8. Risks and Uncertainties

The Trust is subject to various risks including market risk, liquidity risk, and other risks related to its concentration in a single asset, Bitcoin. Investing in Bitcoin is currently highly speculative and volatile.

The Principal Market NAV of the Trust, calculated by reference to the principal market price in accordance with U.S. GAAP, relates primarily to the value of the Bitcoin held by the Trust, and fluctuations in the price of Bitcoin could materially and adversely affect an investment in the Shares of the Trust. The price of Bitcoin has a limited history. During such history, Bitcoin prices have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including the levels of liquidity. If Digital Asset Markets continue to experience significant price fluctuations, the Trust may experience losses. Several factors may affect the price of Bitcoin, including, but not limited to, global Bitcoin supply and demand, theft of Bitcoin from global trading platforms or vaults, competition from other forms of digital currency or payment services, global or regional political, economic or financial conditions, and other unforeseen events and situations.

The Bitcoin held by the Trust are commingled, and the Trust’s shareholders have no specific rights to any specific Bitcoin. In the event of the insolvency of the Trust, its assets may be inadequate to satisfy a claim by its shareholders.

There is currently no clearing house for Bitcoin, nor is there a central or major depository for the custody of Bitcoin. There is a risk that some or all of the Trust’s Bitcoin could be lost or stolen. There can be no assurance that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s Bitcoin. Further, transactions in Bitcoin are irrevocable. Stolen or

incorrectly transferred Bitcoin may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed Bitcoin transactions could adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

The SEC, at least under the prior administration, has stated that certain digital assets may be considered “securities” 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. A number of SEC and SEC staff actions with respect to a variety of digital assets demonstrate this difficulty. For example, public, though non-binding, statements by senior officials at the SEC have indicated that the SEC did not consider Bitcoin or Ether to be securities, and does not currently consider Bitcoin to be a security. In addition, the SEC appears to have implicitly taken the view that Ether is not a security (i) by not objecting to Ether futures trading on Commodity Futures Trading Commission-regulated markets under rules designed for futures on non-security commodity underliers and (ii) by approving the listing and trading of exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) that invest in Ether (i.e., approving the redemption of shares of such ETPs) under the rules for commodity-based trust shares, without requiring these ETPs to be registered as investment companies. Likewise, in various courts filings and arguments the SEC has distinguished Ether from assets that it claimed were securities, and in judicial opinions, courts have accepted or even assumed that Ether is not a security. Moreover, in a recent settlement with another market participant relating to allegations that it acted as an unregistered broker-dealer for facilitating trading in certain digital assets, the SEC highlighted that the firm would cease trading in all digital assets other than Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ether—activity that, if the SEC believed Ether was presently a security—would continue to constitute unregistered brokerage activity. The SEC staff has also provided informal assurances via no-action letter to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. Moreover, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has published statements that it does not consider, under certain circumstances, “meme coins” or some stablecoins to be securities. However, such statements may be withdrawn at any time without notice and comment by the Division of Corporation Finance at the SEC or the SEC itself. In addition, the SEC has brought enforcement actions against the issuers and promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities. Even though the Trust only holds Bitcoin, these developments demonstrate the difficulty in applying the federal securities laws to digital assets generally, including Bitcoin. In January 2025, the SEC launched a crypto task force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for digital assets led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Subsequently, Commissioner Peirce announced a list of specific priorities to further that initiative, which included pursuing final rules related to a digital asset’s security status, a revised path to registered offerings and listings for digital assets-based investment vehicles, and clarity regarding digital asset custody, lending, and staking. However, the efforts of the crypto task force have only just begun, and how or whether the SEC regulates digital asset activity in the future remains to be seen.

If Bitcoin is determined to be a “security” under federal or state securities laws by the SEC or any other agency, or in a proceeding in a court of law or otherwise, it may have material adverse consequences for Bitcoin. For example, it may become more difficult for Bitcoin to be traded, cleared and custodied as compared to other digital assets that are not considered to be securities, which could, in turn, negatively affect the liquidity and general acceptance of Bitcoin and cause users to migrate to other digital assets. As such, any determination that Bitcoin is a security under federal or state securities laws may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and, as a result, an investment in the Shares.

In addition, if Bitcoin is in fact a security, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, 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 of 1940 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.

To the extent a private key required to access an address on the Bitcoin Network holding Bitcoin is lost, destroyed or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private keys are accessible, the Trust may be unable to access the Bitcoin controlled by the private key and the private key will not be capable of being restored by the Bitcoin Network. The processes by which Bitcoin transactions are settled are dependent on the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network, and as such, the Trust is subject to operational risk. A risk also exists with respect to previously unknown technical vulnerabilities, which may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin.

The Trust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to its operations. Any disruptions to the Trust’s service providers’ business operations resulting from business failures, financial instability, security failures, government mandated regulation or operational problems could have an adverse impact on the Trust’s ability to access critical services and be disruptive to the operations of the Trust.

The Sponsor and the Trust may be subject to various litigation, regulatory investigations, and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of its business.