services Provider (if any);

● halts, outages or other anticipated or unanticipated

interruptions affecting the Ethereum network or third-party service providers involved in the staking of the Trust’s ether;

● anticipated or unanticipated downtime by the

Staking Services Provider;

● loss or deprivation of ether as a result of a

violation of the Ethereum network’s rules by the Staking Services Provider;

● validators ceasing to be eligible to participate

in the Ethereum network’s proof-of-stake protocol and earn rewards;

● “bonding”, “unbonding”

or other ether lock-up periods specified by the Ethereum network;

● delays or other operational factors related to

or otherwise impacting the Trust’s Staking Activities.

The Staking Provider may not optimally execute

the staking activities.

The Trust relies on the resources of the Staking

Provider to facilitate the Sponsor’s staking activities.

The Staking Provider will provide the hardware, software and services necessary

to stake the ether from a validator node.

The hardware and software utilized by the Staking Provider may prove to be inadequate to maximize

the Trust’s staking revenue.

The Trust is dependent on the hardware, software and services of the Staking Provider to effectively

execute the staking activities.

The Sponsor will have no ability to supervise or direct the conduct of the Staking Provider.

In addition, the Staking Provider Consideration

will be paid from the proceeds of the staking program received by the Trust.

The payment of the Staking Provider Consideration will reduce

the portion of the staking rewards generated by the staking activities that are actually retained by the Trust.

Accordingly, the staking

rewards actually retained by the Trust will likely be less than what the Trust would retain if the Sponsor were to administer its own

staking activities without the assistance of third-party service providers.

The Trust may vary the amount of ether to

be staked and the rewards received may accordingly change from time to time.

The Trust’s staking model aims to maximize

the portion of the Trust’s ether available for staking while controlling for liquidity and redemption risks.

The model determines

an optimal target range for the portion of assets staked, which is set by the Sponsor and which is based on factors including lock-up

periods, historical and stressed redemption activity, Trust size, projected staking yields, staking provider reliability, secondary market

liquidity, and broader market conditions (the “Utilization Rate”) by balancing expected yield against potential costs.

the Trust may stake a maximum of 100% of its ether holdings, the amount of ether that remains unstaked is determined based on the Trust’s

Utilization Rate analysis, and accordingly may vary from time to time.

Based on Utilization Rate analysis applied to historical data,

the Trust generally intends to stake between 40% and 70% of the ether it holds, although the amount of ether that is staked may be lesser

or greater from time to time.

The precise percentage to be staked will be based on the estimated liquidity needs of the Trust, as determined

by the Sponsor.

Accordingly, changes in the percentage of ether holdings that are staked could impact the value of Shares held by investors.

Validators may suffer losses due to staking,

which could make the Ethereum network less attractive.

Validation on the Ethereum network requires ether

to be transferred into smart contracts on the underlying blockchain networks not under the Trust’s or anyone else’s control.

If the Ethereum network source code or protocol fail to behave as expected, suffer cybersecurity attacks or hacks, experience security

issues, or encounter other problems, such assets may be irretrievably lost.

In addition, the Ethereum networks dictate requirements for

participation in validation activity, and may impose penalties, or “slashing,” if the relevant activities are not performed

correctly, such as if the staker acts maliciously on the network, “double signs” any transactions, or experience extended

Such penalties include the reduction of staking rewards for malicious actors and poorly performing validators and the “blacklisting”

of such actors which may result in ether tokenholders no longer delegating their stakes to such actors thereby resulting in such actors

not being selected to validate in the future.

Should any of the Trust’s Staking Services Providers engage in malicious activity

or perform poorly, then such Staking Services Providers may be blacklisted which could negatively impact the Trust’s abilities to

engage in Staking Activities and/or otherwise result in the Trust earning reduced staking rewards.

If validators’ staked ether are

slashed by the Ethereum network, their assets may be confiscated, withdrawn, or burnt by the network, resulting in losses to them.

the Ethereum network requires the payment of base fees and the practice of paying tips is common, and such fees can become significant

as the amount and complexity of the transaction grows, depending on the degree of network congestion and the price of ether.

Any cybersecurity

attacks, security issues, hacks, penalties, slashing events, or other problems could damage validators’ willingness to participate

in validation, discourage existing and future validators from serving as such, and adversely impact the Ethereum network’s adoption

or the price of ether.

Any disruption of validation on the Ethereum network could interfere with network operations and cause the Ethereum

network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of ether

The Sponsor’s receipt of a portion

of staking rewards may create conflicts of interest.

The portion of the consideration paid to the Sponsor

for arranging for the staking of the Trust’s ether (the “Sponsor’s Staking Portion”) will be comprised of an aggregate

of 25% of the gross proceeds generated from staking (“Staking Consideration”).

Of the Sponsor’s Staking Portion, the

Sponsor will pay the Staking Services Provider for their services under the Staking Services Agreement and the Trust’s Custodians

in connection with staking activities.

The Trust will receive and retain the remainder of the gross Staking Consideration.

This arrangement

creates a financial incentive for the Sponsor to maximize the amount of ether staked by the Trust, as higher levels of staked ether would

generally result in greater staking rewards to the Sponsor.

However, the Sponsor’s interest in maximizing staking rewards may conflict

with the Trust’s need to maintain sufficient liquid ether to meet redemption requests and other operational requirements.

Sponsor directs the Trust to stake excessive amounts of ether relative to the Trust’s liquidity needs, the Trust could become unable

to timely meet redemption requests in amounts that are greater than the portion of the Trust’s ether that remains unstaked, leading

to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program.

While the Trust’s staking policies are designed

to balance expected yield against potential risks and is based on various factors including historical redemption patterns and liquidity

analysis, the Sponsor has sole discretion in determining the amount of ether to stake.

Shareholders have no ability to influence or override

the Sponsor’s determinations regarding staking levels.

The Sponsor’s financial interest in staking rewards may cause it to

prioritize staking income over maintaining adequate liquidity reserves, particularly during periods when staking yields are attractive

relative to the costs and risks of maintaining liquid ether reserves.

Any inability to meet redemption requests in a

timely manner due to excessive staking could harm Authorized Participants’ ability to effectively arbitrage the Trust’s Shares,

potentially causing the Shares to trade at significant premiums or discounts to NAV.

This could result in Shareholders being unable to

exit their positions at fair value or being forced to accept delays in redemption processing, either of which could cause substantial

losses to Shareholders.

The ongoing activities of the Trust may

generate tax liabilities for Shareholders.

It is expected that each Shareholder will include

in the computation of their taxable income their proportionate share of the taxable income and expenses of the Trust, including gains

and losses realized in connection with the use of ether to pay Trust expenses or facilitate redemption transactions, as well as any amounts

received in connection with staking, as applicable.

The Trust does not anticipate making distributions to Shareholders, so any tax liability

that a Shareholder incurs as a result of holding Shares will need to be satisfied from some other source of funds.

If a Shareholder sells

Shares in order to raise funds to satisfy such a tax liability, the sale itself may generate additional taxable gain or loss.

Ether staking may result in adverse tax

consequences for Shareholders.

To the extent the Sponsor determines to stake

a portion of the Trust’s ether, the staking of the Trust’s ether is expected to result in the Trust’s receipt of amounts

received in connection with staking in the form of additional ether.

Any such rewards are expected to be treated as ordinary income for

federal income tax purposes.

Thus, the Trust’s receipt of rewards derived from ether staking activities could result in beneficial

owners of Shares incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust.

Additionally, the Trust’s receipt of

amounts received in connection with staking could have implications for investors sensitive to unrelated business taxable income, U.S.

withholding taxes or taxable income effectively connected with a U.S.

trade or business.

federal income tax treatment of staking

may change from that described in the Trust’s prospectus filed with the SEC on October 8, 2025, possibly with retroactive effect.

The treatment of staking in a grantor trust

federal income tax purposes is still developing.

As a grantor trust, the Trust can undertake only

certain types of activities.

For example, generally, the Trust cannot vary its investment portfolio to take advantage of market fluctuations.

The Trust may receive income from investment activities that do not require such decision-making.

The federal income tax treatment of

staking for grantor trust purposes is uncertain pending additional IRS guidance.

If the Trust were viewed as undertaking the types of

activities that would not be allowable for U.S.

federal income tax purposes, then the Trust could lose its income tax status as a grantor

trust, and the Trust could be reclassified as a partnership.

If the Trust were reclassified as a partnership, a more complex reporting

regime would apply, and Shareholders would receive a Form K-1.

If the Trust were reclassified as a partnership but did not satisfy a safe

harbor or exception to the publicly traded partnership rules, it could be reclassified as a corporation, which would subject the Trust

to corporate level tax, and the Shareholder’s return on investment would likely be affected.

the risk factors discussed below as well as the risk factors discussed in Part I, Item 1A.

“Risk Factors” in our Annual Report,

which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results.

Other than as described herein, there have been no

material changes in our risk factors from those disclosed in our 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The risks described below

and in our Annual Report are not the only risks facing the Trust.

You should also consider any risks and uncertainties described under

the caption “Risk Factors” in any applicable prospectus, prospectus supplement, registration statement or other document that

we file with the SEC before or after the date of this prospectus that is incorporated by reference herein.

Additional risks and uncertainties

not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition

and/or operating results.

The Trust Agreement

includes a provision restricting Shareholders’ right to bring a derivative action.

Under Section 7.4 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) of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 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 are eligible to bring such derivative action under the Delaware Trust Statute and who (i) are not “Affiliates”

(as defined in the Trust Agreement and below) of one another and (ii) collectively hold at least 10% of the outstanding Shares join in

the bringing or maintaining of such action, suit or other proceeding.

“Affiliate” means (i) any Person directly or indirectly

owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 10% or more of the outstanding voting securities of such Person, (ii) any Person 10%

or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with power to vote by such Person,

(iii) any Person, directly or indirectly, controlling, controlled by or under common control of such Person, (iv) any employee, officer,

director, member, manager or partner of such Person, or (v) if such Person is an employee, officer, director, member, manager or partner,

any Person for which such Person acts in any such capacity;

and “Person” means any natural person and any partnership, limited

liability company, statutory trust, corporation, association, or other legal entity.

In addition to the 10% ownership

threshold described above, the Trust Agreement imposes the following further procedural conditions on any Shareholder seeking to bring

a derivative action on behalf of the Trust:

(1) prior to bringing any such action, two or more non-affiliated Shareholders collectively

holding at least 10% of the outstanding Shares must first make a pre-suit demand upon the Sponsor to bring the subject action, unless

an effort to cause the Sponsor to bring such an action is not likely to succeed (a demand shall only be deemed not likely to succeed,

and therefore excused, if the Sponsor has a personal financial interest in the transaction at issue, and the Sponsor shall not be deemed

interested in a transaction or otherwise disqualified from ruling on the merits of a Shareholder demand by virtue of the fact that the

Sponsor receives remuneration for his or her service as Sponsor of the Trust or as a trustee or director of one or more trusts that are

under common management with or otherwise affiliated with the Trust);

and (2) unless a demand is excused pursuant to clause (1) of this

paragraph, the Sponsor must be afforded a reasonable amount of time to consider such Shareholder request and to investigate the basis

of such claim and the Sponsor shall be entitled to retain counsel or other advisors in considering the merits of the request, and the

Sponsor shall require an undertaking by the Shareholders making such request to reimburse the Trust for the expense of any such advisor

in the event the Sponsor determines not to take action.

Any decision by the Sponsor to bring, maintain, or compromise (or not to bring,

maintain, or compromise) any such court action, proceeding or claim, or to submit the matter to a vote of Shareholders, shall be made

by the Sponsor in good faith and shall be binding upon the Shareholders.

In addition to claims that must be brought derivatively under

applicable law, the Trust Agreement requires that any claim affecting all Shareholders of the Trust proportionately, based on their number

of Shares of the Trust, must also be brought as a derivative claim subject to these conditions, regardless of whether such claim involves

a violation of a Shareholder’s rights under the Trust Agreement or any other alleged violation of contractual or individual rights

that might otherwise give rise to a direct claim (and regardless, in each case, of whether such claims sound in tort, fraud or otherwise,

or are based on common law, statutory, equitable, legal or other grounds).

These provisions apply to

any derivative actions brought in the name of the Trust other than derivative claims brought under the federal U.S.

securities laws and

the rules and regulations thereunder.

The enforceability of Section 7.04’s derivative action threshold and procedural requirements

under applicable federal or state law has not been definitively established.

The 10% ownership threshold and procedural requirements represent

contractual restrictions on derivative actions authorized by Section 3816(e) of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, which expressly permits

trust instruments to modify or restrict the rights of beneficial owners to bring derivative actions.

However, the application of such

a threshold in the context of a registered exchange-traded product has not been comprehensively addressed by the courts.

it is possible that a court could decline to enforce the Trust’s 10% threshold and procedural requirements.

A Shareholder wishing to bring

a derivative action on behalf of the Trust must satisfy both the 10% ownership threshold and the pre-suit demand process described above

before commencing any such action, suit or other proceeding, further limiting the ability of a Shareholder to seek redress in the name

of the Trust.

Due to these additional requirements, 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% 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.

Shareholders wishing to satisfy this ownership threshold would need to identify and coordinate with other Shareholders

of the Trust.

Because the Trust’s Shares are held in book-entry form through the DTC and beneficial ownership information is not

publicly available, individual investors may face substantial difficulty in locating other Shareholders.

There is no mechanism established

by the Trust to facilitate such shareholder coordination, and the Trust is not required to assist Shareholders in identifying one another.

Accordingly, even Shareholders who believe they have a legitimate derivative claim may, as a practical matter, be unable to satisfy the

10% threshold and bring an action.

Even if successful, 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% 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% 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.

Because the Trust’s

Shares are held in book-entry form through DTC, the beneficial owners of Shares are generally not reflected on the Trust’s share

Accordingly, any shareholder or group of Shareholders seeking to establish that they collectively hold at least 10% of the outstanding

Shares must provide documentary evidence of their beneficial ownership as of the date of the derivative demand.

Acceptable evidence may

include broker statements, DTC participant confirmations, account statements from a registered broker-dealer or bank that is a DTC participant,

or such other documentation as the Trust may reasonably require.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1A. Risk Factors