UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K


☒	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended September 30, ~~2024~~2025


☐	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _____ to ______

Commission File Number 000-56435

Grayscale Horizen Trust (ZEN)

SPONSORED BY GRAYSCALE INVESTMENTS SPONSORS, LLC

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)


Delaware	83-6217411
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

290 Harbor Drive, 4th Floor Stamford, Connecticut	06902
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)	(Zip Code)

(212) 668-1427

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:



Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Grayscale Horizen Trust (ZEN) Shares	HZEN	N/A

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.


Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐

Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒

		Emerging growth company	☒

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

Aggregate market value of registrant’s Shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon the closing price of a Share on March 31, ~~2024~~2025 as reported by the OTC Markets Group Inc. on that date: $2717,~~267~~487,~~752~~245

Number of Shares of the registrant outstanding as of November 1820, ~~2024~~2025: 611,~~838~~425,~~000~~100

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: None

Industry and Market Data

Although we are responsible for all disclosure contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, in some cases we have relied on certain market and industry data obtained from third-party sources that we believe to be reliable. Market estimates are calculated by using independent industry publications in conjunction with our assumptions regarding the Horizen industry and market. While we are not aware of any misstatements regarding any market, industry or similar data presented herein, such data involves risks and uncertainties and is subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under the headings “Forward-Looking Statements” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” with respect to the financial conditions, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business of Grayscale Horizen Trust (ZEN) (the “Trust”). Statements preceded by, followed by or that include words such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue,” the negative of these terms and other similar expressions are intended to identify some of the forward-looking statements. All statements (other than statements of historical fact) included in this Annual Report that address activities, events or developments that will or may occur in the future, including such matters as changes in market prices and conditions, the Trust’s operations, the plans of Grayscale Investments, LLC (“GSI”), the sponsor of the Trust before January 1, 2025, Grayscale Operating, LLC (“GSO”), the co-sponsor of the Trust from January 1, 2025 to May 3, 2025, and Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (“GSIS”), the co-sponsor of the Trust from January 1, 2025 to May 3, 2025 and the sole remaining sponsor thereafter (each of GSI, GSO and GSIS, the “Sponsor,” as the context may require, and GSO and GSIS, together, the “Co-Sponsors”), and references to the Trust’s future success and other similar matters are forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions. Actual events or results may differ materially from such statements. These statements are based upon certain assumptions and analyses the Sponsor made based on its perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors appropriate in the circumstances. Whether or not actual results and developments will conform to the Sponsor’s expectations and predictions, however, is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, those described in “Part I., Item 1A. Risk Factors.” Forward-looking statements are made based on the Sponsor’s beliefs, estimates and opinions on the date the statements are made and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor is under a duty or undertakes an obligation to update forward-looking statements if these beliefs, estimates and opinions or other circumstances should change, other than as required by applicable laws. Investors are therefore cautioned against relying on forward-looking statements. Factors which could have a material adverse effect on the Trust’s business, financial condition or results of operations and future prospects or which could cause actual results to differ materially from the Trust’s expectations include, but are not limited to:

•

~~recent~~the ~~developments~~extreme involatility ~~the~~of trading prices that many digital ~~asset~~assets, ~~economy~~including ~~which~~ZEN, have ~~led~~experienced toin ~~extreme~~recent ~~volatility~~periods and ~~disruption~~may incontinue ~~digital~~to ~~asset markets~~experience, awhich ~~loss~~could ofcause ~~confidence~~the invalue ~~participants~~ of the ~~digital~~Shares ~~asset~~to ~~ecosystem,~~be ~~significant~~volatile ~~negative~~and/or ~~publicity~~have ~~surrounding~~a ~~digital~~material ~~assets~~adverse ~~broadly~~effect ~~and~~on ~~market-wide~~the ~~declines~~value inof ~~liquidity~~the Shares;

•

the ~~extreme~~recency ~~volatility~~ of ~~trading~~the ~~prices~~development ~~that~~of ~~many~~ digital assets, ~~including~~and ~~ZEN,~~the ~~have~~uncertain ~~experienced~~medium-to-long interm ~~recent~~value ~~periods~~of ~~and~~the ~~may~~Shares ~~continue~~due to ~~experience,~~a ~~which~~number ~~could~~of ~~have~~factors arelating ~~material~~to ~~adverse~~the ~~effect~~capabilities onand development of blockchain technologies and to the ~~value~~fundamental investment characteristics of ~~the~~digital ~~Shares~~assets;

•

the recentness of the development of digital assets and the uncertain medium-to-long term value of the Shares due 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 depending on the acceptance of digital assets, such as ZEN, which represent a new and rapidly evolving industry;

•

a temporary or permanent “fork” or a “clone” could adversely affect the value of the Shares;

•

recent developments in the ~~largely~~digital ~~unregulated~~asset ~~nature~~economy ~~and~~which ~~lack~~have ofled ~~transparency~~to ~~surrounding~~extreme ~~the~~volatility ~~operations~~and ofdisruption ~~Digital~~in ~~Asset~~digital ~~Trading~~asset ~~Platforms~~markets, ~~which~~a ~~may~~loss ~~adversely~~of ~~affect~~confidence ~~the~~in ~~value~~participants of the digital ~~assets~~asset ~~and~~ecosystem, ~~consequently,~~significant ~~the~~negative ~~value~~publicity ofsurrounding ~~the~~digital ~~Shares~~assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity;

•

the value of the Shares relating directly to the value of ZEN then held by the Trust, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations due to a number of factors;

•

the largely unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of Digital Asset Trading Platforms, which may adversely affect the value of digital assets and, consequently, the value of the Shares;

•

the limited history of the Reference Rate;

•

competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of ZEN and adversely affect the value of the Shares;

•

the Trust’s reliance on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the replacement of such service providers could pose challenges to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEN and to the operations of 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 Reference Rate Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share;

•

the possibility that the Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market;

•

a determination that ZEN or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of ZEN and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust;

•

regulatory changes or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies that 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 Trading Platform 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”) that could adversely impact the value of the Shares;

•

regulatory changes or other events in foreign jurisdictions that 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 Trading Platform Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares;

•

the possibility that 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~~such Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares;

•

regulatory changes or interpretations that could obligate the Trust or the Sponsor to register and comply with new regulations, resulting in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust;

•

possible requirements for the Trust to disclose information, including information relating to investors, to regulators;

potential conflicts of interest that may arise among the Sponsor or its affiliates and the Trust;

•

the potential discontinuance of the Sponsor’s continued services, which could be detrimental to the Trust;

•

the Trust’s reliance on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the challenges replacement of such service providers could pose to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEN and to the operations of the Trust;

the Custodian’s possible resignation or removal by the Sponsor or otherwise, without replacement, which could trigger early termination of the Trust; and

•

additional risk factors discussed in “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors” and “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as those described from time to time in our future reports filed with the SEC.

Unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires, the terms “we,” “our” and “us” in this Annual Report refer to the Sponsor acting on behalf of the Trust.

A glossary of industry and other defined terms is included in this Annual Report, beginning on page 106.

This Annual Report supplements and where applicable amends the Memorandum, as defined in the Trust’s Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement, for general purposes.

iii

Table of Contents

Item No.	Item Caption	Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	5051
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	8584
Item 1C.	Cybersecurity	8584
Item 2.	Properties	8584
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	8685
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	8685
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	8786
Item 6.	[Reserved]	8786
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	8887
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	9694
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	9695
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	9695
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	9695
Item 9B.	Other Information	9796
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	9796
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	9897
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	9998
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	9998
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	100
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	102
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	103
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	105
	Glossary of Defined Terms	106

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview of the Trust and the Shares

Grayscale Horizen Trust (ZEN) (formerly known as Horizen Investment Trust) (the “Trust”) is a Delaware Statutory Trust that was formed on July 3, 2018 by the filing of the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act.

The Trust’s purpose is to hold Horizen (“ZEN”). The Horizen Network, was originally launched as an alternative software implementation of the Bitcoin, network ~~was created~~ in 2017 by a group that forked Zclassic, which is a clone of Zcash. Although the Horizen Network isbegan similar to the Bitcoin Network, ~~there are several key differences between~~ the Horizen ~~Network~~ecosystem ~~and~~has ~~the~~undergone ~~Bitcoin~~major ~~Network~~systemic transformations. ~~Historically,~~In ~~the~~September ~~fundamental difference between the Bitcoin Network and the Horizen Network was that the Horizen Network offered selective privacy-preserving features. However~~2023, the Horizen Network implemented an update ~~in September 2023~~ that removed many of these privacy preserving features~~, as described below~~. InMore ~~addition~~recently, ~~the~~in ~~Bitcoin~~July ~~Network uses the SHA-256 algorithm~~2025, ~~which is preferred for parallel processing, but is also easily used to build application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) to mine~~ the ~~network~~Horizen ~~more~~Network ~~efficiently.~~executed Ina ~~contrast,~~full ~~the~~migration ~~Horizen~~of ~~Network~~ZEN ~~employs~~and the ~~Equihash algorithm.~~ Horizen ~~has~~protocol afrom ~~current~~its ~~block~~legacy ~~size~~standalone ofblockchain ~~2MB, compared~~ to the ~~variable~~Base ~~block size of the Bitcoin~~ Network, ~~which~~an ~~has~~Ethereum ~~a limit of approximately 4MB. Horizen blocks are also generated every~~ Layer-2.5 ~~minutes,~~network ~~which~~that isprovides ~~approximately~~the ~~four~~underlying ~~times~~consensus ~~faster~~and ~~than Bitcoin’s block production~~security. ~~Horizen halvings occur every 840,000 blocks, unlike Bitcoin’s halvings that occur every 210,000 blocks.~~ The Horizen ~~mining~~protocol ~~difficulty~~on isBase ~~also~~has ~~roughly~~been ~~one~~described ~~three-millionth~~by ofecosystem ~~Bitcoin’s,~~contributors ~~making~~as it“Layer-3” ~~significantly~~blockchain ~~easier~~environment to“built ~~mine~~for ~~blocks~~modular ~~and~~privacy ~~earn rewards. Additionally, Horizen~~ and ~~Bitcoin~~sustainable ~~both~~on-chain ~~have~~utility.” aWhereas ~~maximum~~ZEN ~~supply~~previously ofoperated 21as ~~million~~the ~~coins.~~transaction Asfee oftoken ~~September~~on ~~30,~~the ~~2024,~~ Horizen ~~had a circulating supply of approximately 15.5 million coins, which was less than Bitcoin~~Network’s ~~circulating~~standalone ~~supply~~blockchain ofand ~~approximately~~as ~~19.8~~a ~~million~~governance ~~coins.~~token Asfor ~~of September 30, 2024,~~ the ~~24-hour trading volume of~~ Horizen ~~and Bitcoin were approximately $3.5 million and $15.4 billion~~DAO, ~~respectively.~~after ~~As of September 30, 2024,~~ the ~~aggregate~~July ~~market~~2025 ~~value~~migration ~~of Horizen was $124.9 million, as compared~~ to ~~the $1~~Base,~~251.5~~ ~~billion~~ZEN ~~aggregate~~is ~~value~~now ofused ~~Bitcoin.~~throughout Asprivacy-focused ofprojects ~~September~~on ~~30, 2024, ZEN was~~ the ~~314th~~Horizen ~~largest~~Protocol ~~digital~~and ~~asset~~in ~~by market capitalization as tracked by CoinMarketCap~~governance.~~com.~~

The Horizen Network is one of a number of projects intended to enhance blockchain technology. One of the Horizen Network’s primary enhancements of ~~the~~ blockchain technology was to add additional layers of confidentiality to traditional blockchain infrastructure so that users could engage in transactions and selectively disclose details related to those transactions. ZEN accomplished this level of confidentiality by using novel cryptographic protocols called Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Argument of Knowledge (“zk-SNARKs”) to protect both the amount and the sender and recipient of the transaction. The result was a confidential transaction known as a “shielded” transaction, which was distinct from a public transaction on the Horizen Network, known as an “unshielded” transaction. From the inception of the Horizen Network through September 30, 2022, approximately 22% of Horizen transactions had been unshielded, approximately 4% involved one party utilizing a shielded address, and approximately 74% involved both parties utilizing a shielded address. However, in September 2023, the Horizen protocol implemented an update intended to deprecate these privacy shields, with the intent of causing it to no longer be considered a “privacy coin,” and, following the update, the Horizen Network no longer supported transactions from unshielded addresses to shielded addresses. More recently, in July 2025, the Horizen ecosystem executed a full migration of the ZEN and the Horizen protocol from its legacy standalone blockchain to the Base Network, an Ethereum Layer-2 network that provides the underlying consensus and security. See “—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market” for additional information on the Horizen Network’s historical selective privacy-preserving features and recent upgrades.

As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the Trust holds approximately 35.85% of the ZEN in circulation. The size of the Trust’s position does not itself enable the Sponsor or the Trust to participate in or otherwise influence the development of the Horizen Network. As a decentralized digital asset network, the Horizen Network consists of several stakeholders, including core developers of ZEN, users, services, businesses, ~~miners~~ and other constituencies, of which the Trust is only one constituent. Furthermore, in contrast to other protocols in which token holders participate in the governance of the network, ownership of ZEN confers no such rights.

On January 11, 2019, the Trust changed its name from Horizen Investment Trust to Grayscale Horizen Trust (ZEN) by filing a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State. The Trust issues common units of fractional undivided beneficial interest (“Shares”), which represent ownership in the Trust, on a periodic basis to certain “accredited investors” within the meaning of Rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) in exchange for deposits of ZEN. The Shares are quoted on OTC Markets Group Inc.’s OTCQX® Best Market (“OTCQX”) under the ticker symbol “HZEN.”

Until December 31, 2024, Grayscale Investments, LLC iswas the sponsor and administrator of the Trust. As a result of the Reorganization (as defined herein) on January 1, 2025, Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (“GSIS”) and Grayscale Operating, LLC (“GSO”), indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“DCG”), became Co-Sponsors of the Trust. On January 3, 2025 GSO voluntarily withdrew as a Sponsor of the Trust, and effective May 3, 2025 GSIS is the sole remaining Sponsor. Prior to May 3, 2025, all references herein to the “Sponsor”) shall be deemed to include both GSIS and GSO as Sponsors unless the context otherwise requires, and on or after May 3, 2025, all references herein to the “Sponsor” shall refer only to GSIS. CSC Delaware Trust Company is the trustee of the Trust (the “Trustee”), Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company is the transfer agent of the Trust (in such capacity, the “Transfer Agent”) and Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC is the custodian of the Trust (the “Custodian”).

The Trust issues Shares only in one or more blocks of 100 Shares (a block of 100 Shares is called a “Basket”) to certain authorized participants (“Authorized Participants”) from time to time. Baskets are offered in exchange for ZEN. At this time, the Sponsor is not operating a redemption program for the Shares and therefore Shares are not redeemable by the Trust. Due to the lack of an ongoing redemption program as well as price volatility, trading volume and closings of Digital Asset Trading Platforms due to fraud, failure, security breaches or otherwise, there can be no assurance that the value of the Shares will reflect the value of the Trust’s ZEN, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, and the Shares may trade at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the value of the Trust’s ZEN, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities.

The U.S. dollar value of a Basket of Shares at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date of a creation order is equal to the Basket Amount, which is the amount of ZEN required to create a Basket of Shares, multiplied by the “Reference Rate Price,” which is a volume-weighted average price in U.S. dollars for the immediately preceding 24-hour period derived from data collected from Digital Asset Trading Platforms trading ZEN selected by the Reference Rate Provider as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, and included in the CoinDesk Horizen Reference Rate (the “Reference Rate”), on each business day. The Reference Rate Price is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements. See “—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price.” On June 16, 2023, the Reference Rate Provider removed Binance.US from the Reference Rate due to Binance.US’s announcement that the trading platform was suspending U.S. dollar deposits and withdrawals and planned to delist its U.S. dollar trading pairs, and did not add any Constituent Trading Platforms as part of its review. As a result of this removal, there were no longer sufficient Constituent Trading Platforms for the Reference Rate Provider to continue producing the Reference Rate pursuant to the Constituent Trading Platform selection methodology described in “—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Constituent Trading Platform Selection” below. If the Reference Rate becomes unavailable, the Sponsor employs an alternative method to determine the Reference Rate Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable” below. Effective June 20, 2023, CoinDesk Indices, Inc. no longer determines the Reference Rate Price, and the Reference Rate Price is the price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate (the “Secondary Reference Rate”) as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date (the “Secondary Reference Rate Price”). The Secondary Reference Rate Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc. (the “Secondary Reference Rate Provider”). Effective June 20, 2023, any references to the “Reference Rate Price” in this Annual Report refers to the Secondary Reference Rate Price set by the Secondary Reference Rate selected by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider.

The Basket Amount is determined by dividing (x) the amount of ZEN owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such trade date, after deducting the amount of ZEN representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the Reference Rate Price at such time, and carried to the eighth decimal place), by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one ZEN (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100.

The Shares are neither interests in nor obligations of the Sponsor or the Trustee. As provided under the Trust Agreement, the Trust’s assets will not be loaned or pledged, or serve as collateral for any loan, margin, rehypothecation, or other similar activity to which the Sponsor, the Trust or any of their respective affiliates are a party.

The Sponsor maintains an internet website at www.grayscale.com/~~crypto-products~~funds/grayscale-horizen-trust/, through which the registrant’s annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), are made available free of charge after they have been filed or furnished to the SEC. Additional information regarding the Trust may also be found on the SEC’s EDGAR database at www.sec.gov.

The contents of the websites referred to above and any websites referred to herein are not incorporated into this filing or any other reports or documents we file with or furnish to the SEC. Further, our references to the URLs for these websites are intended to be inactive textual references only.

Investment Objective

The Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on ZEN per Share) to reflect the value of ZEN held by the Trust, determined by reference to the Reference Rate Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. To date, the Trust has not met its investment objective and the Shares quoted on OTCQX have not reflected the value of ZEN held by the Trust, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, but instead have traded at both premiums and discounts to such value, which at times have been substantial.

In the event the Shares trade at a substantial premium, investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX will pay substantially more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares in ~~the~~a private placement. The value of the Shares may not reflect the value of the Trust’s ZEN, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, for a variety of reasons, including the holding period under Rule 144 for Shares purchased in ~~the~~a private placement, the lack of an ongoing redemption program, any halting of creations by the Trust, ZEN price volatility, trading volumes on, or closures of, trading platforms where digital assets trade due to fraud, failure, security breaches or otherwise, and the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the global trading platform market for trading ZEN. As a result, the Shares may continue to trade at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the value of the Trust’s ZEN, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, and the Trust may be unable to meet its investment objective for the foreseeable future.

For example, from October 19, 2021 to September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 766%, the average premium was ~~223~~207%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 54%, and the average discount was 20%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between October 19, 2021 and September 30, ~~2024~~2025, has been quoted at a discount on ~~348~~357 days. As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the last business day of the period, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a premium of ~~492~~21% to the Trust’s NAV per Share. Prior to February 7, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings and NAV per Share was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings per Share. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Secondary Market Trading.”

to as Digital Asset Holdings and NAV per Share was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings per Share. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Secondary Market Trading.”

While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in ZEN, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to ZEN. A substantial direct investment in ZEN may require expensive and sometimes complicated arrangements in connection with the acquisition, security and safekeeping of the ZEN and may involve the payment of substantial fees to acquire such ZEN from third-party facilitators through cash payments of U.S. dollars. Because the value of the Shares is correlated with the value of the ZEN held by the Trust, it is important to understand the investment attributes of, and the market for, ZEN.

Shares purchased in ~~the~~a private placement are restricted securities that 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, including the requisite holding period thereunder, and any other applicable laws have been met. Any attempt to sell the Shares without the approval of the Sponsor in its sole discretion will be void ab initio. See “—Description of the Shares—Transfer Restrictions” for more information.

Pursuant to Rule 144, the minimum holding period for Shares purchased in ~~the~~a private placement is six months.

The Trust’s ZEN are carried, for financial statement purposes, at fair value, as required by the U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”). The Trust determines the fair value of ZEN based on the price provided by the Digital Asset Market that the Trust considers its principal market as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The net asset value of the Trust determined on a U.S. GAAP basis is referred to in this Annual Report as “Principal Market NAV.” Prior to February 7, 2024, Principal Market NAV was referred to as NAV. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Principal Market and Fair Value Determination” for more information on the Trust’s principal market selection.

The Trust uses the Reference Rate Price to calculate its “NAV,” a non-GAAP metric, which is the aggregate value, expressed in U.S. dollars, of the Trust’s assets (other than U.S. dollars, other fiat currency, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency), less the U.S. dollar value of the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities calculated in the manner set forth under “—Valuation of ZEN and Determination of NAV.” “NAV per Share” is calculated by dividing NAV by the number of Shares currently outstanding. NAV and NAV per Share are not measures calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP. NAV is not intended to be a substitute for the Trust’s Principal Market NAV calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and NAV per Share is not intended to be a substitute for the Trust’s Principal Market NAV per Share calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Prior to February 7, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings and Principal Market NAV was referred to as NAV.

At this time, the Trust is not operating a redemption program for Shares and therefore Shares are not redeemable by the Trust. In addition, the Trust may halt creations for extended periods of time for a variety of reasons, including in connection with forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences. As a result, Authorized Participants are not able to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities created when the market value of the Shares deviates from the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share, which may cause the Shares to trade at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share.

Subject to receipt of regulatory approval from the SEC and approval by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, the Trust may in the future operate a redemption program. However, because the Sponsor does not believe that the SEC would, at this time, entertain an application for the waiver of rules needed in order to operate an ongoing redemption program, the Sponsor currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval from the SEC for the Trust to operate an ongoing redemption program. Even if such relief is sought in the future, no assurance can be given as to the timing of such relief or that such relief will be granted. If such relief is granted and the Sponsor approves a redemption program, the Shares will be redeemable in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement and the relevant Participant Agreement. Although the Sponsor cannot predict with certainty what effect, if any, the operation of a redemption program would have on the trading price of the Shares, a redemption program would allow Authorized Participants to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities created when the market value of the Shares deviates from the value of the Trust’s ZEN, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, which may have the effect of reducing any premium or discount at which the Shares trade on OTCQX over or below such value, respectively, which at times has been substantial.

For a discussion of risks relating to the deviation in the trading price of the Shares from the NAV per Share, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—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 Reference Rate Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—Shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment if the Shares trade above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.”

a loss on their investment if the Shares trade above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.”

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, if the Sponsor determines that ZEN is a security under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because a federal court upholds an allegation that ZEN is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding ZEN in a way that would violate the federal securities laws (and therefore would either dissolve the Trust or potentially seek to operate the Trust in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”)). See “—Description of the Trust Agreement—Termination of the Trust” for additional discussion of the circumstances under which the Trust could be dissolved. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—A determination that ZEN or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of ZEN and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.”

Characteristics of the Shares

The Shares are intended to offer investors an opportunity to gain exposure to digital assets through an investment in securities. As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, each Share represented approximately 0.~~0857~~0836 ZEN. The logistics of accepting, transferring and safekeeping of ZEN are dealt with by the Sponsor and Custodian, and the related expenses are built into the value of the Shares. Therefore, shareholders do not have additional tasks or costs over and above those generally associated with investing in any other privately placed security.

The Shares have certain other key characteristics, including the following:

•

Easily Accessible and Relatively Cost Efficient. Investors in the Shares can also directly access the Digital Asset Markets. The Sponsor believes that investors will be able to more effectively implement strategic and tactical asset allocation strategies that use ZEN by using the Shares instead of directly purchasing and holding ZEN, and for many investors, transaction costs related to the Shares will be lower than those associated with the direct purchase, storage and safekeeping of ZEN.

•

Market-Traded and Transparent. The Shares are quoted on OTCQX. Shareholders that purchased Shares directly from the Trust and have held them for the requisite holding period under Rule 144 may sell their Shares on OTCQX upon receiving approval from the Sponsor. Investors may also choose to purchase Shares on OTCQX. Shares purchased on OTCQX are not restricted. The Sponsor believes the quotation of the Shares on OTCQX provides investors with an efficient means to implement various investment strategies. The Trust will not hold or employ any derivative securities. Furthermore, the value of the Trust’s assets will be reported each day on www.grayscale.com/~~crypto-products~~funds/grayscale-horizen-trust/.

•

Minimal Credit Risk. The Shares represent an interest in actual ZEN owned by the Trust. The Trust’s ZEN are not subject to borrowing arrangements with third parties and are subject to counterparty and minimal credit risk with respect to the Custodian. This contrasts with the other financial products such as CoinShares exchange-traded notes, TeraExchange swaps, futures, and ~~futures~~options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and the Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE”) through which investors gain exposure to digital assets through the use of derivatives that are subject to counterparty and credit risks.

•

Safekeeping System. The Custodian has been appointed to control and secure the ZEN for the Trust using offline storage, or “cold storage”, mechanisms to secure the Trust’s private key “shards”. The hardware, software, administration and continued technological development that are used by the Custodian may not be available or cost-effective for many investors.

The Trust differentiates itself from many competing digital asset financial vehicles in the following ways:

•

Custodian. The Custodian that holds the private key shards associated with the Trust’s ZEN is Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC. Other digital asset financial vehicles that use cold storage may not use a custodian to hold their private keys.

•

Cold Storage of Private Keys. The private key shards associated with the Trust’s ZEN are kept in cold storage, which means that the Trust’s ZEN are disconnected and/or deleted entirely from the internet. See “—Custody of the Trust’s ZEN” for more information relating to the storage and retrieval of the Trust’s private keys to and from cold storage. Other digital asset financial vehicles may not utilize cold storage or may utilize less effective cold storage-related hardware and security protocols.

•

Location of Private Vaults. Private key shards associated with the Trust’s ZEN are distributed geographically by the Custodian in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States. The locations of the secure vaults may change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes.

•

Enhanced Security. Transfers from the Trust’s Digital Asset Account require certain security procedures, including but not limited to, multiple encrypted private key shards, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification. Multiple private key shards held by the Custodian must be combined to reconstitute the private key to sign any transaction in order to transfer the Trust’s ZEN. Private key shards are distributed geographically in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States. As a result, if any one secure vault is ever compromised, this event will have no impact on the ability of the Trust to access its assets, other than a possible delay in operations, while one or more of the other secure vaults is used instead. These security procedures are intended to remove single points of failure in the protection of the Trust’s ZEN.

•

Custodian Inspections. The Custodian has agreed to allow the Trust and the Sponsor to take such steps as necessary to verify that satisfactory internal control systems and procedures are in place.

•

Directly Held ZEN. The Trust directly owns actual ZEN held through the Custodian. This may differ from other digital asset financial vehicles that provide ZEN exposure through other means, such as the use of financial or derivative instruments.

•

Sponsor’s Fee. The Sponsor’s Fee is a competitive factor that may influence the value of the Shares.

Activities of the Trust

The activities of the Trust are limited to (i) issuing Baskets in exchange for ZEN transferred to the Trust as consideration in connection with the creations, (ii) transferring or selling ZEN, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency as necessary to cover the Sponsor’s Fee and/or any Additional Trust Expenses, (iii) transferring ZEN in exchange for Baskets surrendered for redemption (subject to obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC and approval from the Sponsor), (iv) causing the Sponsor to sell ZEN, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency on the termination of the Trust, (v) making distributions of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency or cash from the sale thereof and (vi) engaging in all administrative and security procedures necessary to accomplish such activities in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement, the Custodian Agreement, the Reference Rate License Agreement, the Secondary Reference Rate Provider Agreement and the Participant Agreements.

InThe ~~addition, the~~ Trust may engage in any lawful activity necessary or desirable in order to facilitate shareholders’ access to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, provided that such activities do not conflict with the terms of the Trust Agreement. See “—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency” for more information. The Trust will not be actively managed. It will not engage in any activities designed to obtain a profit from, or to ameliorate losses caused by, changes in the market prices of ZEN.

Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency

The Trust may from time to time come into possession of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency by virtue of its ownership of ZEN, generally through athe ~~fork~~Horizen inecosystem ~~the~~pivoting ~~Horizen~~from ~~Blockchain~~its then-current network, an airdrop offered to holders of ZEN or other similar event. Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust may take any lawful action necessary or desirable in connection with the Trust’s ownership of Incidental Rights, including the acquisition of IR Virtual Currency, unless such action would adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise be prohibited by the Trust Agreement. These actions include (i) selling Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in the Digital Asset Market and distributing the cash proceeds to shareholders, (ii) distributing Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in-kind to the shareholders or to an agent acting on behalf of the shareholders for sale by such agent if an in-kind distribution would otherwise be infeasible and (iii) irrevocably abandoning Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. The Trust may also use Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses, if any, as discussed below under “—Expenses; Sales of ZEN.” However, the Trust does not expect to take any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency it may hold into account for purposes of determining the Trust’s NAV, the NAV per Share, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share.

With respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor may, in its discretion, decide to cause the Trust to distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency in-kind to an agent of the shareholders for resale by such agent, or to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. In the case of a distribution in-kind to an agent acting on behalf of the shareholders, the shareholders’ agent will attempt to sell the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, and if the agent is able to do so, will remit the cash proceeds to shareholders, net of expenses and any applicable withholding taxes. There can be no assurance as to the price or prices for any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency that the agent may realize, and the value of the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency may increase or decrease after any sale by the agent. In the case of abandonment of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, the Trust would not receive any direct or indirect consideration for the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency and thus the value of the Shares will not reflect the value of the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency.

On July 29, 2019, the Sponsor delivered to the Custodian a notice (the “Pre-Creation Abandonment Notice”) stating that the Trust is abandoning irrevocably for no direct or indirect consideration, effective immediately prior to each time at which the Trust creates Shares (any such time, a “Creation Time”), all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time (any such abandonment, a “Pre-Creation Abandonment”); provided that a Pre-Creation Abandonment will not apply to any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency if (i) the Trust has taken, or is taking at such time, an Affirmative Action to acquire or abandon such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency at any time prior to such Creation Time or (ii) such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency has been subject to a previous Pre-Creation Abandonment. An Affirmative Action refers to a written notification

Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency if (i) the Trust has taken, or is taking at such time, an Affirmative Action to acquire or abandon such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency at any time prior to such Creation Time or (ii) such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency has been subject to a previous Pre-Creation Abandonment. An Affirmative Action refers to a written notification from the Sponsor to the Custodian of the Trust’s intention (i) to acquire and/or retain any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency or (ii) to abandon, with effect prior to the relevant Creation Time, any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency.

In determining whether to take an Affirmative Action to acquire and/or retain an Incidental Right and/or IR Virtual Currency, the Trust takes into consideration a number of factors, including:

•

the Custodian’s agreement to provide access to the IR Virtual Currency;

•

the availability of a safe and practical way to custody the IR Virtual Currency;

•

the costs of taking possession and/or maintaining ownership of the IR Virtual Currency and whether such costs exceed the benefits of owning such IR Virtual Currency;

•

whether there are any legal restrictions on, or tax implications with respect to, the ownership, sale or disposition of the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, regardless of whether there is a safe and practical way to custody and secure such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency;

•

the existence of a suitable market into which the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency may be sold; and

•

whether the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency is, or may be, a security under federal securities laws.

In determining whether the IR Virtual Currency is, or may be, a security under 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.

As a result of the Pre-Creation Abandonment Notice, since July 29, 2019, the Trust has irrevocably abandoned, prior to the Creation Time of any Shares, any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency that it may have any right to receive at such time. The Trust has no right to receive any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency abandoned pursuant to either the Pre-Creation Abandonment Notice or Affirmative Actions. Furthermore, the Custodian has no authority, pursuant to the Custodian Agreement or otherwise, to exercise, obtain or hold, as the case may be, any such abandoned Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency on behalf of the Trust or to transfer any such abandoned Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency to the Trust if the Trust terminates its custodial agreement with the Custodian.

The Sponsor intends to evaluate each fork, airdrop or similar occurrence on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Trust’s legal advisers, tax consultants, and Custodian, and may decide to abandon any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency resulting from a hard fork, airdrop or similar occurrence should the Sponsor conclude, in its discretion, that such abandonment is in the best interests of the Trust. In the event the Sponsor decides to sell any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, it would expect to execute the sale to or through an eligible financial institution that is subject to federal and state licensing requirements and practices regarding anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-customer (“KYC”) regulations, which may include an Authorized Participant, a Liquidity Provider (as defined below in “—Service Providers of the Trust—Authorized Participants”), or one or more of their affiliates. In either case, the Sponsor expects that an Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider would only be willing to transact with the Sponsor on behalf of the Trust if an Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider considered it possible to trade the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency on a Digital Asset Trading Platform or other venue to which the Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider has access. Generally, any such Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider would have access only to Digital Asset Trading Platforms or other venues that it reasonably believes are operating in compliance with applicable law, including federal and state licensing requirements, based upon information and assurances provided to it by each venue.

Secondary Market Trading

While the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on ZEN per Share) to reflect the value of the ZEN held by the Trust, determined by reference to the Reference Rate Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, the Shares may trade in the Secondary Market on OTCQX (or on another Secondary Market in the future) at prices that are lower or higher than the NAV per Share. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the NAV per Share may be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours and liquidity between OTCQX and larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms. While the Shares ~~are listed and~~ trade on OTCQX from 6:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., New York time, liquidity in the Digital Asset Markets may fluctuate depending upon the volume and availability of larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms. As a result, during periods in which Digital Asset Market liquidity is limited or a major Digital Asset Trading Platform is off-line, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on the Shares may widen.

Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market

~~Horizen,~~Introduction ~~or ZEN, is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-~~to~~-peer~~ ~~Horizen Network, a decentralized network of computers that operates on cryptographic protocols. No single entity owns or operates~~ the ~~Horizen~~Ethereum Network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. The Horizen Network allows people to exchange tokens of value, called ZEN, which are recorded on a public transaction ledger known as a blockchain. ZEN can be used to pay for goods and services, including computational power on the Horizen Network, or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on Digital Asset Trading Platforms or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system.

~~The~~ZEN ~~Horizen Network~~ is ~~one~~an ofERC-20 acompliant ~~number~~token ofon ~~projects intended to enhance blockchain technology. One of~~ the ~~Horizen~~Base Network’s ~~primary enhancements of the blockchain was to add additional layers of confidentiality to traditional blockchain infrastructure so~~ that ~~users~~relies ~~could~~on ~~make transactions and selectively disclose details related to those transactions. ZEN accomplished this level of confidentiality by using novel cryptographic zk-SNARKs to protect both~~ the ~~amount~~Ethereum ~~and~~Network ~~the~~for ~~sender~~key ~~and~~functionality ~~recipient~~such ~~of the transaction. The result was a confidential transaction known~~ as ~~a “shielded” transaction. From the inception of the Horizen Network through September 30~~storage, ~~2022~~transfer, ~~approximately 22% of Horizen transactions had been unshielded, approximately 4% involved one party utilizing a shielded address,~~ and ~~approximately~~usage. ~~74%~~As ~~involved both parties utilizing~~ a ~~shielded address. However~~result, init ~~September~~is ~~2023,~~important ~~the Horizen protocol implemented an update intended~~ to ~~deprecate~~understand ~~these~~the ~~privacy~~characteristics ~~shields,~~of ~~with~~ the ~~intent~~Ethereum ofNetwork ~~causing~~in itorder to nounderstand ~~longer~~how beZEN ~~considered a “privacy coin,”~~ and, ~~following~~ the ~~update, the~~ Horizen Network ~~no longer supported transactions from unshielded addresses to shielded addresses~~operate.

The ~~Horizen~~peer-to-peer Ethereum Network ~~was~~is ~~launched on May 23, 2017 as “ZenCash” by~~ a ~~team~~decentralized network of ~~scientists,~~computers ~~cryptographers,~~that ~~engineers~~operates ~~and~~on ~~advisers~~cryptographic ofprotocols. ~~the~~No ~~Horizen~~single ~~Blockchain~~entity ~~Foundation~~owns ~~(the~~or ~~“Foundation”),~~operates ~~bringing into existence~~ the ~~first~~Ethereum ~~ZEN~~Network; ~~tokens. In this role,~~ the ~~Foundation~~network’s ~~supports~~infrastructure ~~the~~is ~~development~~collectively ofmaintained ~~ZEN~~ by, ~~among~~a ~~other~~decentralized ~~things,~~user ~~reviewing and implementing upgrades that become part of the main implementation of ZEN~~base. The ~~Horizen~~Ethereum Network ~~was~~allows ~~created~~people ~~through~~to aexchange ~~fork~~tokens of ~~the Zclassic protocol~~value, ~~which~~called inEther. ~~turn~~Transactions ~~was~~are ~~created~~recorded ~~through~~on a ~~clone~~public ofledger ~~the~~known ~~Zcash~~as ~~blockchain, which in turn was created through~~ a ~~clone of the Bitcoin~~ blockchain,. ~~the~~The ~~first~~Ethereum ~~and~~Network ~~most~~also ~~widely~~allows ~~used~~users ~~blockchain.~~to ~~Zcash~~write ~~was~~and ~~the~~implement ~~first~~smart ~~digital~~contracts—that ~~asset~~is, ~~protocol to introduce zk~~general-~~SNARKs.~~purpose ~~The~~code ~~Zclassic~~that ~~protocol~~executes ison ~~substantially~~every ~~similar~~computer toin the ~~Zcash~~network ~~protocol~~and ~~except~~can ~~that~~instruct itthe ~~changed~~transmission ~~key~~of ~~economic~~information and ~~governance~~value ~~parameters,~~based ~~including~~on ~~removing~~ a ~~20%~~sophisticated ~~block~~set ~~reward~~of ~~that~~logical isconditions. ~~distributed~~Using tosmart acontracts, ~~group~~users ofcan ~~Zcash~~create ~~founders~~markets, ~~investors,~~store ~~employees~~registries ~~and~~of ~~advisers~~debts asor apromises, ~~“founders~~represent ~~reward” for~~ the ~~first~~ownership ~~four years~~ of ~~the~~property, ~~Zcash~~move ~~network’s~~funds ~~operation.~~in ~~The~~accordance ~~ZEN blockchain further forked the Zclassic protocol to develop a platform~~ with ~~additional~~conditional ~~changes~~instructions toand ~~the~~create ~~economic,~~digital ~~governance~~assets ~~and~~other ~~technical~~than ~~parameters~~Ether ofon the ~~network,~~Ethereum ~~as described below~~Network.

~~Unlike~~Smart ~~Zcash~~Contracts and ~~Zclassic,~~Development which were originally designed to apply the privacy-preserving features of zk-SNARKs to financial transactions, the creators of Horizen realized that zk-SNARKs had wider applications beyond the privacy-preserving financial transactions, such as privacy-preserving messaging and publishing. The creators of Horizen principally achieved this by expanding beyond a single layer blockchain to utilize two-layer parallel blockchains. As a result, today the Horizen Network is comprised of two core blockchain layers: (1) the main Horizen Blockchain, which serves as the base layer for a simple Peer-2-Peer (P2P) digital asset protocol and (2) parallel blockchains (each a “Sidechain” and collectively, “Sidechains”), which provide for additional functionality and blockchain application features. In this sense, Horizen is a “blockchain-of-blockchains.” Both the Horizen Blockchain and Sidechains share a common digital asset, ZEN. On the Horizen Blockchain, ZEN can be used as a P2P digital asset, like Bitcoin and Zcash, and on the ~~Sidechains, ZEN can be used to fuel decentralized applications (dApps) and smart contracts, like~~ Ethereum. ~~With all of these functionalities, the Horizen~~ Network ~~seeks to create a high-performing platform for money, media and messaging.~~

~~While~~Smart ~~ZEN’s~~contracts ~~monetary~~are ~~base~~programs isthat ~~intended~~run toon bea ~~fixed~~blockchain atthat 21can ~~million,~~execute ~~the~~automatically ~~same~~when ascertain ~~the~~conditions ~~monetary~~are ~~base~~met. ofSmart ~~Bitcoin~~contracts ~~and~~facilitate ~~Zcash, and while~~ the ~~rate~~exchange of ~~ZEN~~anything ~~creation~~representative ~~will similarly halve every four years, there are some important differences in how ZEN is mined and distributed. For example,~~ of ~~the 6.25 ZEN created every 2.5 minutes~~value, ~~the block reward is distributed~~ such that 60% is distributed to miners, 10% to nodes securing the Eon network side chain launched by the Horizen ecosystem in October 2023 (the “EON 1.0 nodes”), 10% to Super Nodes and 20% to the Foundation. However, the allocation of new ZEN as ~~block rewards is expected to change with the EON 2.0 Migration~~money, ~~as described further below. See “—Creation of New ZEN” and “—Market Participants” for more~~ information~~. This is in contrast to Zcash~~, ~~where~~property, ~~during~~or ~~the~~voting ~~first~~rights. ~~four~~Using ~~years~~smart ~~of ZEC’s existence~~contracts, ~~80%~~users ofcan ~~newly~~send ~~created~~or ~~ZEC~~receive isdigital ~~distributed to miners and 20% is allocated to the founders’ reward~~assets, ~~with~~create ~~10% of the ZEC in existence ultimately being distributed to the founders’ reward~~markets, ~~and~~store ~~Zclassic,~~registries ~~which eliminated the concept~~ of adebts ~~founders’~~or ~~reward such that all newly created ZCL~~promises, ~~the~~represent ~~native~~ownership ~~token~~ of ~~the~~property ~~Zclassic~~or ~~protocol, is distributed to miners. Like Zcash, ZEN also implemented~~ a ~~memory-hard proof-of-work algorithm~~company, ~~Equihash,~~move ~~which~~funds ~~involves adding a memory-hard problem to be solved~~ in ~~valid~~accordance ~~blocks,~~with ~~which~~conditional isinstructions ~~intended~~and tocreate ~~result~~new indigital ~~less centralized hash power~~assets.

~~The~~Development ~~Horizen~~on ~~Network is decentralized and does not require governmental, financial institution intermediaries or others, including~~ the ~~Foundation,~~Ethereum ~~to create, transmit or determine the value of ZEN. Rather, ZEN is created and allocated by the Horizen~~ Network ~~protocol~~involves ~~through~~building amore ~~“mining”~~complex ~~process.~~tools ~~Although~~on ~~the~~top ~~Foundation~~of ~~does~~smart ~~not control the Horizen Network~~contracts, itsuch ~~monitors~~as ~~the~~decentralized ~~development~~apps of(DApps) ~~the Horizen Network~~ and ~~offers~~organizations ~~updates~~that toare ~~the Horizen protocol~~autonomous, ~~which~~known ~~the~~as ~~public~~decentralized ~~may~~autonomous ~~choose~~organizations ~~to implement or ignore~~(DAOs). ~~The~~For ~~Foundation~~example, ~~does~~a ~~not~~company ~~sell,~~that ~~exchange,~~distributes ~~transmit~~charitable ordonations ~~retain~~on ~~custody~~behalf of ~~ZEN~~users ~~for~~could ~~consumers~~hold ordonated ~~the~~funds ~~public~~in atsmart ~~large.~~contracts ~~The~~that ~~value~~are ofpaid ~~ZEN~~to ischarities ~~determined~~only byif the ~~supply~~charity ofsatisfies ~~and~~certain ~~demand for ZEN on the Digital Asset Trading Platforms or in private end~~pre-~~user-to-end-user~~defined ~~transactions~~conditions.

More recently, the Ethereum Network has been used for decentralized finance (DeFi) or open finance platforms, which seek to democratize access to financial services, such as borrowing, lending, custody, trading, derivatives and insurance, by removing third-party intermediaries. DeFi can allow users to lend and earn interest on their digital assets, exchange one digital asset for another and create derivative digital assets such as stablecoins, which are digital assets pegged to a reserve asset such as fiat currency.

ERC-20 and ERC-20 Tokens

The Ethereum Network is one of a number of projects intended to expand blockchain use beyond just a peer-to-peer money system. For example, using smart contracts, users can create digital assets other than Ether on the Ethereum Network using a technical standard known as ERC-20. ERC-20 defines a common list of rules for digital assets created on the Ethereum Network to follow, such as the total supply and functionality. The unique combinations of different rules allow developers to create new digital assets and thus new applications on the Ethereum Network. Digital assets created from the ERC-20 standard are known as “ERC-20 tokens.”

Description of the Base blockchain

Layer-2 networks serve to overcome certain perceived hurdles associated with the Ethereum Network. For example, the Ethereum Network is capable of processing approximately 12 transactions per second, which is commonly referred to as its “throughput.” By comparison, other payment networks, such as Visa’s global payments network, VisaNet, can process more than 65,000 transactions per second. Some believe that the Ethereum Network is not capable of scaling substantially beyond its current limits due to difficulties in maintaining synchronization among its network of thousands of validators that prohibit higher throughput amounts. Layer-2 blockchains attempt to process transactions through a much smaller set of nodes and then periodically sync to the Ethereum Network according to a set of cryptographic rules that allow potentially thousands of transactions that occur on the Layer-2 blockchain to be represented in a single transaction on the Ethereum Network. This configuration seeks to increase network speeds across associated Layer-2 blockchains while harnessing the security provided by the Ethereum Network’s large, decentralized validator base. Layer-2 blockchains operate like a smaller Ethereum Network in that they can process transactions and facilitate smart contracts, though at a higher throughput, yet attempt to borrow from the Ethereum Network’s security through various synchronization mechanisms.

To achieve these scaling goals, the design of the Base blockchain is centered around “optimistic rollups,” a mechanism by which a smaller set of Layer-2 nodes process users’ transactions and then batches those transactions into a single transaction that “rolls up” to the Ethereum Network. Rather than validating every single transaction like the Ethereum Network, optimistic rollups assume that transactions are valid unless challenged by a validator during a dispute period by submitting a proof of the invalid transactions. If there are no challenges during a dispute period applicable to a batch of transactions, those transactions are finalized to the Ethereum

~~Similar to the Bitcoin~~ Network and ~~the~~cannot ~~Zcash~~be ~~network,~~undone ~~the~~without ~~Horizen~~manipulating ~~Network operates on a proof-of-work model. A portion of new ZEN are created and rewarded to~~ the ~~miners~~Ethereum ~~of a block in the Horizen~~ Network ~~for~~against ~~verifying~~protocol ~~transactions~~rules. ~~The~~Because ~~Horizen~~transactions ~~Network~~on ismany ~~effectively~~Layer-2 ablockchains ~~decentralized~~such ~~database~~as ~~that~~the ~~includes~~Base ~~all~~blockchain ~~blocks~~are ~~that~~submitted ~~have been solved by miners and it is updated to include new blocks~~ as ~~they~~a ~~are~~single ~~solved. Each ZEN~~ transaction ison ~~broadcast to~~ the ~~Horizen~~Ethereum Network ~~and~~, ~~when~~transaction ~~included~~fees inassociated awith ~~block,~~Ethereum ~~recorded~~Network intransactions ~~the~~may ~~Horizen~~be ~~Blockchain.~~allocated Asamong ~~each~~all ~~new~~the ~~block~~Layer-2 ~~records~~blockchain ~~outstanding ZEN~~ transactions, ~~and~~resulting ~~outstanding~~in ~~transactions~~much ~~are~~lower ~~settled~~cost ~~and~~per ~~validated~~transaction ~~through~~than ~~such~~if ~~recording,~~they ~~the~~were ~~Horizen~~conducted ~~Blockchain~~directly ~~represents~~on ~~a complete, unshielded and unbroken history of all transactions of~~ the ~~Horizen~~Ethereum Network. ~~For further details, see “—Creation of New ZEN.”~~

InIntroduction ~~June 2024, members of the ZEN ecosystem voted~~ to deprecate the Horizen Network in favor of the yet-to-be-launched “EON 2.0” network (the “EON 2.0 Migration”). The EON 2.0 network is intended be a smart contract platform, unlike the Horizen Network, which is primarily intended as a payment platform. Just as in the Horizen Network, ZEN is intended to serve as the native digital asset for EON 2.0. However, unlike the Horizen Network’s proof-of-work consensus mechanism, in which miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and ~~are rewarded coins in proportion to~~ the amount of computational resources expended, EON 2.0 intends to leverage proof-of-stake, whereby validators of the network risk or “stake” ZEN to compete to be selected to validate transactions and are rewarded ZEN in proportion to the amount of tokens staked. ZEN’s supply cap of 21 million is not expected to be affected by the EON 2.0 Migration. However, in September 2024, members of the ZEN ecosystem voted to approve a proposal to adjust the allocation of newly minted ZEN. This proposal is expected to take effect upon the completed EON 2.0 Migration. The proposal calls for 40% of newly issued ZEN to be distributed to validators securing the EON 2.0 network, 32.5% to be distributed to the Horizen ~~Foundation, and 27.5% to be distributed to a decentralized autonomous organization under the collective control of ZEN holders (the “Horizen DAO”).~~ Network

~~The proposal also called for replacing the~~ ZEN’s ~~per-block~~is ~~issuance schedule with a time-based release schedule. Under~~ the ~~proposal,~~primary ~~the~~digital ~~full~~asset ~~amount~~related ~~of future ZEN allocated~~ to the Horizen ~~Foundation and Horizen DAO would be issued immediately upon the EON 2.0 Migration~~protocol, ~~with~~a ~~25%~~decentralized ofprotocol ~~those~~designed ~~amounts~~ to befacilitate ~~unlocked~~modular ~~immediately~~privacy ~~upon the EON 2.0 Migration~~ and ~~the~~sustainable ~~remaining~~on-chain ~~75% to be unlocked linearly at monthly intervals for 48 months thereafter~~utility. ~~Newly~~No ~~issued~~single ~~ZEN~~entity ~~allocated~~owns toor ~~EON~~operates ~~2.0 validators would continue issuance according to~~ the ~~halving~~Horizen ~~schedule~~protocol; ~~previously~~rather, init ~~place.~~is Asmaintained ~~with~~collectively ~~the~~by ~~changes~~a todistributed ~~ZEN~~set ~~allocation,~~of ~~these~~participants ~~changes~~operating toon the ~~ZEN~~Base ~~emission~~Network, ~~schedule~~an ~~are~~Ethereum ~~expected~~Layer-2 tonetwork ~~occur~~that ~~upon~~provides the ~~EON~~underlying ~~2.0~~consensus ~~Migration,~~and ~~which is expected to occur in 2025~~security. The Horizen ~~Network~~protocol isoperates ~~expected~~as toa be“Layer-3” ~~deprecated~~network, inmeaning ~~favor~~a ofspecialized ~~EON~~blockchain ~~2.0~~environment inbuilt ~~2025~~on ~~and~~top ~~holders~~ of ~~ZEN on the Horizen Network are expected to be able to claim~~ an ~~equal~~existing ~~amount of ZEN on the EON~~ Layer-2.0 network ~~around~~to ~~that~~provide ~~time.~~additional Itfunctionality isor ~~possible that the actual implementation of EON 2~~customization.0 ~~and~~In ~~migration~~its ~~from~~current ~~the~~form, Horizen ~~Network,~~provides ~~including~~infrastructure ~~but~~for ~~not~~privacy-enhanced ~~limited~~decentralized toapplications ~~the changes~~ to ~~the~~run ~~issuance~~on ~~schedule~~Base ofrather ~~new ZEN, may occur differently~~ than isserving ~~currently~~as ~~expected~~an orindependent ~~possibly~~payment ~~not occur at all~~network.

~~Similar~~The Horizen Network is one of a number of projects intended to ~~Bitcoin~~enhance blockchain technology. One of the Horizen Network’s original primary enhancements of the blockchain was to add additional layers of confidentiality to traditional blockchain infrastructure so that users could make transactions and ~~Zcash,~~selectively disclose details related to those transactions. ZEN ~~can~~accomplished bethis ~~used~~level of confidentiality by using novel cryptographic zk-SNARKs to ~~pay~~protect ~~for~~both ~~goods~~the amount and ~~services~~the orsender ~~can~~and berecipient ~~converted~~of tothe ~~fiat~~transaction. ~~currencies,~~The ~~such~~result was a confidential transaction known as ~~the~~a U“shielded” transaction.S. ~~dollar~~However, atin ~~rates~~September ~~determined~~2023, onthe ~~digital~~Horizen ~~asset~~protocol ~~trading~~implemented ~~platforms~~an orupdate inintended ~~individual~~to ~~end-user-~~deprecate these privacy shields, with the intent of causing it to~~-end-user~~ ~~transactions~~no ~~under~~longer be considered a ~~barter~~“privacy ~~system~~coin,” and, following the update, the Horizen Network no longer supported transactions from unshielded addresses to shielded addresses. ~~Additionally~~More recently, in July 2025, the Horizen ecosystem executed a full migration of the ZEN isand ~~used~~the toHorizen ~~pay~~protocol ~~for~~from ~~transaction~~its ~~fees~~legacy tostandalone ~~miners~~blockchain ~~for~~its ~~verifying~~current ~~transactions~~form on Base (the ~~Horizen~~“2025 ~~Network~~Migration”).

~~Overview~~The original form of the Horizen Network was launched on May 23, 2017 as “ZenCash” by a team of scientists, cryptographers, engineers and advisers of the Horizen Blockchain Foundation (the “Foundation”), bringing into existence the first ZEN tokens. In this role, the Foundation supports the development of ZEN by, among other things, reviewing and implementing upgrades that become part of the main implementation of ZEN. The Horizen Network was created through a fork of the Zclassic protocol, which in turn was created through a clone of the Zcash blockchain, which in turn was created through a clone of the Bitcoin blockchain, the first and most widely used blockchain. Zcash was the first digital asset protocol to introduce zk-SNARKs. The Zclassic protocol is substantially similar to the Zcash protocol except that it changed key economic and governance parameters, including removing a 20% block reward that is distributed to a group of Zcash founders, investors, employees and advisers as a “founders reward” for the first four years of the Zcash network’s ~~Operations~~operation. The ZEN blockchain further forked the Zclassic protocol to develop a platform with additional changes to the economic, governance and technical parameters of the network, as described below.

InUnlike ~~order~~Zcash toand ~~own~~Zclassic, ~~transfer~~which orwere ~~use~~originally ~~ZEN~~designed ~~directly~~to onapply the ~~Horizen~~privacy-preserving ~~Network~~features ~~(as~~of ~~opposed~~zk-SNARKs to ~~through~~financial ~~an intermediary~~transactions, ~~such~~the ascreators aof ~~custodian),~~Horizen arealized ~~person~~that ~~generally~~zk-SNARKs ~~must~~had ~~have~~wider ~~internet~~applications ~~access~~beyond ~~to connect to~~ the ~~Horizen~~privacy-preserving ~~Network.~~financial ~~ZEN~~ transactions, ~~may~~such beas ~~made directly between end~~privacy-~~users~~preserving ~~without~~messaging ~~the~~and ~~need for a third-party intermediary~~publishing. ToThe ~~prevent~~creators ~~the possibility~~ of ~~double-spending ZEN, a user must notify the~~ Horizen ~~Network~~principally ofachieved ~~the~~this ~~transaction~~ by ~~broadcasting~~expanding ~~certain~~beyond ~~transaction~~a ~~data~~single tolayer ~~its~~blockchain ~~network~~to ~~peers.~~utilize ~~The Horizen Network provides confirmation against double~~two-~~spending~~layer byparallel ~~memorializing~~blockchains. ~~transactions~~As ina ~~the Horizen Blockchain~~result, in the ~~case of public transactions, or through zk-SNARK zero-knowledge proofs in the case of shielded transactions. This memorialization and verification against double-spending is accomplished through the~~ Horizen Network ~~mining~~was ~~process,~~comprised ~~which adds “blocks”~~ of ~~data,~~two ~~including~~core ~~certain~~blockchain ~~transaction~~layers: ~~information,~~(1) to the ~~Horizen~~main ~~Blockchain. Although the~~ Horizen ~~Network is publicly accessible~~Blockchain, ~~shielded~~which ~~transactions~~served ~~do not, by design, have the same level of transparency~~ as the ~~Bitcoin~~base ~~blockchain.~~layer ~~Nonetheless,~~for ina ~~September~~simple ~~2023,~~Peer-2-Peer ~~the~~(P2P) ~~Horizen~~digital asset protocol ~~implemented~~and an(2) ~~update~~parallel ~~intended~~blockchains to(each ~~deprecate these privacy shields, with the intent of causing it to no longer be considered~~ a “~~privacy coin,~~Sidechain” ~~and~~), ~~following~~which ~~the~~provided ~~update,~~for ~~the~~additional ~~Horizen~~functionality ~~Network~~and noblockchain ~~longer~~application ~~supported~~features. ~~transactions~~In ~~from~~this ~~unshielded~~sense, ~~addresses~~Horizen towas ~~shielded~~a ~~addresses~~“blockchain-of-blockchains.”

~~Brief~~In ~~Description~~the 2025 Migration, the Horizen community re-architected this multi-chain model into a more modular framework built on existing Ethereum infrastructure. Rather than operating its own independent base and Sidechain system, Horizen now functions as a Layer-3 protocol on the Base Network, an Ethereum Layer-2 platform. This new structure preserves the Horizen project’s original goal of ~~ZEN~~enabling ~~Transfers~~privacy-enhanced applications while eliminating the need to maintain a separate consensus network. In this model, Base provides transaction ordering, consensus, and data availability, while the Horizen protocol is intended to be a series of tools that allow developers to build privacy-preserving decentralized applications with selective disclosure features. For example, the Horizen protocol is designed to support applications in implementing or using zero-knowledge proofs to conceal transaction details or user data from the public while still allowing verification for compliance or audit purposes, such as decentralized exchanges that hide trade information or identity systems that prove a user’s eligibility without revealing personal data. The transition effectively replaced Horizen’s native blockchain layers with a single, interoperable protocol layer designed to integrate more directly with the broader Ethereum ecosystem.

~~There~~ZEN’s ~~are~~monetary ~~two~~base ~~types~~is ofintended ~~transactions~~to ~~that~~be ~~can~~fixed ~~occur~~at on21 million, the ~~Horizen~~same ~~Network:~~as ~~(1)~~the ~~unshielded~~monetary ~~transactions,~~base ~~which~~of ~~are~~Bitcoin ~~similar~~and toZcash. Historically, the ~~transactions~~rate ~~that~~of ~~take~~ZEN ~~place~~creation onwas ~~other~~similarly ~~blockchains~~programmed to halve every four years. However, ~~such~~the allocation of new ZEN as changed with the ~~Bitcoin~~2025 ~~Network~~Migration, as described further below. See “—Creation of New ZEN” and “—Market Participants” for more information. This is in contrast to Zcash, where, during the ~~Ethereum~~first ~~network~~four ~~and~~years ~~(2)~~of ~~shielded~~ZEC’s ~~transactions~~existence, ~~which~~80% ~~maintain~~of anewly ~~higher~~created ~~degree~~ZEC is distributed to miners and 20% is allocated to the founders’ reward, with 10% of ~~privacy~~the ~~compared~~ZEC in existence ultimately being distributed to ~~unshielded~~the ~~transactions.~~founders’ reward, and Zclassic,

Prior to engaging in ZEN transactions directly on the Horizen Network, a user generally must first install on its computer or mobile device a Horizen Network software program that will allow the user to generate a private and public key pair associated with a ZEN address, commonly referred to as a “wallet.” The Horizen Network software program and the ZEN address also enable the user to connect to the Horizen Network and transfer ZEN to, and receive ZEN from, other users.

~~Each~~which ~~Horizen~~eliminated ~~Network~~the ~~address,~~concept orof ~~wallet, is associated with~~ a ~~unique~~founders’ ~~“public~~reward ~~key”~~such ~~and~~that ~~“private~~all ~~key”~~newly ~~pair.~~created ~~To receive ZEN~~ZCL, the ~~ZEN~~native ~~recipient~~token ~~must~~of ~~provide its public key to~~ the ~~party~~Zclassic ~~initiating~~protocol, ~~the transfer. This activity~~ is ~~analogous~~distributed to ~~a recipient for a transaction in U~~miners.S. ~~dollars~~Like ~~providing~~Zcash, aZEN ~~routing~~also ~~address~~implemented ~~in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient’s account. The payor approves the transfer to the address provided by the recipient by “signing”~~ a ~~transaction~~memory-hard ~~that consists~~ proof-of-work ~~the~~algorithm, ~~recipient’s~~Equihash, ~~public~~which ~~key~~involves ~~with~~adding ~~the~~a ~~private~~memory-hard ~~key~~problem ofto ~~the~~be ~~address~~solved ~~from~~in ~~where~~valid ~~the~~blocks, ~~payor~~which is ~~transferring~~intended ~~the ZEN. The recipient, however, does not make public or provide~~ to ~~the~~result ~~sender~~in ~~its~~less ~~related~~centralized ~~private~~hash ~~key~~power.

~~Neither~~The ~~the~~Horizen ~~recipient~~Network ~~nor~~is ~~the~~decentralized ~~sender~~and ~~reveal~~does ~~their~~not ~~private~~require ~~keys in a transaction~~governmental, ~~because~~financial ~~the~~institution ~~private~~intermediaries ~~key~~or ~~authorizes~~others, ~~transfer~~including of the ~~funds~~Foundation, ~~in that address~~ to ~~other users. Therefore~~create, iftransmit ~~a user loses his~~ or ~~her~~determine ~~private key,~~ the ~~user~~value ~~may~~of ~~permanently~~ZEN. ~~lose~~Although ~~access to~~ the ~~ZEN~~Foundation ~~contained~~does innot control the ~~associated~~Horizen ~~address. Likewise~~Network, ~~ZEN~~it ismonitors ~~irretrievably~~the ~~lost~~development ifof the ~~private~~Horizen ~~key~~Network ~~associated with them is deleted~~ and nooffers ~~backup~~updates ~~has~~to ~~been~~the ~~made.~~Horizen ~~When sending ZEN~~protocol, awhich ~~user’s~~the ~~Horizen~~public ~~Network~~may ~~software~~choose ~~program~~to ~~must~~implement ~~validate~~or ~~the~~ignore. ~~transaction~~The ~~with~~Foundation ~~the~~does ~~associated~~not ~~private~~sell, ~~key. In addition~~exchange, ~~since~~transmit ~~every~~or ~~computation~~retain oncustody ~~the~~of ~~Horizen~~ZEN ~~Network~~for ~~requires~~consumers ~~processing~~or ~~power,~~the ~~there~~public isat alarge. ~~transaction~~The ~~fee~~value ~~involved~~of ~~with~~ZEN ~~the transfer that~~ is ~~paid~~determined by the ~~payor.~~supply ~~The~~of ~~resulting~~and ~~digitally~~demand ~~validated~~for ~~transaction~~ZEN ison ~~sent by~~ the ~~user’s~~Digital ~~Horizen~~Asset ~~Network~~Trading ~~software~~Platforms ~~program~~or toin ~~the~~private ~~Horizen Network miners~~ end-user-to-end-user ~~allow transaction confirmation~~transactions.

AsIn ~~discussed~~June in2024, ~~greater~~members ~~detail below in “—Creation~~ of ~~New~~the ZEN,” ~~Horizen~~ecosystem ~~Network~~voted ~~miners~~to ~~record~~deprecate ~~and~~the ~~confirm~~Horizen ~~transactions~~Network ~~when~~in ~~they~~favor ~~mine and add blocks~~ of ~~information~~the yet-to-be-launched ~~the~~“EON ~~Horizen~~2.0” ~~Blockchain~~network. ~~When~~In aSeptember ~~miner~~2024, ~~mines~~members aof ~~block,~~the itZEN ~~creates~~ecosystem ~~that~~voted ~~block,~~to ~~which~~approve ~~includes~~a ~~data~~proposal ~~relating~~ to ~~(i)~~adjust the ~~satisfaction~~allocation of ~~the~~newly ~~consensus~~minted ~~mechanism~~ZEN. toNonetheless, ~~mine~~ the ~~block,~~EON ~~(ii)~~2.0 anetwork ~~reference~~remained toconceptual ~~the~~only, ~~prior~~with ~~block~~development inpivoting towards the ~~Horizen~~current ~~Blockchain~~Layer-3 toiteration ~~which~~of the ~~new~~Horizen ~~block~~protocol ison ~~being~~Base. ~~added,~~Following ~~and~~the ~~(iii)~~2025 ~~transactions~~Migration, ~~that~~ZEN ~~have~~is ~~submitted~~intended to ~~the~~serve ~~Horizen~~as ~~Network~~enabling ~~but~~holders ~~have not yet been added~~ to ~~the~~join ~~Horizen~~governance, ~~Blockchain.~~ecosystem ~~The~~participation, ~~miner~~and ~~becomes~~community ~~aware~~initiatives ofwithin ~~outstanding,~~a ~~unrecorded~~decentralized ~~transactions~~autonomous ~~through~~organization under the ~~data~~collective ~~packet~~control ~~transmission~~of ~~and~~ZEN ~~distribution~~holders ~~discussed~~(the ~~above~~“Horizen DAO”).

~~Upon~~During the ~~addition~~2025 ~~of a block included in the Horizen Blockchain~~Migration, the Horizen Network ~~software~~holders ~~program~~ of ~~both~~ZEN ~~the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction~~ on the ~~Horizen~~original ~~Blockchain and reflect an adjustment to the ZEN balance in each party’s~~ Horizen Network ~~public~~have ~~key,~~been ~~completing~~able the ZEN transaction. Once a transaction is confirmed on the Horizen Blockchain, it is irreversible. Shielded transactions utilize a scientific breakthrough in the field of cryptography known as “zero-knowledge proofs.” Zero-knowledge proofs allow users to ~~prove~~claim ~~knowledge~~an ofequal ~~some~~amount ~~facts about hidden information without revealing that information by encrypting certain aspects~~ of ~~the~~ZEN ~~transaction.~~on Ordinarily, if a blockchain’s transaction data is encrypted, nodes in the blockchain cannot determine whether senders really held the tokens they sent, whether they previously sent it to someone else or whether they never had it in the first placeBase. ~~The encrypted data becomes unverifiable by network nodes.~~

~~With~~Overview ~~the Horizen Network, a particular type~~ of ~~zero-knowledge proof called zk-SNARKs solves this problem. In a ZEN shielded transaction,~~ the ~~sender~~Horizen ~~provides~~Protocol’s aOperations string of data that makes up the “zero-knowledge proof” and encrypted transaction data, which proves properties of the encrypted data cryptographically, including that the sender could not have generated a specific string unless the sender had ownership over the private key and unless the input and output values were equal. The proof also guarantees creation of a unique nullifier which is used to mark tokens as spent, when they are, in fact spent. In other words, zero-knowledge proofs allow verifiability without compromising confidentiality. Shielded transactions must involve a “shielded address,” or an address capable of utilizing zero-knowledge proof technologies in its transactions. By default, ZEN is stored in unshielded addresses unless or until they are sent to a shielded address.

~~Shielded~~As ~~transactions~~an ~~may:~~ERC-20 ~~(1)~~token ~~involve~~on ~~only~~Base, ~~shielded~~the ~~addresses,~~transfer inof ZEN occurs on the Base Network, which operates as an Ethereum Layer-2 rollup secured by the ~~identity~~Ethereum Network. The Base Network batches and processes user transactions off-chain, then periodically posts cryptographic commitments of those transactions—known as rollups—to the ~~transacting~~Ethereum ~~parties~~blockchain for final settlement and ~~the~~security. ~~amount~~In ~~sent~~order isto ~~hidden~~own, transfer or use ZEN directly on the Base Network (2)as ~~involve~~opposed ato ~~mix~~through ofan ~~shielded~~intermediary, ~~and~~such ~~unshielded~~as ~~addresses~~a custodian), ina ~~which~~person ~~the~~generally ~~identity~~must ofhave internet access to connect to the ~~shielded~~Base ~~addresses~~Network. isZEN ~~hidden~~transactions ~~but~~may ~~the~~be ~~identity~~made ofdirectly between end-users without the ~~unshielded~~need ~~address~~for ~~and~~a ~~the~~centralized ~~amount~~intermediary, ~~sent~~and transaction fees are ~~publicly~~paid ~~known.~~in ~~Following~~Ether, the ~~deprecation~~native token of ~~privacy~~the ~~shields~~Base ~~from~~and ~~the~~Ethereum ~~Horizen~~networks. ~~Network~~This inrollup ~~September~~process ~~2023,~~allows ~~transactions~~Base ~~sent~~to ~~from~~confirm ~~unshielded~~and ~~addresses~~record totransactions ~~shielded~~efficiently ~~addresses~~while ~~are~~relying noon ~~longer~~Ethereum’s ~~possible~~consensus onmechanism ~~the~~to ~~Horizen~~prevent ~~Network,~~double-spending and to ensure the ~~amount~~integrity of ~~ZEN~~the ~~remaining~~Base inledger. ~~shielded~~As ~~addresses,~~a ~~and~~result, ~~therefore,~~all ~~the~~ZEN ~~amounts~~transactions ofconducted ~~ZEN~~on ~~involved~~Base inare ~~shielded~~ultimately ~~transactions~~secured and finalized on the Ethereum blockchain, which is ~~expected~~publicly toaccessible ~~decrease~~and ~~over time~~transparent.

~~Some~~Brief ~~ZEN~~Description ~~transactions are conducted “off-blockchain” and are therefore not recorded in the Horizen Blockchain. Some “off-blockchain transactions” involve the transfer~~ of ~~control over, or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding~~ ZEN or the reallocation of ownership of certain ZEN in a pooled-ownership digital wallet, such as a digital wallet owned by a Digital Asset Trading Platform. In contrast to on-blockchain transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Horizen Blockchain, information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. Therefore, off-blockchain transactions are not truly ZEN transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Horizen Network and do not reflect a movement of ZEN between addresses recorded in the Horizen Blockchain. For these reasons, off-blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of ZEN ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Horizen Network or recorded in, and validated through, the blockchain mechanism.Transfers

After the 2025 migration, ZEN is issued as an ERC-20 token on the Base Network. Prior to engaging in ZEN transactions directly on the Base Network, a user generally must first install on its computer or mobile device a software program that will allow the user to generate a private and public key pair associated with an Ethereum-compatible address that supports the Base Network. The Base Network software program and the Ethereum-compatible address also enable the user to connect to the Horizen Network and to transfer ZEN to, and receive ZEN from, other users.

Each Ethereum-compatible address, or wallet, is associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair. To receive ZEN, the ZEN recipient must provide its public key to the party initiating the transfer. This activity is analogous to a recipient for a transaction in U.S. dollars providing a routing address in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient’s account. The payor approves the transfer to the address provided by the recipient by “signing” a transaction that consists of the recipient’s public key with the private key of the address from where the payor is transferring the ZEN. The recipient, however, does not make public or provide to the sender its related private key.

Neither the recipient nor the sender reveal their private keys in a transaction, because the private key authorizes transfer of the funds in that address to other users. Therefore, if a user loses his or her private key, the user may permanently lose access to the ZEN contained in the associated address. Likewise, ZEN is irretrievably lost if the private key associated with them is deleted and no backup has been made. When sending ZEN, a user’s Base Network software program must validate the transaction with the associated private key. In addition, there is a transaction fee involved with the transfer that is paid by the payor denominated in Ether. The resulting digitally validated transaction is sent by the user’s Base Network software program to the Base Network operators to allow transaction confirmation.

The Base Network must spend Ether on the Ethereum Network to record and confirm batches of transactions when Ethereum validators validate and add blocks of information to the Ethereum blockchain. The Ethereum Network utilizes a “proof-of-stake” consensus mechanism, whereby validators compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions. When a validator is selected to

~~Creation~~validate a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) the verification of ~~New~~newly ~~ZEN~~submitted and accepted transactions; and (ii) a reference to the prior block in the blockchain to which the new block is being added.

~~Initial~~While ~~Creation~~a transaction recorded on the Base Network is considered canonical for most purposes, the ZEN transaction is not complete until the Base Network sequencer’s transactions are reflected in a block on the Ethereum blockchain. The Base Network software program of both the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction on the Base Network and reflect an adjustment to the ZEN balance in each party’s Base Network public key. Once a transaction is reflected on the Ethereum Blockchain, it is considered irreversible.

~~The~~Some ~~initial~~ZEN ~~creation~~transactions are conducted “off-blockchain” and are therefore not recorded on the Base Network or the Ethereum blockchain. Some “off-blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of ~~ZEN~~control asover, ~~part~~or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding ZEN or the ~~first~~reallocation ~~Horizen~~of ~~Network~~ownership ~~block~~of certain ZEN in a pooled-ownership digital wallet, orsuch ~~genesis~~as ~~block~~a digital wallet owned by a Digital Asset Trading Platform. In contrast to on-blockchain transactions, ~~was~~which ~~conducted~~are publicly recorded on ~~May~~the 23Base Network and reflected on the Ethereum blockchain, ~~2017~~information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. ~~All~~Therefore, ~~additional~~off-blockchain transactions are not truly ZEN ~~have~~transactions ~~been,~~in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Base Network and ~~will~~do benot reflect a movement of ZEN between addresses recorded on the Base Network. For these reasons, ~~created~~off-blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of ZEN ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Base Network or recorded in, and validated through, the ~~mining~~blockchain ~~process~~mechanism.

~~Mining~~ZEN ~~Process~~Token Supply

The initial creation of ZEN as part of the first Horizen Network isblock, ~~kept~~or ~~running~~genesis byblock, ~~computers~~was ~~all~~conducted ~~over~~on ~~the~~May ~~world~~23, 2017. InThe ~~order~~Horizen toNetwork ~~incentivize~~was ~~those~~originally ~~who~~structured ~~incur~~to ~~the~~allow ~~computational~~a ~~costs~~maximum of ~~securing~~21 ~~the~~million ~~network~~ZEN byto ~~validating~~be ~~transactions~~created, ~~there~~and isthe acurrent ~~reward~~ERC-20 ~~that~~framework ismaintains ~~given~~this tolimit. ~~the~~Historically, ~~computer~~additional ~~that~~ZEN ~~was~~were ~~able~~created through a mining process similar to ~~create~~Bitcoin, with the ~~latest~~issuance ~~block~~rate ondecreasing ~~the~~by ~~chain.~~half ~~Every~~every 2four years.5 ~~minutes~~However, onat ~~average,~~the a2025 ~~new~~Migration, ~~block~~the iscirculating ~~added~~supply increased to ~~the~~approximately ~~Horizen~~17.25 ~~Blockchain~~million ~~with~~ZEN. According to the ~~latest~~relevant ~~transactions~~proposals ~~processed~~passed by the ~~network~~Horizen community, ~~and~~25% of the ~~computer~~remaining ~~that~~unissued ~~generated~~tokens ~~this~~were ~~block~~released isat ~~currently~~the ~~awarded~~2025 ~~6.25~~Migration ~~ZEN.~~and ~~Due~~the toremaining ~~the~~75% ~~nature~~are ofintended ~~the~~to ~~algorithm~~vest ~~for~~linearly ~~block~~over ~~generation,~~a ~~this~~48-month ~~process~~period. ~~(generating~~The amodel ~~“proof~~replaces the legacy block-~~of-work”)~~reward ishalving ~~guaranteed~~schedule towith bea ~~random.~~gradual ~~Over~~emissions ~~time~~framework, ~~rewards~~and future allocations are ~~expected~~subject to begovernance ~~proportionate~~decisions tovia the ~~computational~~Horizen ~~power of each machine~~DAO.

The process by which ZEN is “mined” results in new blocks being added to the Horizen Blockchain and new ZEN tokens being issued to the miners, EON 1.0 nodes, Super Nodes and the Foundation. Computers on the Horizen Network engage in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Horizen Blockchain and thereby confirm ZEN transactions included in that block’s data.

To begin mining, a user can download and run Horizen Network mining software, which turns the user’s computer into a “node” on the Horizen Network that validates blocks. Each block contains the details of some or all of the most recent transactions that are not memorialized in prior blocks, as well as a record of the award of ZEN to the miner who added the new block. Each unique block can be solved and added to the Horizen Blockchain by only one miner or mining pool. Therefore, all individual miners and mining pools on the Horizen Network are engaged in a competitive process of constantly increasing their computing power to improve their likelihood of solving for new blocks. As more miners join the Horizen Network and its processing power increases, the Horizen Network adjusts the complexity of the block-solving equation to maintain a predetermined pace of adding a new block to the Horizen Blockchain approximately every 2.5 minutes. A miner’s proposed block is added to the Horizen Blockchain once a majority of the nodes on the Horizen Network confirms the miner’s work. Miners that are successful in adding a block to the Horizen Blockchain are automatically awarded ZEN for their effort and may also receive transaction fees paid by transferors whose transactions are recorded in the block. This reward system is the method by which new ZEN enter into circulation to the public.

Staking Process

The Horizen Network also relies on a proof-of-stake algorithm for certain functionalities. Under a proof-of-stake ecosystem, the validating node, known as a validator, locks up an amount of his or her coins to verify a block of transactions in a process that requires less computing power and electricity. Validators can participate in block production by posting a security deposit, or bond. After posting a bond, one may bet on which block will be included next. Validators make money by betting with the eventual consensus and lose money by betting against the consensus. Any cryptographically-provable misbehavior results in the forfeiture of the bond. Moreover, an honest validator is expected to have very low costs, compared to the costs an attacker would incur. On the Horizen Network, Secure Nodes and Super Nodes stake their coins. See “—Market Participants” below for more information.

Limits on ZEN Supply

The Horizen Network is structured to allow a maximum of 21 million ZEN to be created, which are mined over time with the creation of each new block. At inception, 12.5 ZEN were created every 2.5 minutes, on average. Of each block of newly created ZEN, 60% is distributed to miners, 10% is distributed to nodes securing the Eon network side chain launched by the Horizen ecosystem in October 2023 (the “EON 1.0 nodes”), 10% is distributed to Super Nodes and 20% is distributed to the Foundation. Every four years, the rate of ZEN being created will halve, just as it does for Bitcoin. Thus, in December 2020, the reward was halved to 6.25 ZEN for every block, and will again be halved to 3.125 in December 2024. However, in September 2024, members of the ZEN ecosystem voted to approve a proposal to adjust the allocation of newly minted ZEN. This proposal is expected to take effect upon the completed EON 2.0 Migration. The proposal calls for 40% of newly issued ZEN to be distributed to validators securing the EON 2.0 network, 32.5% to be distributed to the Horizen Foundation, and 27.5% to be distributed to the Horizen DAO.

As of September 30, 2024, approximately 15.5 million ZEN were outstanding, and estimates of when the 21 million ZEN limitation will be reached range from at or near the year 2051. However, this expected timeline may be impacted by the EON 2.0 Migration. It is unclear whether or how the EON 2.0 Migration will affect the creation and distribution schedule of ZEN.

Modifications to the ZEN Protocol

The Horizen Network is an open-source project with no official developer or group of developers that controls it. However, historically the Horizen Network’s development has been overseen by the Foundation. The Foundation is able to access and alter the Horizen Network source code and, as a result, they are responsible for quasi-official releases of updates and other changes to the Horizen Network’s source code.

For example, in June 2018, an upgrade was implemented to the Horizen Network to make it more computationally and economically expensive to privately mine blocks and later introduce those blocks to the valid Horizen Blockchain. The purpose of this upgrade was to significantly increase the difficulty of 51% attacks through delayed block submissions. In another example, in September 2023, an upgrade was implemented on the Horizen Network to remove the ability to transfer ZEN from unshielded to shielded addresses. As an effect, ZEN could be transferred out of shielded addresses, but could not be transferred into them, with the intention of reducing the amount of ZEN that could be transacted with privacy-preserving features over time. The purpose of this upgrade was to deprecate privacy shields and cause Horizen to no longer be considered a “privacy coin.” More recently, in July 2025, the Horizen ecosystem executed a full migration of the ZEN and the Horizen protocol from its legacy standalone blockchain its current form on Base (the “2025 Migration”).

~~The~~Since ~~release of updates to~~ the ~~Horizen~~2025 ~~Network’s~~Migration, ~~source code does not guarantee that~~ the ~~updates will be automatically adopted. Users and miners must accept any changes made to the~~ Horizen ~~Network~~protocol ~~source~~now ~~code~~operates byas downloading the proposed modification of the Horizen Network’s source code. A modification of the Horizen Network’s source code is only effective with respect to the ZEN users and miners that download it. If a ~~modification is accepted only by a percentage of users and miners, a division in the Horizen Network will occur such that one network will run the pre~~Layer-~~modification~~3 ~~source code and the other~~ network ~~will~~built ~~run~~on the ~~modified~~Base ~~source code~~blockchain. ~~Such~~Updates ~~a division is known as a “fork.” See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets—A temporary~~ or ~~permanent~~modifications ~~“fork” or a “clone” could adversely affect the value of the Shares.” Consequently, as a practical matter, a modification~~ to the ~~source code becomes part of the~~ Horizen ~~Network~~protocol ~~only~~no iflonger ~~accepted~~depend byon ~~participants~~miner ~~collectively~~adoption ~~having~~or ~~a majority~~ proof-of-work ~~the processing power on the Horizen Network. In June 2024~~consensus, ~~members~~as of the ~~ZEN~~legacy ~~ecosystem~~Horizen ~~voted~~blockchain tohas ~~implement~~been ~~the EON 2~~discontinued.0 ~~Migration. The EON 2.0 network is intended be a smart contract platform~~Instead, ~~unlike~~proposed ~~the~~updates ~~Horizen~~are ~~Network,~~introduced ~~which~~through ison-chain ~~primarily~~governance ~~intended~~mechanisms asadministered aby ~~payment platform. It is unclear how~~ the ~~EON 2.0 Migration will be implemented, and it is possible miners in the~~ Horizen ~~Network~~DAO ~~will~~or ~~continue~~through tonew ~~sustain~~smart-contract ~~the~~deployments ~~network,~~on ~~possibly resulting in a fork if blocks for both~~ the ~~Horizen~~Base Network ~~and EON 2~~.~~0 network continue to be processed.~~

~~Core~~Adoption ~~development~~ of ~~the~~proposed ~~Horizen~~protocol ~~Network~~updates ~~source~~is ~~code~~determined ~~has~~by ~~increasingly~~the ~~focused~~outcome onof ~~modifications~~governance ofvotes through the Horizen ~~Network~~DAO ~~protocol~~and, toin ~~increase~~certain ~~speed~~cases, ~~and~~by ~~scalability~~whether developers and ~~also~~users ~~allow~~elect ~~for~~to ~~non-financial,~~interact ~~next~~with ~~generation~~updated ~~uses~~smart ~~on Sidechains~~contracts. ~~Because~~Via the ~~Trust only holds ZEN on the~~ Horizen ~~Network~~DAO, itZEN ~~will~~holders ~~not~~may ~~take~~submit ~~advantage~~or ofvote ~~such~~on ~~Sidechains~~proposals. ~~However~~In some cases, ~~because~~not ~~such~~all ~~projects~~participants may ~~utilize~~adopt ~~ZEN~~a asgiven ~~tokens~~upgrade, ~~for~~and ~~the~~if ~~facilitation~~different groups of ~~their~~participants ~~non~~deploy or interact with incompatible smart-~~financial~~contract ~~uses~~versions, ~~they~~this ~~may~~could ~~increase~~lead ~~demand~~to ~~for~~a ~~ZEN~~divergence ~~and~~or ~~the~~“fork” ~~utility~~in of the Horizen ~~Network~~protocol, asresulting ain ~~whole.~~separate ~~Conversely,~~token ~~projects~~or ~~that~~application ~~operate~~states ~~and~~on ~~are~~Base. ~~built~~See ~~within~~“Item ~~the~~1A. ~~Horizen~~Risk ~~Blockchain~~Factors—Risk ~~may~~Factors ~~increase~~Related ~~the~~to ~~data~~Digital ~~flow~~Assets—A ontemporary ~~the~~or ~~Horizen~~permanent ~~Network~~‘fork’ ~~and~~or ‘clone’ could ~~either~~adversely ~~“bloat”~~affect the ~~size~~value of the ~~Horizen Blockchain or slow confirmation times~~Shares.”

Forms of Attack Against the Horizen Network

All networked systems are vulnerable to various kinds of attacks. As with any computer network, the Horizen Network contains certain flaws. For example, because the current Horizen protocol operates through smart contracts deployed on Base and Ethereum, its security now depends on the integrity of (i) the Base sequencer operated by Coinbase, (ii) the Ethereum network and its validator set, and (iii) the correctness of the Horizen protocol’s own smart-contract code. Vulnerabilities or exploits in any of these components—such as coding errors, oracle manipulation, denial-of-service attacks, or faults in Base’s rollup infrastructure—could result in loss of funds, network downtime, or other adverse effects on the functionality or perceived reliability of the Horizen protocol and the value of ZEN. In addition, the Base Network relies on a series of smart contracts deployed on the Ethereum blockchain that govern deposits, withdrawals, and rollup validation. Defects, exploits, or unauthorized modifications in those contracts could affect Base’s ability to process transactions or finalize state commitments, which in turn could disrupt Horizen’s operations or the ability of users to transfer ZEN.

Following the 2025 migration, the Horizen Network no longer operates its own proof-of-work blockchain; instead, it functions as a Layer-3 protocol built on the Base Network, an Ethereum Layer-2 rollup that provides transaction ordering, consensus, and security derived from the Ethereum network. Accordingly, the types of network attacks that historically affected the legacy Horizen blockchain, such as “51% attacks” on mining hash power, where, if a mining pool were to gain control of more than 50% of the hash rate for the network, a malicious actor would have been able to gain full control of the network and the ability to manipulate the Horizen Blockchain. For example, in June 2018, the Horizen Network was the target of a double-spend attack by an unknown actor that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Horizen Network. The attack was the result of delayed submission of blocks to the Horizen Network. Nonetheless, 51% attacks are no longer applicable to ZEN in its current form.

Market Participants

Developer Sector

This sector includes individuals and entities that design, build, and maintain applications, tools, and infrastructure that utilize the Horizen protocol. Developers in the Horizen ecosystem may contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of the Horizen protocol’s smart-contract codebase, the creation of privacy-enabled decentralized applications, or the integration of the Horizen Network’s features into broader Ethereum-based environments. Development activity within the Horizen ecosystem is decentralized and open-source in nature, and there is no single entity responsible for coordinating or directing such efforts. As the Horizen ecosystem

expands, it is anticipated that the number of third-party developers contributing to Horizen-related applications will increase, broadening the diversity of tools and use cases available to users.

Governance and Community Sector

This sector includes participants involved in the governance and collective decision-making processes of the Horizen ecosystem through the Horizen DAO. Governance participants are typically ZEN holders who propose or vote on matters concerning the Horizen protocol, including funding initiatives, protocol upgrades, and community grants. Participation in the Horizen DAO is voluntary and conducted through on-chain voting mechanisms and community forums. The extent of governance participation may vary depending on token distribution, voter engagement, and the perceived importance of specific proposals.

Investment and Speculative Sector

This sector includes the investment and trading activities of both private and professional investors and speculators. Historically, larger financial services institutions are publicly reported to have limited involvement in investment and trading in digital assets, although the participation landscape is beginning to change. Currently, there is relatively limited use of digital assets in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively extensive use by speculators, and a significant portion of demand for digital assets is generated by speculators and investors seeking to profit from the short- or long-term holding of digital assets.

Retail Sector

The retail sector includes users transacting in direct peer-to-peer ZEN transactions through the direct sending of ZEN over the Base Network. While the use of Bitcoin to purchase goods and services from commercial or service businesses is developing, ZEN has not yet been accepted in the same manner due to its infancy and because ZEN has a different purpose than Bitcoin.

Service Sector

This sector includes companies that provide a variety of services including the buying, selling, and storing of ZEN. For example, Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, Aerodrome, and KuCoin are some of the largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms by volume traded. Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, the Custodian for the Trust, is a digital asset custodian that provides custodial accounts that store ZEN for users. As the Horizen Network continues to grow in acceptance, it is anticipated that service providers will expand the currently available range of services and that additional parties will enter the service sector for the Horizen Network.

Competition

Thousands of digital assets have been developed since the inception of Bitcoin, which is currently the most developed digital asset because of the length of time it has been in existence, the investment in the infrastructure that supports it, and the network of individuals and entities that are using Bitcoin in transactions. While ZEN has enjoyed some success in its limited history, the aggregate value of outstanding ZEN is much smaller than that of Bitcoin and may be eclipsed by the more rapid development of other digital assets. In particular, zkSync Era, Scroll, Polygon zkEVM are zero-knowledge EVM protocols that are direct competitors to the Horizen Network. Usage by any other digital asset network of these features could cause them to gain greater or more rapid acceptance than the Horizen Network.

ZEN Value

Digital Asset Trading Platform Valuation

The value of ZEN is determined by the value that various market participants place on ZEN through their transactions. The most common means of determining the value of a ZEN is by surveying one or more Digital Asset Trading Platforms where ZEN is traded publicly and transparently. Additionally, there are over-the-counter dealers or market makers that transact in ZEN.

Digital Asset Trading Platform Public Market Data

On each online Digital Asset Trading Platform, ZEN is traded with publicly disclosed valuations for each executed trade, measured by one or more fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar (“USD”) or euro, or bystablecoins ~~the~~such ~~widely~~as ~~used~~U.S. ~~cryptocurrency~~Dollar ~~Bitcoin~~Coin (“USDC”). Over-the-counter dealers or market makers do not typically disclose their trade data.

Effective June 16, 2023, the Reference Rate Provider removed Binance.US from the Reference Rate due to Binance.US’s announcement that the trading platform was suspending U.S. dollar deposits and withdrawals and planned to delist its U.S. dollar trading pairs, and did not add any Constituent Trading Platforms as part of its review. As a result of this removal, there were no longer sufficient Constituent Trading Platforms for the Reference Rate Provider to continue producing the Reference Rate pursuant to the Constituent Trading Platform selection methodology described in “—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Constituent Trading Platform Selection” below. If the Reference Rate becomes unavailable, the Sponsor employs an alternative method to determine the Reference Rate Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable” below. Effective June 20, 2023, CoinDesk Indices, Inc. no longer determines the Reference Rate Price, and the Reference Rate Price is the Secondary Reference Rate Price, which is the price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Secondary Reference Rate Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc., the Secondary Reference

Rate Provider. Effective June 20, 2023, any references to the “Reference Rate Price” in this Annual Report refers to the Secondary Reference Rate Price set by the Secondary Reference Rate selected by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider.

As of September 30, 2024, the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate and used to determine the Reference Rate Price are Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, Gate.io, and KuCoin.

Currently, there are several Digital Asset Trading Platforms operating worldwide and online Digital Asset Trading Platforms represent a substantial percentage of ZEN buying and selling activity and provide the most data with respect to prevailing valuations of ZEN. These trading platforms include established trading platforms such as trading platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate which provide a number of options for buying and selling ZEN. The below tables reflect the trading volume in ZEN and market share of the ZEN-U.S. dollar, ZEN-Bitcoin, and ZEN-USDT trading pairs of each of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate Price as of September 30, 2024 (collectively, “Constituent Trading Platforms”), using data since the inception of the Trust:

Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate as of September 30, 2024	Volume (ZEN)(1)		Market Share(2)
Coinbase		21,610,699		53.15	%
Total ZEN-U.S. Dollar trading pair		21,610,699		53.15	%

Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate as of September 30, 2024	Volume (ZEN)(1)		Market Share(3)
Binance		67,605,414		88.79	%
Total ZEN-Bitcoin trading pair		67,605,414		88.79	%

Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate as of September 30, 2024	Volume (ZEN)(1)		Market Share(4)
Binance		272,922,294		86.72	%
Bybit		12,910,532		4.10	%
Gate.io		12,517,187		3.98	%
KuCoin		1,279,367		0.40	%
Total ZEN-USDT trading pair		299,629,379		95.20	%

On June 16, 2023, the Reference Rate Provider removed Binance.US (ZEN/USD) from the Reference Rate due to Binance.US’s announcement that the trading platform is suspending U.S. dollar (“USD”) deposits and withdrawals and plans to delist its USD trading pairs, and did not add any Constituent Trading Platforms as part of its review. As a result of this removal, there were no longer sufficient Constituent Trading Platforms for the Reference Rate Provider to continue producing the Reference Rate pursuant to the Constituent Trading Platform selection methodology described in “—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Constituent Trading Platform Selection.” If the Reference Rate becomes unavailable, the Sponsor employs an alternative method to determine the Reference Rate Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable” below. Effective June 20, 2023, CoinDesk Indices, Inc. no longer determines the Reference Rate Price, and the Reference Rate Price is the Secondary Reference Rate Price, which is the price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Secondary Reference Rate Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc., the Secondary Reference Rate Provider. Effective June 20, 2023, any references to the “Reference Rate Price” in this Annual Report refers to the Secondary Reference Rate Price set by the Secondary Reference Rate selected by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider.

Market share is calculated using trading volume (in ZEN) for certain Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including Coinbase, as well as certain other large U.S.-dollar denominated Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were not included in the Reference Rate as of September 30, 2024, including Binance.US and Bittrex.

Market share is calculated using trading volume (in ZEN) for certain Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including Binance, as well as certain other large Bitcoin denominated Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were not included in the Reference Rate as of September 30, 2024, including Bittrex.

~~Market~~Trading ~~share~~Platform isselection ~~calculated~~methodology ~~using~~described ~~trading~~in ~~volume~~“—The ~~(in~~Reference ~~ZEN)~~Rate ~~for~~and ~~certain~~the ~~Digital~~Reference ~~Asset~~Rate Price—Constituent Trading ~~Platforms~~Platform Selection” below. If the Reference Rate becomes unavailable, ~~including~~the ~~Binance~~Sponsor employs an alternative method to determine the Reference Rate Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable” below. Effective June 20, ~~Bybit~~2023, ~~Gate~~CoinDesk Indices, Inc.io no longer determines the Reference Rate Price, and ~~KuCoin~~the Reference Rate Price is the Secondary Reference Rate Price, aswhich ~~well~~is the price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate as ~~certain~~of ~~other~~4:00 ~~large~~p.m., ~~USDT~~New ~~denominated~~York ~~Digital~~time, ~~Asset~~on ~~Trading~~the ~~Platforms~~valuation ~~that~~date. ~~were~~The ~~not~~Secondary ~~included~~Reference inRate Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc., the Secondary Reference Rate asProvider. ofEffective ~~September~~June 3020, ~~2024~~2023, ~~including~~any ~~Huobi~~references ~~and~~to ~~OKX~~the “Reference Rate Price” in this Annual Report refers to the Secondary Reference Rate Price set by the Secondary Reference Rate selected by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider.

As of September 30, 2025, the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate and used to determine the Reference Rate Price are Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, Huobi, MEXC and KuCoin.

Currently, there are several Digital Asset Trading Platforms operating worldwide and online Digital Asset Trading Platforms represent a substantial percentage of ZEN buying and selling activity and provide the most data with respect to prevailing valuations of ZEN. These trading platforms include established trading platforms such as trading platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate which provide a number of options for buying and selling ZEN. The below tables reflect the trading volume in ZEN and market share of the ZEN-U.S. dollar, ZEN-Bitcoin, and ZEN-USDT trading pairs of each of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate Price as of September 30, 2025 (collectively, “Constituent Trading Platforms”), using data since the inception of the Trust:


Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate as of September 30, 2025	Volume (ZEN)(1)		Market Share(2)
Coinbase		38,879,663		67.12	%
Total ZEN-U.S. Dollar trading pair		38,879,663		67.12	%


Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate as of September 30, 2025	Volume (ZEN)(1)		Market Share(3)
Binance		73,523,519		89.60	%
Total ZEN-Bitcoin trading pair		73,523,519		89.60	%


Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate as of September 30, 2025	Volume (ZEN)(1)		Market Share(4)
Binance		564,180,538		70.20	%
MEXC		73,856,250		9.20	%
Huobi		59,099,894		7.35	%
Bybit		53,169,916		6.62	%
KuCoin		15,335,602		1.90	%
Total ZEN-USDT trading pair		765,642,200		95.27	%

(1)

On June 16, 2023, the Reference Rate Provider removed Binance.US (ZEN/USD) from the Reference Rate due to Binance.US’s announcement that the trading platform is suspending USD deposits and withdrawals and plans to delist its USD trading pairs, and did not add any Constituent Trading Platforms as part of its review. As a result of this removal, there were no longer sufficient Constituent Trading Platforms for the Reference Rate Provider to continue producing the Reference Rate pursuant to the Constituent Trading Platform selection methodology described in “—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Constituent Trading Platform Selection.” If the Reference Rate becomes unavailable, the Sponsor employs an alternative method to determine the Reference Rate Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable” below. Effective June 20, 2023, CoinDesk Indices, Inc. no longer determines the Reference Rate Price, and the Reference Rate Price is the Secondary Reference Rate Price, which is the price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Secondary Reference Rate Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc., the Secondary Reference Rate Provider. Effective June 20, 2023, any references to the “Reference Rate Price” in this Annual Report refers to the Secondary Reference Rate Price set by the Secondary Reference Rate selected by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider.

(2)

Market share is calculated using trading volume (in ZEN) for certain Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including Coinbase, as well as certain other large USD denominated Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were not included in the Reference Rate as of September 30, 2025, including Binance.US and Bittrex.

(3)

(4)

Market share is calculated using trading volume (in ZEN) for certain Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including Binance, MEXC, Huobi, Bybit, and KuCoin, as well as certain other large USDT denominated Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were not included in the Reference Rate as of September 30, 2025, including Gate.io and OKX.

The domicile, regulation and legal compliance of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate varies. Information regarding each Digital Asset Trading Platform may be found, where available, on the websites for such Digital Asset Trading Platforms, among other places.

Although the Reference Rate is designed to accurately capture the market price of ZEN, third parties may be able to purchase and sell ZEN on public or private markets not included among the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms of the Reference Rate, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Reference Rate Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of ZEN on the various Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms. For example, based on data provided by the Reference Rate Provider, on any given day during the year ended September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Reference Rate and Reference Rate Price was 1122.1738% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price was 54.9893%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate and Reference Rate Price was 0.0401%. All Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were included in the Reference Rate throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Reference Rate Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of ZEN.

The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price

The Reference Rate is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of ZEN. The Reference Rate is designed to provide a semi real-time, volume-weighted value of ZEN.

The Reference Rate Price is determined by the Reference Rate Provider through a process in which trade data from the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate is compiled to calculate a volume-weighted average price. Pursuant to the set of rules described under “—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate is Unavailable,” effective June 20, 2023, CoinDesk Indices, Inc. no longer determines the Reference Rate Price, and the Reference Rate Price is the price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate (the “Secondary Reference Rate”) as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date (the “Secondary Reference Rate Price”), as further described under “—Determination of the Secondary Reference Rate Price.”

Determination of the Reference Rate Price

The Reference Rate Price for ZEN is calculated daily at 4:00 p.m., New York time, by the Reference Rate Provider using a volume-weighted average price across the Constituent Trading Platforms over the prior 24-hour period. Price and volume inputs are sourced from the Constituent Trading Platforms. Price and volume inputs are weighted as received with no further adjustments made to the weighting of each trading platform based on market anomalies observed on a Constituent Trading Platform or otherwise.

Each Constituent Trading Platform is weighted relative to its share of trading volume to the trading volume of all Constituent Trading Platforms. As such, price inputs from Constituent Trading Platforms with higher trading volumes will be weighted more heavily in calculating the Reference Rate Price than price inputs from Constituent Trading Platforms with lower trading volumes.

If the Reference Rate Price becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that such Reference Rate Price does not reflect an accurate price for ZEN, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Reference Rate Provider to obtain the Reference Rate Price directly from the Reference Rate Provider. If after such contact such Reference Rate Price remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that such Reference Rate Price does not reflect an accurate price for the relevant digital asset, then the Sponsor will employ a cascading set of rules to determine the Reference Rate Price, as described below in “—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable.”

The Trust values its ZEN for operational and non-GAAP purposes by reference to the Reference Rate Price. The Reference Rate Price is the value of a ZEN as represented by the Reference Rate, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. The Reference Rate Provider develops, calculates and publishes the Reference Rate on a continuous basis using the volume-weighted price at the Digital Asset Benchmark Trading Platforms, as selected by the Reference Rate Provider.

All references to the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust in this report have been calculated using the Reference Rate Price unless indicated otherwise. Prior to February 7, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings and NAV per Share was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings per Share.

Constituent Trading Platform Selection

The Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are included in the Reference Rate are selected by the Reference Rate Provider utilizing a methodology that is guided by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) principles for financial benchmarks. For a trading platform to become a Constituent Trading Platform, it must satisfy the criteria listed below (the “Inclusion Criteria”):

•

Sufficient USD or USDC liquidity relative to the size of the listed assets;

No evidence in the past 12 months of trading restrictions on individuals or entities that would otherwise meet the trading platform’s eligibility requirements to trade;

•

No evidence in the past 12 months of undisclosed restrictions on deposits or withdrawals from user accounts;

•

Real-time price discovery;

•

Limited or no capital controls;

•

Transparent ownership including a publicly-known ownership entity;

•

Publicly available language and policies addressing legal and regulatory compliance ~~in the U.S.~~, including KYC (Know Your Customer), AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and other policies designed to comply with relevant regulations that might apply to it; and

•

BeOffer aprogrammatic spot trading ~~platform~~of ~~that~~the istrading ~~licensed~~pair, and ~~able~~reliably topublish ~~service~~trade ~~investors~~prices inand ~~one~~volumes oron ~~more~~a ofreal-time ~~the~~basis ~~following~~through ~~jurisdictions:~~Rest and Websocket APIs.

~~United~~All ~~States~~trading platforms that meet these Inclusion Criteria will be assigned to one trading platform Category as defined by the additional criteria below:

•

Category 1

Licensed and/or able to serve investors, retail or professional, in the United States; and

Maintain sufficient USD or USDC liquidity relative to the size of the listed assets.

•

Category 2

Licensed (including in-principal licensure) and/or able to serve investors, retail or professional, in one or more of the following jurisdictions:

United Kingdom

European Union

•

In the event a trading platform is only licensed or able to serve investors in select European Union countries and none of the other listed jurisdictions, the Reference Rate Provider reserves the right to evaluate its eligibility on a case by case basis.

Hong Kong

Singapore; and

•

~~Offer~~Maintain ~~programmatic~~sufficient ~~spot~~USD ~~trading~~or ofUSDC ~~the~~liquidity ~~trading~~relative ~~pair,~~to ~~and~~the ~~reliably~~size ~~publish~~of ~~trade~~the ~~prices~~listed ~~and volumes on a real-time basis through Rest and Websocket APIs~~assets.

A Digital Asset Trading Platform is removed from the Constituent Trading Platforms when it no longer satisfies the Inclusion Criteria. The Reference Rate Provider does not currently include data from over-the-counter markets or derivatives platforms among the Constituent Trading Platforms. Over-the-counter data is not currently included because of the potential for trades to include a significant premium or discount paid for larger liquidity, which creates an uneven comparison relative to more active markets. There is also a higher potential for over-the-counter transactions to not be arms-length, and thus not be representative of a true market price. ZEN derivative markets are also not currently included as the markets remain relatively thin. While the Reference Rate Provider has no plans to include data from over-the-counter markets or derivative platforms at this time, the Reference Rate Provider will consider IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks, the management of trading venues of ZEN derivatives and the aforementioned Inclusion Criteria when considering whether to include over-the-counter or derivative platform data in the future.

also a higher potential for over-the-counter transactions to not be arms-length, and thus not be representative of a true market price. ZEN derivative markets are also not currently included as the markets remain relatively thin. While the Reference Rate Provider has no plans to include data from over-the-counter markets or derivative platforms at this time, the Reference Rate Provider will consider IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks, the management of trading venues of ZEN derivatives and the aforementioned Inclusion Criteria when considering whether to include over-the-counter or derivative platform data in the future.

The Reference Rate Provider and the Sponsor have entered into a reference rate license agreement, dated as of February 1, 2022 (as amended, the “Reference Rate License Agreement”), governing the Sponsor’s use of the Reference Rate Price. Pursuant to the terms of the Reference Rate License Agreement, the Reference Rate Provider may adjust the calculation methodology for the Reference Rate Price without notice to, or consent of, the Trust or its shareholders. The Reference Rate Provider has sole discretion over the determination of Reference Rate Price and may change the methodologies for determining the Reference Rate Price from time to time.

1416

The Reference Rate Provider may change the trading venues that are used to calculate the Reference Rate or otherwise change the way in which the Reference Rate is calculated at any time. For example, the Reference Rate Provider has scheduled quarterly reviews in which it may add or remove Constituent Trading Platforms that satisfy or fail the Inclusion Criteria. The Reference Rate Provider does not have any obligation to consider the interests of the Sponsor, the Trust, the shareholders, or anyone else in connection with such changes. While the Reference Rate Provider is not required to publicize or explain the changes or to alert the Sponsor to such changes, it has historically notified the Trust of any material changes to the Constituent Trading Platforms, including any additions or removals of the Constituent Trading Platforms, in addition to issuing press releases in connection with the same. The Sponsor will notify investors of any such material event by filing a current report on Form 8-K. Although the Reference Rate methodology is designed to operate without any manual intervention, rare events would justify manual intervention. Intervention of this kind would be in response to non-market-related events, such as the halting of deposits or withdrawals of funds on a Digital Asset Trading Platform, the unannounced closure of operations on a Digital Asset Trading Platform, insolvency or the compromise of user funds. In the event that such an intervention is necessary, the Reference Rate Provider would issue a public announcement through its website, API and other established communication channels with its clients.

Illustrative Example

The Reference Rate Price is calculated by multiplying the average price on each Constituent Trading Platform by the trading volume on such Constituent Trading Platform for the prior 24 hours, multiplied by the Constituent Trading Platform’s weighting based on trading volume relative to the other Constituent Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate. For purposes of illustration, outlined below is an example using a limited number of trades.


Venue	Average Price		Volume		Notional		Weight			Reference Rate Price Contribution
Trading Platform 1		999.12		800		799,296		53.33	%		532.60
Trading Platform 2		997.23		500		498,615		33.33	%		332.25
Trading Platform 3		996.65		200		199,330		13.33	%		132.82
Reference Rate Price	—			1,500		1,497,241	—				997.67

Determination of the Secondary Reference Rate Price

The Secondary Reference Rate Price for ZEN is calculated daily at 4:00 p.m., New York time, by Coin Metrics, Inc., the Secondary Reference Rate Provider, using a volume-weighted median price across the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Secondary Reference Rate over the prior 60-minute period. The Secondary Reference Rate Price is calculated by applying weighted-median techniques to such trade data where half the weight is derived from the trading volume on each constituent market and half is derived from inverse price variance, where a constituent market with high price variance as a result of outliers or market anomalies compared to other constituent markets is assigned a smaller weight.

The Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are included in the Secondary Reference Rate are selected by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider utilizing a methodology that is guided by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider’s “trusted trading platform” framework which assesses trading platforms for presence of organic trade volume, using features such as fake volume tests and regulatory features. For a trading platform to be included in the Secondary Reference Rate, trading platforms are evaluated by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider based on the below criteria:

•

Data quality;

•

Regulatory compliance;

•

Transparency;

•

Resilience and security; and

•

Technical infrastructure and API quality.

The Secondary Reference Rate Provider may change the trading venues that are included in the Secondary Reference Rate or otherwise change the way in which the Secondary Reference Rate is calculated at any time.

1517

Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable

On January 11, 2022, the Sponsor changed the cascading set of rules used to determine the Reference Rate Price. The Sponsor uses the following cascading set of rules to calculate the Reference Rate Price. For the avoidance of doubt, the Sponsor will employ the below rules sequentially and in the order as presented below, should one or more specific rule(s) fail:

Reference Rate Price = The price set by the Reference Rate Provider as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. If the Reference Rate becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Reference Rate does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Reference Rate Provider to obtain the Reference Rate Price directly from the Reference Rate Provider. If after such contact the Reference Rate remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Reference Rate Price does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Reference Rate Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment and it will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion.

Reference Rate Price = The price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate (the “Secondary Reference Rate”) as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date (the “Secondary Reference Rate Price”). The Secondary Reference Rate Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc. (the “Secondary Reference Rate Provider”). The Secondary Reference Rate Price is calculated by applying weighted-median techniques to such trade data where half the weight is derived from the trading volume on each constituent market and half is derived from inverse price variance, where a constituent market with high price variance as a result of outliers or market anomalies compared to other constituent markets is assigned a smaller weight. The Secondary Reference Rate Provider and the Sponsor have entered into the master services agreement, dated as of August 4, 2020, and order forms thereunder, pursuant to which the Sponsor may obtain and use the Secondary Reference Rate and the Secondary Reference Rate Price from the Secondary Reference Rate Provider. If the Secondary Reference Rate becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Secondary Reference Rate does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Secondary Reference Rate Provider to obtain the Secondary Reference Rate Price directly from the Secondary Reference Rate Provider. If after such contact the Secondary Reference Rate remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Secondary Reference Rate does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Reference Rate Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment and it will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion.

Reference Rate Price = The price set by the Trust’s principal market (the “Tertiary Pricing Option”) as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Tertiary Pricing Option is a spot price derived from the principal market’s public data feed that is believed to be consistently publishing pricing information as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, and is provided to the Sponsor via an application programming interface. If the Tertiary Pricing Option becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Tertiary Pricing Option does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Tertiary Pricing Provider to obtain the Tertiary Pricing Option directly from the Tertiary Pricing Provider. If after such contact the Tertiary Pricing Option remains unavailable ~~after such contact~~ or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Tertiary Pricing Option does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Reference Rate Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment and it will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion.

Reference Rate Price = The Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Reference Rate Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment and it will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion.

In the event of a fork, the Reference Rate Provider may calculate the Reference Rate Price based on a digital asset that the Sponsor does not believe to be the appropriate asset that is held by the Trust. In this event, the Sponsor has full discretion to use a different reference rate provider or calculate the Reference Rate Price itself using its best judgment.

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, select a different reference rate provider, select a different reference rate provided by the Reference Rate Provider, calculate the Reference Rate Price by using the cascading set of rules set forth above, or change the cascading set of rules set forth above at any time. The Sponsor will provide notice of any such changes in the Trust’s periodic or current reports.

Forms of Attack Against the Horizen Network

All networked systems are vulnerable to various kinds of attacks. As with any computer network, the Horizen Network contains certain flaws. For example, the Horizen Network is currently vulnerable to a “51% attack” where, if a mining pool were to gain control of more than 50% of the hash rate for a digital asset, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the network and the ability to manipulate the Horizen Blockchain. On June 2, 2018, the Horizen Network was the target of a double-spend attack by an unknown actor that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Horizen Network. The attack was the result of delayed submission of blocks to the Horizen Network. The team that originally developed the Horizen Network has since begun to implement mitigation procedures to significantly increase the difficulty of attacks of this nature by introducing a penalty for delayed block submissions. The result is that it became more computationally and economically expensive to privately mine blocks and later introduce those blocks to the public Horizen Network as the valid Horizen Blockchain.

In addition, many digital asset networks have been subjected to a number of denial of service attacks, which has led to temporary delays in block creation and in the transfer of digital assets. Any similar attacks on the Horizen Network that impact the ability to transfer ZEN could have a material adverse effect on the price of ZEN and the value of the Shares. Because ZEN was created as a privacy-preserving digital asset, it is also subject to certain types of attacks that may go undetected. For example, on February 5, 2019, the team behind Zcash, another zk-SNARKs-based protocol, announced that it discovered a vulnerability in zk-SNARKs that also existed on the Horizen Network and was subsequently patched on the Horizen Network in connection with a protocol upgrade in November 2018. The vulnerability was a counterfeiting vulnerability that could have allowed an attacker to exploit a flaw in the zero-knowledge proof cryptography to act differently than intended and to create fake ZEN on the Horizen Network without being detected. Although the privacy features prevent one from being certain no ZEN were counterfeited, the team behind Horizen found no evidence that counterfeiting occurred prior to the patch and believes the vulnerability has been fully remediated. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets—The cryptography used to enhance the privacy of transactions on the Horizen Network is new and could ultimately fail, or could be used to facilitate illicit activities, and businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEN may be at increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having services cut off, which could negatively affect the price of ZEN and the value of the Shares.”

Market Participants

Miners

Miners range from ZEN enthusiasts to professional mining operations that design and build dedicated machines and data centers, including mining pools, which are groups of miners that act cohesively and combine their processing power to solve blocks (in the case of proof-of-work) or stake coins (in the case of proof-of-stake).

When a pool solves a new block, the pool operator receives the ZEN and, after taking a nominal fee, splits the resulting reward among the pool participants based on the processing power each of them contributed to solve for such block. Mining pools provide participants with access to smaller, but steadier and more frequent, ZEN payouts. See “—Creation of New ZEN” above.

Nodes

As with the Bitcoin, Ethereum and Zcash networks, the Horizen Network is permissionless and therefore there are no restrictions on downloading and using the Horizen code to run a node. However, in addition to these “Regular Nodes”, the Horizen Network also has two other types of nodes, called “Secure Nodes” and “Super Nodes”. Nodes on the Horizen Network differ in terms of the functionality they provide to the Horizen Network as well as required specifications to ensure they can provide such functionality. By requiring nodes to maintain a basic standard of security and performance, the Horizen Network becomes more distributed, resilient, and secure. Any user who runs a node on the Horizen Network will be a Regular Node by default.

Regular Nodes: Regular Nodes are responsible for helping the Horizen Network run efficiently and remain resilient to attack by maintaining a full copy of the Horizen Blockchain.

Secure Nodes: Secure Nodes perform the same function as Regular Nodes and additionally ensure all network communications between nodes are encrypted. This adds an additional layer of privacy-preservation at the application layer (as opposed to protocol layer) that is not present in Zcash. In order to run a Secure Node, the node operator has certain security, staking, minimum processor, minimum memory and daily uptime requirements. Secure Node operators do not need a minimum ZEN balance to operate the node.

Super Nodes: Super Nodes perform the same functions as Secure Nodes and additionally support the Sidechains. In order to run a Super Node, the node operator has certain security, staking, processor, memory, storage and daily uptime requirements that are greater than Secure Nodes. As an economic incentive for running a Secure Node, the node operator receives 10% of the newly recreated ZEN that is mined in each new block on the Horizen Blockchain. Super Nodes require the operator to stake a minimum of 500 ZEN.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Trust is not a Regular Node, a Secure Node or a Super Node and has no intention of setting up its own Regular Node, Secure Node or Super Node to take advantage of the block rewards provided to these nodes at this time.

Investment and Speculative Sector

Retail Sector

The retail sector includes users transacting in direct peer-to-peer ZEN transactions through the direct sending of ZEN over the Horizen Network. The retail sector also includes transactions in which consumers pay for goods or services from commercial or service businesses through direct transactions or third-party service providers, although the use of ZEN as a means of payment is still developing and has not been accepted in the same manner as Bitcoin due to ZEN’s relative infancy.

While the use of Bitcoin to purchase goods and services from commercial or service businesses is developing, ZEN has not yet been accepted in the same manner due to its infancy and because ZEN has a slightly different purpose than Bitcoin.

Service Sector

This sector includes companies that provide a variety of services including the buying, selling, payment processing and storing of ZEN. For example, Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, Gate.io, and KuCoin are some of the largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms by volume traded. Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, the Custodian for the Trust, is a digital asset custodian that provides custodial accounts that store ZEN for users. As the Horizen Network continues to grow in acceptance, it is anticipated that service providers will expand the currently available range of services and that additional parties will enter the service sector for the Horizen Network.

Competition

Thousands of digital assets, as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com as of September 30, 2024, have been developed since the inception of Bitcoin, which is currently the most developed digital asset because of the length of time it has been in existence, the investment in the infrastructure that supports it, and the network of individuals and entities that are using Bitcoin in transactions. While ZEN has enjoyed some success in its limited history, the aggregate value of outstanding ZEN is much smaller than that of Bitcoin and may be eclipsed by the more rapid development of other digital assets. In particular, Ethereum, Polkadot and Cosmos are three sidechain-oriented digital assets that are direct competitors to ZEN. Usage by any other digital asset network of these features could cause them to gain greater or more rapid acceptance than the Horizen Network.

Government Oversight

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, the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), SEC, CFTC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “IRS”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and state financial institution and securities 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, evade sanctions or fund criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness of trading platforms or other service providers that hold or custody digital assets for users. Many of these state and federal agencies have issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. In addition, federal and state agencies, and other countries and international bodies have issued rules or guidance about the treatment of digital asset transactions or requirements for businesses engaged in digital asset activity. Moreover, the failure of FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”) in November 2022 and the resulting market turmoil substantially increased regulatory scrutiny in the United States and globally and led to SEC and criminal investigations, enforcement actions and other regulatory activity across the digital asset ecosystem.

In addition, the SEC, U.S. state securities regulators and several foreign governments have issued warnings and instituted legal proceedings in which they argue that certain digital assets may be classified as securities and that both those digital assets and any related initial coin offerings or other primary and secondary market transactions are subject to securities regulations. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance and Coinbase, and in November 2023, the SEC brought charges against Kraken, alleging that they operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In its complaints, the SEC asserted that several digital assets are securities under the federal securities laws. The outcomes of these proceedings, as well as ongoing and future regulatory actions, have had a material adverse effect on the digital asset industry as a whole and on the price of ZEN, and may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares and/or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate. Additionally, U.S. state and federal, and foreign regulators and legislatures have taken action against virtual currency businesses or enacted restrictive regimes in response to adverse publicity arising from hacks, consumer harm, or criminal activity stemming from virtual currency activity.

Inand ~~August 2021,~~ the ~~chair~~Digital ofAsset ~~the~~Markets, ~~SEC~~with ~~stated~~particular ~~that~~focus heon ~~believed~~the ~~investors~~extent ~~using~~to which digital ~~asset~~assets ~~trading~~can ~~platforms~~be ~~are~~used ~~not~~to ~~adequately~~launder ~~protected, and that activities on~~ the ~~platforms~~proceeds ~~can~~of ~~implicate~~illegal ~~the securities laws~~activities, ~~commodities~~evade ~~laws~~sanctions ~~and~~or ~~banking~~fund ~~laws,~~criminal ~~raising~~or aterrorist ~~number~~enterprises ofand ~~issues~~the ~~related~~safety ~~to protecting investors~~ and ~~consumers,~~soundness ~~guarding~~of ~~against~~trading ~~illicit~~platforms ~~activity,~~ and ~~ensuring~~other ~~financial~~service ~~stability.~~providers ~~The~~that ~~chair~~hold ~~expressed~~or acustody ~~need~~digital assets for ~~the~~users. ~~SEC~~Many toof ~~have~~these ~~additional~~state ~~authorities to prevent transactions, products,~~ and ~~platforms~~federal ~~from~~agencies ~~“falling~~have ~~between~~issued ~~regulatory~~consumer ~~cracks,”~~advisories asregarding ~~well~~the asrisks ~~for~~posed ~~more~~by ~~resources~~digital assets to ~~protect~~ investors. inIn ~~“this~~addition, ~~growing~~federal and ~~volatile~~state ~~sector.”~~agencies, ~~The~~and ~~chair~~other ~~called~~countries ~~for~~and ~~federal~~international ~~legislation~~bodies ~~centering~~have onissued ~~digital~~rules ~~asset~~or ~~trading,~~guidance ~~lending,~~about ~~and~~the ~~decentralized~~treatment ~~finance~~of ~~platforms,~~digital ~~seeking~~asset ~~“additional~~transactions ~~plenary~~or ~~authority”~~requirements tofor ~~write~~businesses ~~rules~~engaged ~~for~~in digital asset ~~trading and lending~~activity. ~~However~~Moreover, the ~~chair~~failure ~~has~~of ~~subsequently~~FTX ~~stated~~Trading ~~that~~Ltd. ~~the~~(“FTX”) ~~SEC~~in ~~already~~November ~~has~~2022 ~~explicit~~and ~~authority under existing laws to regulate~~ the ~~digital~~resulting ~~asset~~market ~~sector~~turmoil ~~and~~substantially ~~several~~increased ~~enforcement~~regulatory ~~actions~~scrutiny ~~were~~in ~~filed against digital asset trading platforms during~~ the ~~first~~United ~~half~~States ofand ~~2023.~~globally Inand ~~particular,~~led into ~~June 2023, the~~ SEC ~~brought~~ enforcement actions, ~~against~~criminal ~~Binance~~investigations, and ~~Coinbase,~~other ~~two~~regulatory ofactivity across the ~~largest~~ digital asset ~~trading platforms, alleging that they operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies~~ecosystem.

~~The~~There ~~SEC~~have ~~has~~been ~~taken~~several ~~steps~~bills tointroduced ~~interpret~~in, ~~its~~and ~~existing~~in ~~authorities~~the ascase ~~covering~~of ~~various~~the ~~digital~~GENIUS ~~asset~~Act ~~activities.~~passed ~~For example~~by, ~~the~~Congress ~~SEC~~that ~~has~~propose ~~recently proposed amendments~~ to ~~the~~establishadditional ~~custody~~regulation ~~rules~~and ~~under~~oversight ~~Rule 206(4)-2~~ of the ~~Investment~~digital ~~Advisers~~asset ~~Act~~markets. ~~The~~It ~~proposed~~is ~~rule~~difficult ~~changes~~to ~~would~~predict ~~amend~~whether, ~~the~~or ~~definition~~when, any of athese ~~“qualified~~developmentswill ~~custodian”~~lead ~~under~~to ~~Rule~~Congress ~~206(4)-2(d)(6)~~granting ~~and~~additional ~~expand~~authorities ~~the current custody rule under Rule 206(4)-2~~ to ~~cover~~the ~~digital~~SEC ~~assets~~or ~~and~~other ~~related advisory activities. If enacted as proposed~~regulators, ~~these~~what ~~rules~~the ~~would~~nature ~~likely~~of ~~impose~~such additional ~~regulatory~~authorities ~~requirements~~might ~~with~~be, ~~respect~~how toadditional ~~the~~legislation ~~custody~~ and/or ~~storage~~regulatory ofoversight ~~digital~~might ~~assets~~impact ~~and~~the ~~could~~ability ~~lead to additional regulatory oversight~~ of ~~the~~ digital asset ~~ecosystem~~markets ~~more~~to ~~broadly.~~function Itor ishow ~~also~~any ~~possible that a~~ new ~~Administration~~regulations ~~and~~or achanges ~~new~~to ~~Congress~~existing ~~in the United States proposes new laws and~~ regulations ~~related~~might toimpact ~~digital assets. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to~~ the ~~Regulation~~value of ~~Digital~~digital ~~Assets,~~assets ~~the~~generally ~~Trust~~ and ~~the~~those ~~Shares—Regulatory~~held ~~changes or actions~~ by ~~the~~us Uspecifically.S. ~~Congress~~In oraddition, ~~any~~on ~~U.S.~~January ~~federal~~23, ~~or state agencies may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of ZEN~~2025, ~~mining~~President ~~activity~~Trump orissued ~~the~~an ~~operation~~executive oforder ~~the~~titled ~~Horizen~~“Strengthening ~~Network~~American orLeadership ~~the~~in Digital ~~Asset~~Financial ~~Trading~~Technology” ~~Platform~~aimed ~~Market~~at insupporting a“the ~~manner~~responsible ~~that~~growth ~~adversely~~and ~~affects~~use ~~the value~~ of ~~the~~digital ~~Shares~~assets,” ~~“Item~~blockchain ~~1A.~~technology, ~~Risk~~and ~~Factors—Risk~~related ~~Factors~~technologies ~~Related~~across toall ~~the~~sectors ~~Regulation~~ of ~~Digital Assets,~~ the ~~Trust~~economy.” ~~and~~The ~~the~~executive ~~Shares—A~~order ~~determination~~established ~~that~~an ~~ZEN~~interagency orworking ~~any~~group ~~other~~tasked ~~digital~~with ~~asset~~“proposing is a ~~“security”~~Federal ~~may~~regulatory ~~adversely~~framework ~~affect~~governing the ~~value~~issuance ~~of ZEN~~ and ~~the~~operation ~~value~~ of ~~the~~digital ~~Shares,~~assets” ~~and result~~ in ~~potentially~~the ~~extraordinary,~~United ~~nonrecurring~~States. ~~expenses~~Pursuant to, orthis ~~termination~~executive oforder, the ~~Trust”~~working ~~and~~group ~~“Item~~released ~~1A.~~a ~~Risk~~report ~~Factors—Risk~~in ~~Factors~~July ~~Related~~2025 tooutlining the ~~Regulation~~administration's ofrecommendations ~~Digital~~to ~~Assets,~~Congress ~~the Trust~~ and ~~the~~various ~~Shares—Changes~~agencies inreflecting ~~SEC~~the ~~policy~~administration's ~~could~~“pro-innovation ~~adversely~~mindset ~~impact~~toward ~~the~~digital ~~value~~assets ofand ~~the~~blockchain ~~Shares~~technologies.”

In addition, the SEC, U.S. state securities regulators and several foreign governments have issued warnings and instituted legal proceedings in which they argue that certain digital assets may be classified as securities and that both those digital assets and any related initial coin offerings or other primary and secondary market transactions are subject to securities regulations. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance Holdings Ltd. (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase, Inc. (the “Coinbase Complaint”), and in November 2023, the SEC brought charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that they operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In its complaints, the SEC asserted that several digital assets are securities under the federal securities laws. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants as well. Additionally, U.S. state and federal, and foreign regulators and legislatures have taken action against virtual currency businesses or enacted restrictive regimes in response to adverse publicity arising from hacks, consumer harm, or criminal activity stemming from virtual currency activity.

In August 2021, the former 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 former chair expressed a need for the SEC to have additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from “falling between regulatory cracks,” as well as for more resources to protect investors in “this growing and volatile sector.” The former 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. The SEC under the current administration, however, is taking a different approach to digital assets.

There have been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets. Certain of these bills passed out of relevant committees and were passed in the House of Representatives in the last Congress, though not the Senate. Some of these bills have since been reintroduced with changes, and continue to be contemplated in the relevant committees, as well as the full House of Representatives and Senate. For example, in July 2025, the GENIUS Act was signed into law and the House of Representatives passed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (“CLARITY Act”) in an effort to pass laws relating to digital asset market structure. It is difficult to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, 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 ZEN, validating activity or the operation of the Stellar Network or the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares—A determination that ZEN or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of ZEN and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares—Changes in SEC policy could adversely impact the value of the Shares.”

Various foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to, in the near future, adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect a digital asset network, the Digital Asset Markets, and their users, particularly Digital Asset Trading Platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example:

•

China has made transacting in cryptocurrencies illegal for Chinese citizens in mainland China, and additional restrictions may follow. China has banned initial coin offerings and there have been reports that Chinese regulators have taken action to shut down a number of China-based Digital Asset Trading Platforms.

•

South Korea determined to amend its Financial Information Act in March 2020 to require virtual asset service providers to register and comply with its AML and counter-terrorism funding framework. These measures also provide the government with the authority to close Digital Asset Trading Platforms that do not comply with specified processes. South Korea has also banned initial coin offerings.

•

The Reserve Bank of India in April 2018 banned the entities it regulates from providing services to any individuals or business entities dealing with or settling digital assets. In March 2020, this ban was overturned in the Indian Supreme Court, although the Reserve Bank of India is currently challenging this ruling.

•

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. A new law, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (“FSMA”), received royal assent in June 2023. The FSMA brings digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets.

•

The Parliament of the European Union approved the text of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”) in April 2023, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. MiCA is intended to serve as a comprehensive regulation of digital asset markets and imposes various obligations on digital asset issuers and service providers. The main aims of MiCA are industry regulation, consumer protection, prevention of market abuse and upholding the integrity of digital asset markets. MiCA was formally approved by the European Union’s member states in 2023. Certain parts of MiCA became effective as of June 2024 and the remainder ~~will~~applied ~~start to apply~~ as of December 2024.

1920

There remains significant uncertainty regarding foreign governments’ future actions with respect to the regulation of digital assets and Digital Asset Trading Platforms. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of ZEN by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the Horizen ecosystem in the United States and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of ZEN held by the Trust. The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or the ZEN 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.

See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, 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 ZEN, mining activity or the operation of the Horizen Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares.”

Description of the Trust

The Trust is a Delaware Statutory Trust that was formed on July 3, 2018 by the filing of the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (“DSTA”). On January 11, 2019, the Trust changed its name from Horizen Investment Trust to Grayscale Horizen Trust (ZEN) by filing a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the DSTA. The Trust operates pursuant to the Trust Agreement.

The Shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust. The Trust is passive and is not managed like a corporation or an active investment vehicle. The Trust’s ZEN are held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust’s ZEN will be transferred out of the Digital Asset Account only in the following circumstances: (i) transferred to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expenses, (ii) sold on an as-needed basis to pay Additional Trust Expenses or (iii) sold on behalf of the Trust in the event the Trust terminates and liquidates its assets or as otherwise required by law or regulation. Assuming that the Trust is treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery or sale of ZEN by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expenses will be a taxable event for shareholders. See “—~~Certain~~Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders.”

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 the Investment Company Act. The Trust will not trade, buy, sell or hold ZEN derivatives, including ZEN futures contracts, on any futures exchange. The Trust is authorized solely to take immediate delivery of actual ZEN. The Sponsor does not believe the Trust’s activities are required to be regulated by the CFTC under the CEA as a “commodity pool” under current law, regulation and interpretation. The Trust will not be operated by a CFTC-regulated commodity pool operator because it will not trade, buy, sell or hold ZEN derivatives, including ZEN futures contracts, on any futures exchange. Investors in the Trust will not receive the regulatory protections afforded to investors in regulated commodity pools, nor may the COMEX division of the New York Mercantile Exchange or any futures exchange enforce its rules with respect to the Trust’s activities. In addition, investors in the Trust will not benefit from the protections afforded to investors in ZEN futures contracts on regulated futures exchanges.

The Trust creates Shares from time to time but only in Baskets. A Basket equals a block of 100 Shares. The number of outstanding Shares is expected to increase from time to time as a result of the creation of Baskets. The creation of Baskets will require the delivery to the Trust of the amount of ZEN represented by the Baskets being created. The creation of a Basket will be made only in exchange for the delivery to the Trust of the amount of whole and fractional ZEN represented by each Basket being created, the ~~number~~amount of which is determined by dividing (x) the amount of ZEN owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the relevant trade date, after deducting the amount of ZEN representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the Reference Rate Price at such time, and carried to the eighth decimal place) by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one ZEN (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100.

Although the redemption of Shares is provided for in the Trust Agreement, the redemption of Shares is not currently permitted and the Trust does not currently operate a redemption program. Subject to receipt of regulatory approval from the SEC and approval by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, the Trust may in the future operate a redemption program. However, because the Sponsor does not believe that the SEC would, at this time, entertain an application for the waiver of rules needed in order to operate an ongoing redemption program, the Sponsor currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval from the SEC for the Trust to operate an ongoing redemption program. Even if such relief is sought in the future, no assurance can be given as to the timing of such relief or that such relief will be granted. If such relief is granted and the Sponsor approves a redemption program, the Shares will be redeemable in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement and the relevant Participant Agreement. Although the Sponsor cannot predict with certainty what effect, if any, the operation of a redemption program would have on the trading price of the Shares, this will allow Authorized Participants to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities created when the market value of the Shares deviates from the value

2021

of the Trust’s ZEN, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, which may have the effect of reducing any premium at which the Shares trade on OTCQX over such value or cause the Shares to trade at a discount to such value, which at times has been substantial.

Each Share represented approximately 0.~~0857~~0836 ZEN as of September 30, ~~2024~~2025. Each Share in the initial Baskets represented approximately 0.1000 ZEN. The amount of ZEN required to create a Basket is expected to continue to gradually decrease over time due to the transfer or sale of the Trust’s ZEN to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses. The Trust will not accept or distribute cash in exchange for Baskets other than upon its dissolution. Authorized Participants may sell to other investors the Shares they purchase from the Trust only in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act. For a discussion of risks relating to the unavailability of a redemption program, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares— 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 Reference Rate Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.”

The Sponsor will determine the Trust’s NAV on each business day as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, or as soon thereafter as practicable. The Sponsor will also determine the NAV per Share, which equals the NAV divided by the number of outstanding Shares. Each business day, the Sponsor will publish the Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share on the Trust’s website, www.grayscale.com/~~crypto-products~~funds/grayscale-horizen-trust/, as soon as practicable after the Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share have been determined by the Sponsor. See “—Valuation of ZEN and Determination of NAV.”

The Trust’s assets consist solely of ZEN, Incidental Rights, IR Virtual Currency, proceeds from the sale of ZEN, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency pending use of such cash for payment of Additional Trust Expenses or distribution to the shareholders and any rights of the Trust pursuant to any agreements, other than the Trust Agreement, to which the Trust is a party. Each Share represents a proportional interest, based on the total number of Shares outstanding, in each of the Trust’s assets as determined in the case of ZEN by reference to the Reference Rate Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities (which include accrued but unpaid fees and expenses). The Sponsor expects that the market price of the Shares will fluctuate over time in response to the market prices of ZEN. In addition, because the Shares reflect the estimated accrued but unpaid expenses of the Trust, the amount of ZEN represented by a Share will gradually decrease over time as the Trust’s ZEN are used to pay the Trust’s expenses. The Trust does not expect to take any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency it may hold into account for purposes of determining the Trust’s NAV or the NAV per Share.

ZEN pricing information is available on a 24-hour basis from various financial information service providers or Horizen Network information sites such as CoinMarketCap.com. The spot price and bid/ask spreads may also be available directly from Digital Asset Trading Platforms. As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the ~~constituent~~Constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms of the Reference Rate Price were Coinbase, Binance, Bybit, ~~Gate.io~~Huobi, MEXC and KuCoin. The Reference Rate Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Reference Rate in the future at its discretion. Market prices for the Shares will be available from a variety of sources, including brokerage firms, information websites and other information service providers. In addition, on each business day the Trust’s website will provide pricing information for the Shares.

The Trust has no fixed termination date.

Service Providers of the Trust

The Sponsor

~~The~~Until December 31, 2024, the Trust’s Sponsor iswas Grayscale Investments, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formed on May 29, 2013 and a wholly owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“DCG”). The Sponsor’s principal place of business is 290 Harbor Drive, 4th Floor, Stamford, Connecticut 06902 and its telephone number is (212) 668-1427. Under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act and the governing documents of the Sponsor, DCG, the sole ~~member~~equity holder of the Sponsor, is not responsible for the debts, obligations and liabilities of the Sponsor solely by reason of being the sole ~~member~~equity holder of the Sponsor.

The Sponsor is neither an investment adviser registered with the SEC nor a commodity pool operator registered with the CFTC, and will not be acting in either such capacity with respect to the Trust, and the Sponsor’s provision of services to the Trust will not be governed by the Investment Advisers Act or the CEA.

The Sponsor arranged for the creation of the Trust and quotation of the Shares on OTCQX. As partial consideration for its receipt of the Sponsor’s Fee from the Trust, the Sponsor is obligated to pay the Sponsor-paid Expenses. The Sponsor also paid the costs of the Trust’s organization and the costs of the initial sale of the Shares.

The Sponsor is generally responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Trust under the provisions of the Trust Agreement. This includes (i) preparing and providing periodic reports and financial statements on behalf of the Trust for investors, (ii) processing

2122

orders to create Baskets and coordinating the processing of such orders with the Custodian and the Transfer Agent, (iii) calculating and publishing the NAV and the NAV per Share of the Trust each business day as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, or as soon thereafter as practicable, (iv) selecting and monitoring the Trust’s service providers and from time to time engaging additional, successor or replacement service providers, (v) instructing the Custodian to transfer the Trust’s ZEN, as needed to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses, (vi) upon dissolution of the Trust, distributing the Trust’s remaining ZEN, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency or the cash proceeds of the sale thereof to the owners of record of the Shares and (vii) establishing the principal market for U.S. GAAP valuation. In addition, if there is a fork in the Horizen Network after which there is a dispute as to which network resulting from the fork is the Horizen Network, the Sponsor has the authority to select the network that it believes in good faith is the Horizen Network, unless such selection or authority would otherwise conflict with the Trust Agreement.

The Sponsor does not store, hold, or maintain custody or control of the Trust’s ZEN but instead has entered into the Custodian Agreement with the Custodian to facilitate the security of the Trust’s ZEN.

The Sponsor may transfer all or substantially all of its assets to an entity that carries on the business of the Sponsor if at the time of the transfer the successor assumes all of the obligations of the Sponsor under the Trust Agreement. In such an event, the Sponsor will be relieved of all further liability under the Trust Agreement.

The Sponsor’s Fee is paid by the Trust to the Sponsor as compensation for services performed under the Trust Agreement and as partial consideration for the Sponsor’s agreement to pay the Sponsor-paid Expenses. See “—Expenses; Sales of ZEN.”

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, select a different reference rate provider, select a different reference rate provided by the Reference Rate Provider, calculate the Reference Rate Price by using the cascading set of rules set forth under “—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable” above, or change the cascading set of rules set forth above at any time.

Distribution and Marketing Agreement

Effective October 3, 2022, the Sponsor has entered into a distribution and marketing agreement (the “Distribution and Marketing Agreement”) with Grayscale Securities, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (“Grayscale Securities”), aan ~~wholly~~affiliate ~~owned subsidiary~~ of the Sponsor and an affiliate and related party of the Trust, to assist the Sponsor in distributing the Shares, developing an ongoing marketing plan for the Trust, preparing marketing materials regarding the Shares, including the content on the Trust’s website, and executing the marketing plan for the Trust.

On October 3, 2022, in connection with the entry into the Distribution and Marketing Agreement with Grayscale Securities, the Sponsor and Genesis Global Trading, Inc. (“Genesis”) agreed to terminate the distribution and marketing agreement, dated November 15, 2019, among the Sponsor, the Trust and Genesis, pursuant to which Genesis assisted the Sponsor in distributing the Shares, as described further in “—Authorized Participants”. As a result, effective October 3, 2022, Genesis has no longer acted as the distributor and marketer of the Shares of the Trust.

Reference Rate License Agreement

The Sponsor has entered into the Reference Rate License Agreement with CoinDesk Indices, Inc., the Reference Rate Provider, governing the Sponsor’s use of the Reference Rate for calculation of the Reference Rate Price. The Reference Rate Provider may adjust the calculation methodology for the Reference Rate without notice to, or consent of, the Trust or its shareholders. Under the Reference Rate License Agreement, the Sponsor pays a monthly fee and a fee based on the NAV of the Trust to the Reference Rate Provider in consideration of its license to the Sponsor of Reference Rate-related intellectual property. The initial term of the Reference Rate License Agreement was February 1, 2022 through the later of February 29, 2024 and the latest date set forth on any order form executed under the Reference Rate License Agreement. On June 20, 2023, the Sponsor and the Reference Rate Provider, entered into an amendment to the Reference Rate License Agreement to extend the initial term of the Reference Rate License Agreement from February 29, 2024, to February 28, 2025. On February 5, 2025, the Sponsor and the Reference Rate Provider, entered into an amendment to the Reference Rate License Agreement to extend the term of the Reference Rate License Agreement from February 28, 2025, to February 29, 2028. Thereafter, the Reference Rate License Agreement will automatically renew on an annual basis, unless a notice of non-renewal is provided. The Reference Rate License Agreement is terminable by either party upon written notice in the event of a material breach that remains uncured for thirty days after initial written notice of such breach. Further, either party may terminate the Reference Rate License Agreement immediately upon notice under certain circumstances, including with respect to the other party’s (i) insolvency, bankruptcy or analogous event or (ii) violation of money transmission, taxation or trading regulations that materially adversely affect either party’s ability to perform under the Reference Rate License Agreement.

2223

Secondary Reference Rate Provider Agreement

The Sponsor is a party to a Master Services Agreement dated August 4, 2020 (the “Secondary Reference Rate Provider Agreement”) with Coin Metrics, Inc., the Secondary Reference Rate Provider. Under the Secondary Reference Rate Provider Agreement, the Sponsor and the Secondary Reference Rate Provider entered into an order form dated March 17, 2022 pursuant to which the Sponsor pays a monthly fee to the Secondary Reference Rate Provider in consideration of its license to the Sponsor to use the Secondary Reference Rate as the Secondary Reference Rate Price when the Reference Rate Price is unavailable. The Secondary Reference Rate Provider may adjust the calculation methodology for the Secondary Reference Rate Price without notice to, or consent of, the Trust or its shareholders. The term of the Secondary Reference Rate Provider Agreement is from August 4, 2020 until terminated. The current order form will automatically renew on an annual basis, unless a notice of non-renewal is provided. The Secondary Reference Rate Provider Agreement is terminable by either party in the event of a material breach that remains uncured for thirty days after written notice of such breach. Either party may also terminate the Secondary Reference Rate Provider Agreement under certain circumstances, including with respect to the other party’s insolvency, bankruptcy or analogous event. Further, either party may terminate the Secondary Reference Rate Provider Agreement upon thirty days’ prior written notice in the event of (i) final adoption of any legislation or regulation that materially impairs either party’s ability to perform or (ii) any litigation or regulatory proceeding being commenced that would have a material adverse effect upon the ability of either party to perform.

The Trustee

CSC Delaware Trust Company (formerly known as Delaware Trust Company) serves as Delaware trustee of the Trust under the Trust Agreement. The Trustee has its principal office at 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. The Trustee is unaffiliated with the Sponsor. A copy of the Trust Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified above.

The Trustee is appointed to serve as the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware for the sole purpose of satisfying the requirement of Section 3807(a) of the DSTA that the Trust have at least one trustee with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware. The duties of the Trustee will be limited to (i) accepting legal process served on the Trust in the State of Delaware and (ii) the execution of any certificates required to be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State which the Delaware Trustee is required to execute under the DSTA. To the extent that, at law or in equity, the Trustee has duties (including fiduciary duties) and liabilities relating thereto to the Trust or the shareholders, such duties and liabilities will be replaced by the duties and liabilities of the Trustee expressly set forth in the Trust Agreement. The Trustee will have no obligation to supervise, nor will it be liable for, the acts or omissions of the Sponsor, Transfer Agent, Custodian or any other person.

Neither the Trustee, either in its capacity as trustee or in its individual capacity, nor any director, officer or controlling person of the Trustee is, or has any liability as, the issuer, director, officer or controlling person of the issuer of Shares. The Trustee’s liability in connection with the issuance and sale of Shares is limited solely to the express obligations of the Trustee as set forth in the Trust Agreement.

The Trustee has not prepared or verified, and will not be responsible or liable for, any information, disclosure or other statement in this Annual Report or in any other document issued or delivered in connection with the sale or transfer of the Shares. The Trust Agreement provides that the Trustee will not be responsible or liable for the genuineness, enforceability, collectability, value, sufficiency, location or existence of any of the ZEN or other assets of the Trust. See “—Description of the Trust Agreement.”

The Trustee is permitted to resign upon at least 180 days’ notice to the Trust. The Trustee will be compensated by the Sponsor and indemnified by the Sponsor and the Trust against any expenses it incurs relating to or arising out of the formation, operation or termination of the Trust, or the performance of its duties pursuant to the Trust Agreement except to the extent that such expenses result from gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith of the Trustee. The Sponsor has the discretion to replace the Trustee.

Fees paid to the Trustee are a Sponsor-paid Expense.

The Transfer Agent

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, a Delaware corporation, serves as the Transfer Agent of the Trust pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement. The Transfer Agent has its principal office at 1 State Street, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10004. A copy of the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein.

The Transfer Agent holds the Shares primarily in book-entry form. The Sponsor directs the Transfer Agent to credit the number of Creation Baskets to the investor on behalf of which an Authorized Participant submitted a creation order. The Transfer Agent will issue Creation Baskets. The Transfer Agent will also assist with the preparation of shareholders’ ~~account~~accounts and tax statements.

2324

The Sponsor will indemnify and hold harmless the Transfer Agent, and the Transfer Agent will incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized.

Fees paid to the Transfer Agent are a Sponsor-paid Expense.

Authorized Participants

An Authorized Participant must enter into a “Participant Agreement” with the Sponsor and the Trust to govern its placement of orders to create Baskets. The Participant Agreement sets forth the procedures for the creation of Baskets and for the delivery of ZEN required for creations. A copy of the form of Participant Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein.

Each Authorized Participant must (i) be a registered broker-dealer, (ii) enter into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor and (iii) own a ZEN wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant, or another entity that has been engaged to source digital assets (any such representative, a “Liquidity Provider”). A list of the current Authorized Participants can be obtained from the Sponsor. Prior to October 3, 2022, Genesis (in such capacity, an “Authorized Participant”), a registered broker-dealer and wholly owned subsidiary of DCG, was the only Authorized Participant, and was party to a participant agreement with the Sponsor and the Trust.

Effective October 3, 2022, the Sponsor entered into a Participant Agreement with Grayscale Securities, pursuant to which Grayscale Securities has agreed to act as an Authorized Participant of the Trust, and terminated its participant agreement with Genesis, dated January 11, 2019, among the Sponsor, the Trust and Genesis, which provided the procedures for the creation of Shares. As a result, since October 3, 2022, Genesis ceased acting as an Authorized Participant of the Trust, but served as a Liquidity Provider to Grayscale Securities from October 3, 2022 through September 12, 2023.

As of the date of this Annual Report, Grayscale Securities is the only acting Authorized Participant. The Sponsor intends to engage additional Authorized Participants that are unaffiliated with the Trust in the future.

No Authorized Participant has any obligation or responsibility to the Sponsor or the Trust to effect any sale or resale of Shares.

The Custodian

Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC 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. The Custodian is authorized to serve as the Trust’s custodian under the Trust Agreement and pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Custodian Agreement. The Custodian has its principal office at 200 Park Avenue South, Suite 1208, New York, New York 10003. A copy of the Custodian Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein.

Under the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian controls and secures the Trust’s “Digital Asset Account,” a segregated custody account to store private keys, which allow for the transfer of ownership or control of the Trust’s ZEN, on the Trust’s behalf. The Custodian’s services (i) allow ZEN to be deposited from a public blockchain address to the Trust’s Digital Asset Account and (ii) allow the Trust or Sponsor to withdraw ZEN from the Trust’s Digital Asset Account to a public blockchain address the Trust or Sponsor controls (the “Custodial Services”). The Digital Asset Account uses offline storage, or “cold” storage, mechanisms to secure the Trust’s private keys. The term cold storage refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to digital assets are disconnected and/or deleted entirely from the internet.

The Custodian will withdraw from the Trust’s Digital Asset Account the amount of ZEN necessary to pay the Trust’s expenses.

Fees paid to the Custodian are a Sponsor-paid Expense.

Under the Custodian Agreement, each of the Custodian and the Trust has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the other party from any third-party claim or third-party demand (including reasonable and documented attorneys’ fees and any fines, fees or penalties imposed by any regulatory authority) arising out of or related to the Custodian’s or the Trust’s, as the case may be, breach of the Custodian Agreement, inaccuracy in any of the Custodian’s or the Trust’s, as the case may be, representations or warranties in the Custodian Agreement, or the Trust’s violation, or the Custodian’s knowing violation, of any law, rule or regulation, or the rights of any third party, except where such claim directly results from the gross negligence, fraud or willful misconduct of the other such party. In addition, the Trust has agreed to indemnify the Custodian with respect to any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency abandoned by the Trust and any tax liability relating thereto or arising therefrom.

2425

The Custodian and its affiliates may from time to time purchase or sell ZEN for their own accounts and as agent for their customers or Shares for their own accounts. The foregoing notwithstanding, ZEN in the Digital Asset Account are not treated as general assets of the Custodian and cannot be commingled with any other digital assets held by the Custodian. The Custodian serves as a fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf, and the ZEN in the Digital Asset Account are considered fiduciary assets that remain the Trust’s property at all times.

Once each calendar year, the Sponsor or the Trust may request that the Custodian deliver a certificate signed by a duly authorized officer to certify that all representations and warranties made by the Custodian in the Custodian Agreement are true and correct on and as of the date of such certificate, and have been true and correct throughout the preceding year. In addition, the Custodian has agreed to allow the Trust and the Sponsor to take any necessary steps to verify that satisfactory internal control system and procedures are in place, and to visit and inspect the systems on which the Custodian’s coins are held.

If the Custodian resigns in its capacity as custodian, the Sponsor may appoint an additional or replacement custodian and enter into a custodian agreement on behalf of the Trust with such custodian. Furthermore, the Sponsor and the Trust may use ZEN custody services or similar services provided by entities other than Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC at any time without prior notice to Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC.

Custody of the Trust’s ZEN

Digital assets and digital asset transactions are recorded and validated on blockchains, the public transaction ledgers of a digital asset network. Each digital asset blockchain serves as a record of ownership for all of the units of such digital asset, even in the case of certain privacy-preserving digital assets, where the transactions themselves are not publicly viewable. All digital assets recorded on a blockchain are associated with a public blockchain address, also referred to as a digital wallet. Digital assets held at a particular public blockchain address may be accessed and transferred using a corresponding private key.

Key Generation

Public addresses and their corresponding private keys are generated by the Custodian in secret key generation ceremonies at secure locations inside faraday cages, which are enclosures used to block electromagnetic fields and thus mitigate against attacks. The Custodian uses quantum random number generators to generate the public and private key pairs.

Once generated, private keys are encrypted, separated into “shards”, and then further encrypted. After the key generation ceremony, all materials used to generate private keys, including computers, are destroyed. All key generation ceremonies are performed offline. No party other than the Custodian has access to the private key shards of the Trust, including the Trust itself.

Key Storage

Private key shards are distributed geographically in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States. The locations of the secure vaults may change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes.

The Digital Asset Account uses offline storage, or “cold storage”, mechanisms to secure the Trust’s private keys. The term cold storage refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to digital assets are disconnected and/or deleted entirely from the internet. Cold storage of private keys may involve keeping such keys on a non-networked (or “air-gapped”) computer or electronic device or storing the private keys on a storage device (for example, a USB thumb drive) or printed medium (for example, papyrus, paper or a metallic object). A digital wallet may receive deposits of digital assets but may not send digital assets without use of the digital assets’ corresponding private keys. In order to send digital assets from a digital wallet in which the private keys are kept in cold storage, either the private keys must be retrieved from cold storage and entered into an online, or “hot”, digital asset software program to sign the transaction, or the unsigned transaction must be transferred to the cold server in which the private keys are held for signature by the private keys and then transferred back to the online digital asset software program. At that point, the user of the digital wallet can transfer its digital assets.

Security Procedures

The Custodian is the custodian of the Trust’s private keys in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Custodian Agreement. Transfers from the Digital Asset Account requires certain security procedures, including but not limited to, multiple encrypted private key shards, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification. Multiple private key shards held by the Custodian must be combined to reconstitute the private key to sign any transaction in order to transfer the Trust’s assets. Private key shards are distributed geographically in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States.

2526

As a result, if any one secure vault is ever compromised, this event will have no impact on the ability of the Trust to access its assets, other than a possible delay in operations, while one or more of the other secure vaults is used instead. These security procedures are intended to remove single points of failure in the protection of the Trust’s assets.

Transfers of ZEN to the Digital Asset Account will be available to the Trust once processed on the Blockchain.

Subject to obtaining regulatory approval to operate a redemption program and authorization of the Sponsor, the process of accessing and withdrawing ZEN from the Trust to redeem a Basket by an Authorized Participant will follow the same general procedure as transferring ZEN to the Trust to create a Basket by an Authorized Participant, only in reverse. See “—Description of Creation of Shares.”

The Distributor and Marketer

Prior to October 3, 2022, Genesis was the distributor and marketer of the Shares. Since October 3, 2022, Grayscale Securities is the distributor and marketer of the Shares and Genesis ceased acting as the distributor and marketer of the Shares of the Trust. Grayscale Securities is a registered broker-dealer with the SEC and is a member of FINRA.

In its capacity as distributor and marketer, Grayscale Securities assists the Sponsor in developing an ongoing marketing plan for the Trust; preparing marketing materials regarding the Shares, including the content on the Trust’s website, www.grayscale.com/~~crypto-products~~funds/grayscale-horizen-trust/; and executing the marketing plan for the Trust. Grayscale Securities is an affiliate of the Sponsor.

The Sponsor has entered into a Distribution and Marketing Agreement with Grayscale Securities. The Sponsor may engage additional or successor distributors and marketers in the future.

Description of the Shares

The Trust is authorized under the Trust Agreement to create and issue an unlimited number of Shares. Shares will be issued only in Baskets (a Basket equals a block of 100 Shares) in connection with creations. The Shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust and have no par value. On October 7, 2021, the Trust completed a 10-for-1 Share split of the Trust’s issued and outstanding Shares. In connection with the Share Split, shareholders of record on October 6, 2021 received nine additional Shares of the Trust for each Share held. The number of outstanding Shares and per-Share amounts disclosed for periods prior to October 7, 2021 have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the effects of the Share Split, as applicable. The Shares are quoted on OTCQX under the ticker symbol “HZEN.”

Description of Limited Rights

The Shares do not represent a traditional investment and should not be viewed as similar to “shares” of a corporation operating a business enterprise with management and a board of directors. A shareholder will not have the statutory rights normally associated with the ownership of shares of a corporation. Each Share is transferable, is fully paid and non-assessable and entitles the holder to vote on the limited matters upon which shareholders may vote under the Trust Agreement. For example, shareholders do not have the right to elect or remove directors and will not receive dividends. The Shares do not entitle their holders to any conversion or pre-emptive rights or, except as discussed below, any redemption rights or rights to distributions.

Voting and Approvals

The shareholders take no part in the management or control of the Trust. Under the Trust Agreement, shareholders have limited voting rights. For example, in the event that the Sponsor withdraws, a majority of the shareholders may elect and appoint a successor sponsor to carry out the affairs of the Trust. In addition, no amendments to the Trust Agreement that materially adversely affect the interests of shareholders may be made without the vote of at least a majority (over 50%) of the then-outstanding Shares (not including any Shares held by the Sponsor or its affiliates). ~~However~~A shareholder will be deemed to have consented to a modification or amendment of the Trust Agreement if the Sponsor has notified the shareholders in writing of the proposed modification or amendment and the shareholder has not, within 20 calendar days of such notice, notified the Sponsor in writing that the shareholder objects to such modification or amendment. Additionally, subject to certain limitations, the Sponsor may make any other amendments to the Trust Agreement inwhich ~~its~~do ~~sole~~not ~~discretion~~materially ~~without~~adversely ~~shareholder~~affect ~~consent~~the ~~provided~~interests ~~that~~of the ~~Sponsor~~shareholders ~~provides~~in 20its ~~days’~~sole ~~notice~~discretion ofwithout ~~any~~shareholder ~~such amendment~~consent.

Distributions

Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust may make distributions on the Shares in-cash or in-kind, including in such form as is necessary or permissible for the Trust to facilitate its shareholders’ access to any Incidental Rights or to IR Virtual Currency.

In addition, if the Trust is terminated and liquidated, the Sponsor will distribute to the shareholders any amounts of the cash proceeds of the liquidation remaining after the satisfaction of all outstanding liabilities of the Trust and the establishment of reserves for applicable taxes, other governmental charges and contingent or future liabilities as the Sponsor will determine. See “—Description of 27

26In addition, if the Trust is terminated and liquidated, the Sponsor will distribute to the shareholders any amounts of the cash proceeds of the liquidation remaining after the satisfaction of all outstanding liabilities of the Trust and the establishment of reserves for applicable taxes, other governmental charges and contingent or future liabilities as the Sponsor will determine. See “—Description of the Trust Agreement—Termination of the Trust.” Shareholders of record on the record date fixed by the Transfer Agent for a distribution will be entitled to receive their pro rata portions of any distribution.

the Trust Agreement—Termination of the Trust.” Shareholders of record on the record date fixed by the Transfer Agent for a distribution will be entitled to receive their pro rata portions of any distribution.

Appointment of Agent

Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, by holding the Shares, shareholders will be deemed to agree that the Sponsor may cause the Trust to appoint an agent (any person appointed in such capacity, an “Agent”) to act on their behalf in connection with any distribution of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency if the Sponsor has determined in good faith that such appointment is reasonably necessary or in the best interests of the Trust and the shareholders in order to facilitate the distribution of any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor may cause the Trust to appoint Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (acting other than in its capacity as Sponsor) or any of its affiliates to act in such capacity.

Any Agent appointed to facilitate a distribution of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency will receive an in-kind distribution of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency on behalf of the shareholders of record with respect to such distribution, and following receipt of such distribution, will determine, in its sole discretion and without any direction from the Trust, or the Sponsor, in its capacity as Sponsor of the Trust, whether and when to sell the distributed Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency on behalf of the record date shareholders. If the Agent is able to do so, it will remit the cash proceeds to the record date shareholders. There can be no assurance as to the price or prices for any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency that the Agent may realize, and the value of the Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency may increase or decrease after any sale by the Agent.

Any Agent appointed pursuant to the Trust Agreement will not receive any compensation in connection with its role as agent. However, any Agent will be entitled to receive from the record-date shareholders, out of the distributed Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, an amount of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency with an aggregate fair market value equal to the amount of administrative and other reasonable expenses incurred by the Agent in connection with its activities as agent of the record-date shareholders, including expenses incurred by the Agent in connection with any post-distribution sale of such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency.

The Sponsor currently expects to cause the Trust to appoint Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, acting other than in its capacity as Sponsor, as Agent to facilitate any distribution of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency to shareholders. The Trust has no right to receive any information about any distributed Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency or the disposition thereof from the record date shareholders, their Agent or any other person.

Creation of Shares

The Trust creates Shares at such times and for such periods as determined by the Sponsor, but only in one or more whole Baskets. A Basket equals 100 Shares. As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, each Share represented approximately 0.~~0857~~0836 ZEN. See “—Description of Creation of Shares.” The creation of a Basket requires the delivery to the Trust of the amount of ZEN represented by one Share immediately prior to such creation multiplied by 100. The Trust may from time to time halt creations, including for extended periods of time, for a variety of reasons, including in connection with forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences.

Redemption of Shares

Redemptions of Shares are currently not permitted and the Trust is unable to redeem Shares. Subject to receipt of regulatory approval from the SEC and approval by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, the Trust may in the future operate a redemption program. However, because the Sponsor does not believe that the SEC would, at this time, entertain an application for the waiver of rules needed in order to operate an ongoing redemption program, the Sponsor currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval from the SEC for the Trust to operate an ongoing redemption program.

Even if such relief is sought in the future, no assurance can be given as to the timing of such relief or that such relief will be granted. If such relief is granted and the Sponsor approves a redemption program, the Shares will be redeemable only in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement and the relevant Participant Agreement. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—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 Reference Rate Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market” ~~and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.”~~

2728

and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.”

Transfer Restrictions

Shares purchased in ~~the~~a private placement are restricted securities that 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 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.

Pursuant to Rule 144, a minimum six-month holding period applies to all Shares purchased from the Trust.

On a bi-weekly basis, the Trust aggregates the Shares that have been held for the requisite holding period under Rule 144 by non-affiliates of the Trust to assess whether the Rule 144 transfer restriction legends may be removed. Any Shares that qualify for the removal of the Rule 144 transfer restriction legends are presented to outside counsel, who may instruct the Transfer Agent to remove the transfer restriction legends from the Shares, allowing the Shares to then be resold without restriction, including on OTCQX U.S. Premier marketplace. The outside counsel requires that certain representations be made, providing that:

•

the Shares subject to each sale have been held for the requisite holding period under Rule 144 by the selling shareholder;

•

the shareholder is the sole beneficial owner of the Shares;

•

the Sponsor is aware of no circumstances in which the shareholder would be considered an underwriter or engaged in the distribution of securities for the Trust;

•

none of the Shares are subject to any agreement granting any pledge, lien, mortgage, hypothecation, security interest, charge, option or encumbrance;

•

none of the identified selling shareholders is an affiliate of the Sponsor;

•

the Sponsor consents to the transfer of the Shares; and

•

outside counsel and the Transfer Agent can rely on the representations.

In addition, because the Trust Agreement prohibits the transfer or sale of Shares without the prior written consent of the Sponsor, the Sponsor must provide a written consent that explicitly states that it irrevocably consents to the transfer and resale of the Shares. Once the transfer restriction legends have been removed from a Share and the Sponsor has provided its written consent to the transfer of that Share, no consent of the Sponsor is required for future transfers of that particular Share.

Book-Entry Form

Shares are held primarily in book-entry form by the Transfer Agent. The Sponsor or its delegate will direct the Transfer Agent to credit the number of Creation Baskets to the applicable Authorized Participant. The Transfer Agent will issue Creation Baskets. Transfers will be made in accordance with standard securities industry practice. The Sponsor may cause the Trust to issue Shares in certificated form in limited circumstances in its sole discretion.

Share Splits

In its discretion, the Sponsor may direct the Transfer Agent to declare a split or reverse split in the number of Shares outstanding and to make a corresponding change in the number of Shares constituting a Basket. For example, if the Sponsor believes that the per Share price in the secondary market for Shares has risen or fallen outside a desirable trading price range, it may declare such a split or reverse split.

Description of Creation of Shares

The following is a description of the material terms of the Trust Documents as they relate to the creation of the Trust’s Shares on a periodic basis from time to time through sales in private placement transactions exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act.

The Trust Documents also provide procedures for the redemption of Shares. However, the Trust does not currently operate a redemption program and the Shares are not currently redeemable. Subject to receipt of regulatory approval from the SEC and approval by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, the Trust may in the future operate a redemption program.

2829

~~Because~~However, because the Sponsor does not believe that the SEC would, at this time, entertain an application for the waiver of rules needed in order to operate an ongoing redemption program, the Sponsor currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval from the SEC for the Trust to operate an ongoing redemption program.

The Trust will issue Shares to Authorized Participants from time to time, but only in one or more Baskets (with a Basket being a block of 100 Shares). The Trust will not issue fractions of a Basket. The creation of Baskets will be made only in exchange for the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the amount of whole and fractional ZEN represented by each Basket being created, which is determined by dividing (x) the amount of ZEN owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date of a creation order, after deducting the amount of ZEN representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the Reference Rate Price at such time, and carried to the eighth decimal place), by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one ZEN (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100 (the “Basket Amount”). All questions as to the calculation of the Basket Amount will be conclusively determined by the Sponsor and will be final and binding on all persons interested in the Trust. The Basket Amount multiplied by the number of Baskets being created is the “Total Basket Amount.” The amount of ZEN represented by a Share will gradually decrease over time as the Trust’s ZEN is used to pay the Trust’s expenses. As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, each Share represented approximately 0.~~0857~~0836 ZEN. Information regarding the amount of ZEN represented by each Share is posted to the Trust’s website daily at www.grayscale.com/~~crypto-products~~funds/grayscale-horizen-trust/.

Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create Baskets. Each Authorized Participant must (i) be a registered broker-dealer, (ii) enter into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor and (iii) own a ZEN wallet address that is ~~recognized~~known byto the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant, or a Liquidity Provider. An Authorized Participant may act for its own account or as agent for investors who have entered into a subscription agreement with the Authorized Participant (each such investor, an “Investor”). An Investor that enters into a subscription agreement with an Authorized Participant subscribes for Shares by submitting a purchase order and paying a subscription amount, either in U.S. dollars or in ZEN, to the Authorized Participant.

An Investor may pay the subscription amount in cash or ZEN. In the event that the Investor pays the subscription amount in cash, the Authorized Participant, or Liquidity Provider, purchases ZEN in a Digital Asset Market or, to the extent the Authorized Participant, or Liquidity Provider, already holds ZEN, the Authorized Participant, or Liquidity Provider, may contribute such ZEN to the Trust. Depending on whether the Investor wires cash to the Authorized Participant before or after 4:00 p.m. New York time, the Investor’s Shares will be created based on the same or next business day’s NAV and the risk of any price volatility in ZEN during this time will be borne by the Authorized Participant, or Liquidity Provider. The Authorized Participant will receive Shares of the Trust and the Shares will then be registered in the name of the Investor. In the event that the Investor pays the subscription amount in ZEN, the Investor will transfer such ZEN to the Authorized Participant or a Liquidity Provider, which will contribute such ZEN in kind to the Trust, and receive Shares of the Trust and the Shares will then be registered in the name of the Investor. For the avoidance of doubt, in either case, the Authorized Participant ~~or Liquidity Provider~~ will act as the agent of the Investor with respect to the contribution of ZEN to the Trust in exchange for Shares.

The creation of Baskets requires the delivery to the Trust of the Total Basket Amount.

The Participant Agreement provides the procedures for the creation of Baskets and for the delivery of the whole and fractional ZEN required for such creations. The Participant Agreement and the related procedures attached thereto may be amended by the Sponsor and the relevant Authorized Participant. Under the Participant Agreement, the Sponsor has agreed to indemnify each Authorized Participant against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act.

Authorized Participants do not pay a transaction fee to the Trust in connection with the creation of Baskets, but there may be transaction fees associated with the validation of the transfer of ZEN byon the ~~Horizen~~Base Network. Authorized Participants or Liquidity Providers who deposit ZEN with the Trust in exchange for Baskets will receive no fees, commissions or other form of compensation or inducement of any kind from either the Sponsor or the Trust, and no such person has any obligation or responsibility to the Sponsor or the Trust to effect any sale or resale of Shares.

The following description of the procedures for the creation of Baskets is only a summary and shareholders should refer to the relevant provisions of the Trust Agreement and the form of Participant Agreement for more detail.

2930

Creation Procedures

On any business day, an Authorized Participant may order one or more Creation Baskets from the Trust by placing a creation order with the Sponsor no later than 4:00 p.m., New York time, which the Sponsor will accept or reject. By placing a creation order, an Authorized Participant agrees to transfer the Total Basket Amount from the ZEN wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant, or a Liquidity Provider, to the Digital Asset Account.

All creation orders are accepted (or rejected) by the Sponsor on the business day on which the relevant creation order is placed. If a creation order is accepted, the Sponsor will calculate the Total Basket Amount on the same business day, which will be the trade date, and will communicate the Total Basket Amount to the Authorized Participant. The Authorized Participant, or Liquidity Provider, must transfer the Total Basket Amount to the Trust no later than 6:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date. The expense and risk of delivery, ownership and safekeeping of ZEN will be borne solely by the Authorized Participant, or Liquidity Provider, until such ZEN has been received by the Trust.

Following receipt of the Total Basket Amount by the Custodian, the Transfer Agent will credit the number of Shares to the account of the Investor on behalf of which the Authorized Participant placed the creation order by no later than 6:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date. The Authorized Participant may then transfer the Shares directly to the relevant Investor.

Suspension or Rejection of Orders and Total Basket Amount

The creation of Shares may be suspended generally, or refused with respect to particular requested creations, during any period when the transfer books of the Transfer Agent are closed or if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor or its delegates make it for all practical purposes not feasible to process such creation orders. The Sponsor may reject an order or, after accepting an order, may cancel such order by rejecting the Total Basket Amount if (i) such order is not presented in proper form as described in the Participant Agreement, (ii) the transfer of the Total Basket Amount comes from an account other than a ZEN wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant, or a Liquidity Provider, or (iii) the fulfillment of the order, in the opinion of counsel, might be unlawful, among other reasons. None of the Sponsor or its delegates will be liable for the suspension, rejection or acceptance of any creation order or Total Basket Amount.

In particular, upon the Trust’s receipt of any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in connection with a fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will suspend creations until it is able to cause the Trust to sell or distribute such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency.

None of the Sponsor or its delegates will be liable for the suspension, rejection or acceptance of any creation order or Total Basket Amount.

Tax Responsibility

Authorized Participants are responsible for any transfer tax, sales or use tax, stamp tax, recording tax, value-added tax or similar tax or governmental charge applicable to the creation of Baskets, regardless of whether such tax or charge is imposed directly on the Authorized Participant, and agree to indemnify the Sponsor and the Trust if the Sponsor or the Trust is required by law to pay any such tax, together with any applicable penalties, additions to tax or interest thereon.

Valuation of ZEN and Determination of NAV

The Sponsor will evaluate the ZEN held by the Trust and determine the NAV of the Trust in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Trust Documents. The following is a description of the material terms of the Trust Documents as they relate to valuation of the Trust’s ZEN and the NAV calculations, which is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements.

3031

On each business day at 4:00 p.m., New York time, or as soon thereafter as practicable (the “Evaluation Time”), the Sponsor will evaluate the ZEN held by the Trust and calculate and publish the NAV of the Trust. To calculate the NAV, the Sponsor will:

Determine the Reference Rate Price as of such business day.

Multiply the Reference Rate Price by the Trust’s aggregate amount of ZEN owned by the Trust as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the immediately preceding day, less the aggregate amount of ZEN payable as the accrued and unpaid Sponsor’s Fee as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the immediately preceding day.

Add the U.S. dollar value of ZEN, calculated using the Reference Rate Price, receivable under pending creation orders, if any, determined by multiplying the number of the Creation Baskets represented by such creation orders by the Basket Amount and then multiplying such product by the Reference Rate Price.

Subtract the U.S. dollar amount of accrued and unpaid Additional Trust Expenses, if any.

Subtract the U.S. dollar value of the ZEN, calculated using the Reference Rate Price, to be distributed under pending redemption orders, if any, determined by multiplying the number of Baskets to be redeemed represented by such redemption orders by the Basket Amount and then multiplying such product by the Reference Rate Price (the amount derived from steps 1 through 5 above, the “NAV Fee Basis Amount”).

Subtract the U.S. dollar amount of the Sponsor’s Fee that accrues for such business day, as calculated based on the NAV Fee Basis Amount for such business day.

In the event that the Sponsor determines that the primary methodology used to determine the Reference Rate Price is not an appropriate basis for valuation of the Trust’s ZEN, the Sponsor will utilize the cascading set of rules as described in “—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price.” In addition, in the event that the Trust holds any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, the Sponsor may, at its discretion, include the value of such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in the determination of the NAV, provided that the Sponsor has determined in good faith a method for assigning an objective value to such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. At this time, the Trust does not expect to take any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency it may hold into account for the purposes of determining the NAV or the NAV per Share.

The Sponsor will publish the Reference Rate Price, the Trust’s NAV and the NAV per Share on the Trust’s website as soon as practicable after its determination. If the NAV and NAV per Share have been calculated using a price per ZEN other than the Reference Rate Price for such Evaluation Time, the publication on the Trust’s website will note the valuation methodology used and the price per ZEN resulting from such calculation.

In the event of a hard fork of the Horizen Network, the Sponsor will, if 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 Horizen Network, is generally accepted as the network for ZEN 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 following: (i) the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of ZEN, users, services, businesses, ~~miners~~ and other constituencies and (ii) the actual continued acceptance of ~~mining power on~~ and community engagement with, the Horizen Network.

The shareholders may rely on any evaluation furnished by the Sponsor. The determinations that the Sponsor makes will be made in good faith upon the basis of, and the Sponsor will not be liable for any errors contained in, information reasonably available to it. The Sponsor will not be liable to the Authorized Participants, the shareholders or any other person for errors in judgment. However, the preceding liability exclusion will not protect the Sponsor against any liability resulting from gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith in the performance of its duties.

Expenses; Sales of ZEN

The Trust’s only ordinary recurring expense is expected to be the Sponsor’s Fee. The Sponsor’s Fee will accrue daily in U.S. dollars at an annual rate of 2.5% of the NAV Fee Basis Amount of the Trust as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each day; provided that for a day that is not a business day, the calculation will be based on the NAV Fee Basis Amount from the most recent business day, reduced by the accrued and unpaid Sponsor’s Fee for such most recent business day and for each day after such most recent business day and prior to the relevant calculation date. This dollar amount for each daily accrual will then be converted into ZEN by reference to the same Reference Rate Price used to determine such accrual. The Sponsor’s Fee is payable in ZEN to the Sponsor monthly in arrears.

3132

Expenses to Be Paid by the Sponsor

The Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee to the Sponsor. As partial consideration for its receipt of the Sponsor’s Fee from the Trust, the Sponsor is obligated under the Trust Agreement to assume and pay all fees and other expenses incurred by the Trust in the ordinary course of its affairs, excluding taxes, but including: (i) the Marketing Fee; (ii) the Administrator Fee, if any; (iii) the Custodian Fee and fees for any other security vendor engaged by the Trust; (iv) the Transfer Agent Fee; (v) the Trustee fee; (vi) fees and expenses related to the listing, quotation or trading of the Shares on any Secondary Market (including customary legal, marketing and audit fees and expenses) in an amount up to $600,000 in any given fiscal year; (vii) ordinary course legal fees and expenses; (viii) audit fees; (ix) regulatory fees, including, if applicable, any fees relating to registration of the Shares under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act; (x) printing and mailing costs; (xi) the costs of maintaining the Trust’s website; and (xii) applicable license fees (each a “Sponsor-paid Expense”), provided that any expense that qualifies as an Additional Trust Expense will be deemed to be an Additional Trust Expense and not a Sponsor-paid Expense. The Sponsor, from time to time, may temporarily waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee of the Trust in its discretion for stated periods of time. Presently, the Sponsor does not intend to waive any of the Sponsor’s Fee for the Trust and there are no circumstances under which the Sponsor has determined it will definitely waive the fee.

The Sponsor’s Fee will generally be paid in ZEN. However, if the Trust holds any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency at any time, the Trust may also pay the Sponsor’s Fee, in whole or in part, with such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency by entering into an agreement with the Sponsor and transferring such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency to the Sponsor at a value to be determined pursuant to such agreement. However, the Trust may use Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency to pay the Sponsor’s Fee only if such agreement and transfer do not otherwise conflict with the terms of the Trust Agreement. The value of any such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency will be determined on an arm’s-length basis. The Trust currently expects that the value of any such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency would be determined by reference to a reference rate provided by the Reference Rate Provider or, in the absence of such reference rate, by reference to the cascading set of rules described in “Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price.” If the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee in Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, in whole or in part, the amount of ZEN that would otherwise have been used to satisfy such payment will be correspondingly reduced.

After the Trust’s payment of the Sponsor’s Fee to the Sponsor, the Sponsor may elect to convert the ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency received as payment of the Sponsor’s Fee into U.S. dollars. The rate at which the Sponsor converts such ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency to U.S. dollars may differ from the rate at which the relevant Sponsor’s Fee was determined. The Trust will not be responsible for any fees and expenses incurred by the Sponsor to convert ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency received in payment of the Sponsor’s Fee into U.S. dollars.

Extraordinary and Other Expenses

In certain extraordinary circumstances, the Trust may incur certain extraordinary, non-recurring expenses that are not Sponsor-paid Expenses, including, but not limited to: 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); any indemnification of the Custodian or other agents, service providers or counterparties of the Trust; the fees and expenses related to the listing, quotation or trading of the Shares on any Secondary Market (including legal, marketing and audit fees and expenses) to the extent exceeding $600,000 in any given fiscal year; and extraordinary legal fees and expenses, including any legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with litigation, regulatory enforcement or investigation matters (collectively, “Additional Trust Expenses”). If Additional Trust Expenses are incurred, the Trust will be required to pay these Additional Trust Expenses by selling or delivering ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. Generally, the Sponsor will cover such expenses on behalf of the Trust and the Trust will reimburse the Sponsor by delivering to the Sponsor ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in an amount equal to such expenses. When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, sell or deliver, as applicable, ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized Participant, a Liquidity Provider, or other similarly eligible financial institutions that are subject to federal and state licensing requirements and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations.

The value of any such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency will be determined on an arm’s-length basis. The Trust currently expects that the value of any such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency would be determined by reference to a reference rate provided by the Reference Rate Provider or, in the absence of such reference rate, by reference to the cascading set of rules described in “Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price.” If the Trust pays Additional Trust Expenses in Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, in whole or in part, the amount of ZEN that would otherwise have been used to satisfy such payment will be correspondingly reduced. See “—Disposition of ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency” for further information on sales or other dispositions of ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. Although the

3233

Sponsor cannot definitively state the frequency or magnitude of Additional Trust Expenses, the Sponsor expects that they may occur infrequently.

The Sponsor or any of its affiliates may be reimbursed only for the actual cost to the Sponsor or such affiliate of any expenses that it advances on behalf of the Trust for payment of which the Trust is responsible. In addition, the Trust Agreement prohibits the Trust from paying to the Sponsor or such affiliate for indirect expenses incurred in performing services for the Trust in its capacity as the Sponsor (or an affiliate of the Sponsor) of the Trust, such as salaries and fringe benefits of officers and directors, rent or depreciation, utilities and other administrative items generally falling within the category of the Sponsor’s “overhead.”

Disposition of ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency

To cause the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor will instruct the Custodian to (i) withdraw from the Digital Asset Account the amount of ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, determined as described above in “—Expenses; Sales of ZEN,” equal to the accrued but unpaid Sponsor’s Fee and (ii) transfer such ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency to an account maintained by the Custodian for the Sponsor at such times as the Sponsor determines in its absolute discretion. In addition, if the Trust incurs any Additional Trust Expenses, the Sponsor or its delegates (i) will instruct the Custodian to withdraw from the Digital Asset Account ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of such Additional Trust Expenses and (ii) may either (x) cause the Trust to convert such ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency into U.S. dollars or other fiat currencies at the Actual Exchange Rate or (y) when the Sponsor incurs such expenses on behalf of the Trust, cause the Trust (or its delegate) to deliver such ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in kind to the Sponsor, in each case in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of such Additional Trust Expenses. The Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses payable by the Trust will generally be paid in ZEN. Shareholders do not have the option of choosing to pay their proportionate shares of Additional Trust Expenses in lieu of having their shares of Additional Trust Expenses paid by the Trust’s delivery or disposition of ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the transfer or sale of ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency to pay the Trust’s expenses will be a taxable event for shareholders. See “~~Certain~~Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders.”

Because the amount of ZEN held by the Trust will decrease as a consequence of the payment of the Sponsor’s Fee in ZEN or the sale of ZEN to pay Additional Trust Expenses (and the Trust will incur additional fees associated with converting ZEN into U.S. dollars), the amount of ZEN represented by a Share will decline at such time and the Trust’s NAV may also decrease. Similarly, the amount (if any) of Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency represented by a Share will decrease as a consequence of the use of Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses. Accordingly, the shareholders will bear the cost of the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses. New ZEN deposited into the Digital Asset Account in exchange for additional new Baskets issued by the Trust will not reverse this trend.

The Sponsor will also cause the sale of the Trust’s ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency if the Sponsor determines that sale is required by applicable law or regulation or in connection with the termination and liquidation of the Trust. The Sponsor will not be liable or responsible in any way for depreciation or loss incurred by reason of any sale of ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency.

The quantity of ZEN, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to be delivered to the Sponsor or other relevant payee in payment of the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expenses, or sold to permit payment of Additional Trust Expenses, will vary from time to time depending on the level of the Trust’s expenses and the value of ZEN, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency held by the Trust. See “—Expenses; Sales of ZEN.” Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery or sale of ZEN, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency by the Trust for the payment of expenses will be a taxable event to shareholders. See “—~~Certain~~Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders.”

3334

Hypothetical Expense Example

The following table illustrates the anticipated impact of the payment of the Trust’s expenses on the amount of ZEN represented by each outstanding Share for three years, assuming that the Trust does not make any payments using any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. It assumes that the only transfers of ZEN will be those needed to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and that the price of ZEN and the number of Shares remain constant during the three-year period covered. The table does not show the impact of any Additional Trust Expenses. Any Additional Trust Expenses, if and when incurred, will accelerate the decrease in the fractional amount of ZEN represented by each Share. In addition, the table does not show the effect of any waivers of the Sponsor’s Fee that may be in effect from time to time.


	Year
	1			2			3
Hypothetical price per ZEN	$	100.00		$	100.00		$	100.00
Sponsor’s Fee		2.50	%		2.50	%		2.50	%
Shares of Trust, beginning		100,000.00			100,000.00			100,000.00
ZEN in Trust, beginning		10,000.00			9,750.00			9,506.25
Hypothetical value of ZEN in Trust	$	1,000,000.00		$	975,000.00		$	950,625.00
Beginning NAV of the Trust	$	1,000,000.00		$	975,000.00		$	950,625.00
ZEN to be delivered to cover the Sponsor’s Fee		250.00			243.75			237.66
ZEN in Trust, ending		9,750.00			9,506.25			9,268.59
Ending NAV of the Trust	$	975,000.00		$	950,625.00		$	926,859.38
Ending NAV per share	$	9.75		$	9.51		$	9.27
Hypothetical price per ZEN	$	100.00		$	100.00		$	100.00

Discretion of the Reference Rate Provider

The Reference Rate Provider has sole discretion over the determination of the Reference Rate Price and may change the methodologies for determining the Reference Rate Price from time to time.

Description of the Trust Agreement

The following is a description of the material terms of the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement establishes the roles, rights and duties of the Sponsor and the Trustee.

The Sponsor

Liability of the Sponsor and Indemnification

Neither the Sponsor nor the Trust insure the Trust’s ZEN. The Sponsor and its affiliates (each a “Covered Person”) will not be liable to the Trust or any shareholder for any loss suffered by the Trust which arises out of any action or inaction of such Covered Person if such Covered Person determined in good faith that such course of conduct was in the best interests of the Trust. However, the preceding liability exclusion will not protect any Covered Person against any liability resulting from its own willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence in the performance of its duties.

Each Covered Person will be indemnified by the Trust against any loss, judgment, liability, expense incurred or amount paid in settlement of any claim sustained by it in connection with the Covered Person’s activities for the Trust, provided that (i) the Covered Person was acting on behalf of, or performing services for, the Trust and had determined, in good faith, that such course of conduct was in the best interests of the Trust and such liability or loss was not the result of fraud, gross negligence, bad faith, willful misconduct or a material breach of the Trust Agreement on the part of such Covered Person and (ii) any such indemnification will be recoverable only from the property of the Trust. Any amounts payable to an indemnified party will be payable in advance under certain circumstances.

Fiduciary and Regulatory Duties of the Sponsor

The Sponsor is not effectively subject to the duties and restrictions imposed on “fiduciaries” under both statutory and common law. Rather, the general fiduciary duties that would apply to the Sponsor are defined and limited in scope by the Trust Agreement.

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, the Trust Agreement provides that no shareholder will have

3435

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. The Trust selected the 10.0% ownership threshold because the Trust believed that this was a threshold that investors would be comfortable with based on market precedent.

This provision applies to any derivative action brought in the name of the Trust other than claims brought under the federal securities laws or the rules and regulations thereunder, to which Section 7.4 does not apply. Due to this additional requirement, a shareholder attempting to bring 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.

“Affiliate” is defined in the Trust Agreement to mean any natural person, partnership, limited liability company, statutory trust, corporation, association or other legal entity (each, a “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.

Any shareholders seeking to bring a derivative action may determine whether the 10.0% ownership threshold required to bring a derivative action has been met by dividing the number Shares owned by such shareholders by the total number of Shares outstanding. Shareholders may determine the total number of Shares outstanding by reviewing the Trust’s annual filings on Form 10-K, quarterly filings on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K reporting sales of unregistered securities pursuant to Item 3.02 thereof, or by requesting the number of Shares outstanding at any time from the Sponsor pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 8.1 of the Trust Agreement and Section 3819(a) of the DSTA. Because the Trust is a grantor trust, it may only issue one class of securities, the Shares.

The Trust offers Shares on a periodic basis at such times and for such periods as the Sponsor determines in its sole discretion. As a result, in order to maintain the 10.0% ownership threshold required to maintain a derivative action, shareholders may need to increase their holdings or locate additional shareholders during the pendency of a claim. The Trust posts the number of Shares outstanding as of the end of each month on its website and as of the end of each quarter in its annual and quarterly filings with the SEC. The Trust additionally reports sales of unregistered securities on Form 8-K pursuant to Item 3.02 thereof. Shareholders may monitor the number of Shares outstanding at any time for purposes of calculating their ownership threshold by reviewing the Trust’s website and SEC filings and by requesting the number of Shares outstanding on any date from the Sponsor at any time pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 8.1 of the Trust Agreement. Shareholders have the opportunity at any time to increase their holdings or locate other shareholders to maintain the 10.0% threshold throughout the duration of a derivative claim. Shareholders may do so by contacting shareholders that are required to file Schedule 13Ds or Schedule 13Gs with the SEC or by requesting from the Sponsor the list of the names and last known address of all shareholders pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 8.1 of the Trust Agreement and Section 3819(a) of the DSTA.

The Sponsor is not aware of any reason to believe that Section 7.4 of the Trust Agreement is not enforceable under state or federal law. The Court of Chancery of Delaware has stated that “[t]he DSTA is enabling in nature and, as such, permits a trust through its declarations of trust to delineate additional standards and requirements with which a stockholder-plaintiff must comply to proceed derivatively in the name of the trust.” Hartsel v. Vanguard Group, Inc., Del. Ch. June 15, 2011. However, there is limited case law addressing the enforceability of provisions like Section 7.4 under state and federal law and it is possible that this provision would not be enforced by a court in another jurisdiction or under other circumstances.

Beneficial owners may have the right, subject to certain legal requirements, to bring class actions in federal court to enforce their rights under the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the SEC. Beneficial owners who have suffered losses in connection with the purchase or sale of their beneficial interests may be able to recover such losses from the Sponsor where the losses result from a violation by the Sponsor of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

Actions Taken to Protect the Trust

The Sponsor may prosecute, defend, settle or compromise actions or claims at law or in equity that it considers necessary or proper to protect the Trust or the interests of the shareholders. The expenses incurred by the Sponsor in connection therewith (including the fees and disbursements of legal counsel) will be expenses of the Trust and are deemed to be Additional Trust Expenses. The Sponsor will be entitled to be reimbursed for the Additional Trust Expenses it pays on behalf of the Trust.

3536

Successor Sponsors

If the Sponsor is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, the Trust may dissolve and a Liquidating Trustee may be appointed to terminate and liquidate the Trust and distribute its remaining assets. The Trustee will have no obligation to appoint a successor sponsor or to assume the duties of the Sponsor, and will have no liability to any person because the Trust is or is not terminated. However, if a certificate of dissolution or revocation of the Sponsor’s charter is filed (and ninety (90) days have passed after the date of notice to the Sponsor of revocation without a reinstatement of the Sponsor’s charter) or the withdrawal, removal, adjudication or admission of bankruptcy or insolvency of the Sponsor has occurred, shareholders holding at least a majority (over 50%) of the Shares may agree in writing to continue the affairs of the Trust and to select, effective as of the date of such event, one or more successor Sponsors within ninety (90) days of any such event.

The Trustee

The Trustee is a fiduciary under the Trust Agreement and must satisfy the requirements of Section 3807 of the Delaware Trust Statute. However, the fiduciary duties, responsibilities and liabilities of the Trustee are limited by, and are only those specifically set forth in, the Trust Agreement.

Limitation on Trustee’s Liability

Under the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor has exclusive control of the management of all aspects of the activities of the Trust and the Trustee has only nominal duties and liabilities to the Trust. The Trustee is appointed to serve as the trustee for the sole purpose of satisfying Section 3807(a) of the DSTA which requires that the Trust have at least one trustee with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware. The duties of the Trustee are limited to (i) accepting legal process served on the Trust in the State of Delaware and (ii) the execution of any certificates required to be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State which the Trustee is required to execute under the DSTA.

To the extent the Trustee has duties (including fiduciary duties) and liabilities to the Trust or the shareholders under the DSTA, such duties and liabilities will be replaced by the duties and liabilities of the Trustee expressly set forth in the Trust Agreement. The Trustee will have no obligation to supervise, nor will it be liable for, the acts or omissions of the Sponsor, Transfer Agent, Custodian or any other person. Neither the Trustee, either in its capacity as trustee or in its individual capacity, nor any director, officer or controlling person of the Trustee is, or has any liability as, the issuer, director, officer or controlling person of the issuer of Shares. The Trustee’s liability is limited solely to the express obligations of the Trustee as set forth in the Trust Agreement.

Under the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor has the exclusive management, authority and control of all aspects of the activities of the Trust. The Trustee has no duty or liability to supervise or monitor the performance of the Sponsor, nor does the Trustee have any liability for the acts or omissions of the Sponsor. The existence of a trustee should not be taken as an indication of any additional level of management or supervision over the Trust. The Trust Agreement provides that the management authority with respect to the Trust is vested directly in the Sponsor and that the Trustee is not responsible or liable for the genuineness, enforceability, collectability, value, sufficiency, location or existence of any of the ZEN or other assets of the Trust.

Possible Repayment of Distributions Received by Shareholders; Indemnification by Shareholders

The Shares are limited liability investments. Investors may not lose more than the amount that they invest plus any profits recognized on their investment. Although it is unlikely, the Sponsor may, from time to time, make distributions to the shareholders. However, shareholders could be required, as a matter of bankruptcy law, to return to the estate of the Trust any distribution they received at a time when the Trust was in fact insolvent or in violation of its Trust Agreement. In addition, the Trust Agreement provides that shareholders will indemnify the Trust for any harm suffered by it as a result of shareholders’ actions unrelated to the activities of the Trust.

The foregoing repayment of distributions and indemnity provisions (other than the provision for shareholders indemnifying the Trust for taxes imposed upon it by a state, local or foreign taxing authority, which is included only as a formality due to the fact that many states do not have statutory trust statutes therefore the tax status of the Trust in such states might, theoretically, be challenged) are commonplace in statutory trusts and limited partnerships.

3637

Indemnification of the Trustee

The Trustee and any of the officers, directors, employees and agents of the Trustee will be indemnified by the Trust as primary obligor and DCG as secondary obligor and held harmless against any loss, damage, liability, claim, action, suit, cost, expense, disbursement (including the reasonable fees and expenses of counsel), tax or penalty of any kind and nature whatsoever, arising out of, imposed upon or asserted at any time against such indemnified person in connection with the performance of its obligations under the Trust Agreement, the creation, operation or termination of the Trust or the transactions contemplated therein; provided, however, that neither the Trust nor DCG will be required to indemnify any such indemnified person for any such expenses which are a result of the willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence of such indemnified person. If the Trust has insufficient assets or improperly refuses to pay such an indemnified person within 60 days of a request for payment owed under the Trust Agreement, DCG will, as secondary obligor, compensate or reimburse the Trustee or indemnify, defend and hold harmless such an indemnified person as if it were the primary obligor under the Trust Agreement. Any amount payable to such an indemnified person under the Trust Agreement may be payable in advance under certain circumstances and will be secured by a lien on the Trust property. The obligations of DCG and the Trust to indemnify such indemnified persons under the Trust Agreement will survive the termination of the Trust Agreement.

Holding of Trust Property

The Trust will hold and record the ownership of the Trust’s assets in a manner such that it will be owned for the benefit of the shareholders for the purposes of, and subject to and limited by the terms and conditions set forth in, the Trust Agreement. The Trust will not create, incur or assume any indebtedness or borrow money from or loan money to any person. The Trustee may not commingle its assets with those of any other person.

The Trustee may employ agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and nominees and will not be answerable for the conduct or misconduct of any such custodians, agents, attorneys or nominees if such custodians, agents, attorneys and nominees have been selected with reasonable care.

Resignation, Discharge or Removal of Trustee; Successor Trustees

The Trustee may resign as Trustee by written notice of its election so to do, delivered to the Sponsor with at least 180 days’ notice. The Sponsor may remove the Trustee in its discretion. If the Trustee resigns or is removed, the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the shareholders, will appoint a successor trustee. The successor Trustee will become fully vested with all of the rights, powers, duties and obligations of the outgoing Trustee.

If the Trustee resigns and no successor trustee is appointed within 180 days after the Trustee notifies the Sponsor of its resignation, the Trustee will terminate and liquidate the Trust and distribute its remaining assets.

Amendments to the Trust Agreement

In general, the Sponsor may amend the Trust Agreement without the consent of any shareholder. In particular, the Sponsor may, without the approval of the shareholders, amend the Trust Agreement if the Trust is advised at any time by the Trust’s accountants or legal counsel that the amendments are necessary to permit the Trust to take the position that it is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, the Sponsor may not make an amendment, or otherwise supplement the Trust Agreement, if such amendment or supplement would permit the Sponsor, the Trustee or any other person to vary the investment of the shareholders (within the meaning of applicable Treasury Regulations) or would otherwise adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In addition, no amendments to the Trust Agreement that materially adversely affect the interests of shareholders may be made without the vote of at least a majority (over 50%) of the Shares (not including any Shares held by the Sponsor or its affiliates). A shareholder will be deemed to have consented to a modification or amendment of the Trust Agreement if the Sponsor has notified the shareholders in writing of the proposed modification or amendment and the shareholder has not, within 20 calendar days of such notice, notified the Sponsor in writing the shareholder objects to such modification or amendment.

3738

Termination of the Trust

The Trust will dissolve if any of the following events occur:

•

a U.S. federal or state regulator requires the Trust to shut down or forces the Trust to liquidate its ZEN or seizes, impounds or otherwise restricts access to Trust assets;

•

any ongoing event exists that either prevents the Trust from making or makes impractical the Trust’s reasonable efforts to make a fair determination of the Reference Rate Price;

•

any ongoing event exists that either prevents the Trust from converting or makes impractical the Trust’s reasonable efforts to convert ZEN to U.S. dollars; or

•

a certificate of dissolution or revocation of the Sponsor’s charter is filed (and 90 days have passed since the date of notice to the Sponsor of revocation without a reinstatement of its charter) or the withdrawal, removal, adjudication or admission of bankruptcy or insolvency of the Sponsor has occurred, unless (i) at the time there is at least one remaining Sponsor and that remaining Sponsor carries on the Trust or (ii) within 90 days of any such event shareholders holding at least a majority (over 50%) of Shares, not including Shares held by the Sponsor and its affiliates, agree in writing to continue the activities of the Trust and to select, effective as of the date of such event, one or more successor Sponsors.

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, dissolve the Trust if any of the following events occur:

•

the SEC determines that the Trust is an investment company required to be registered under the Investment Company Act ~~of 1940~~;

•

the CFTC determines that the Trust is a commodity pool under the CEA;

•

the Trust is determined to be a “money service business” under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act and is required to comply with certain FinCEN regulations thereunder;

•

the Trust is required to obtain a license or make a registration under any state law regulating money transmitters, money services businesses, providers of prepaid or stored value or similar entities, or virtual currency businesses;

•

the Trust becomes insolvent or bankrupt;

•

the Custodian resigns or is removed without replacement;

•

all of the Trust’s assets are sold;

•

the Sponsor determines that the aggregate net assets of the Trust in relation to the expenses of the Trust make it unreasonable or imprudent to continue the affairs of the Trust;

•

the Sponsor receives notice from the IRS or from counsel for the Trust or the Sponsor that the Trust fails to qualify for treatment, or will not be treated, as a grantor trust under the Code;

•

if the Trustee notifies the Sponsor of the Trustee’s election to resign and the Sponsor does not appoint a successor trustee within 180 days; or

•

the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that it is desirable or advisable for any reason to discontinue the affairs of the Trust.

The Sponsor may determine that it is desirable or advisable to discontinue the affairs of the Trust for a variety of reasons. For example, the Sponsor may terminate the Trust if a federal court upholds an allegation that ZEN is a security under the federal securities laws.

The death, legal disability, bankruptcy, insolvency, dissolution, or withdrawal of any shareholder (as long as such shareholder is not the sole shareholder of the Trust) will not result in the termination of the Trust, and such shareholder, his or her estate, custodian or personal representative will have no right to a redemption or value such shareholder’s Shares. Each shareholder (and any assignee thereof) expressly agrees that in the event of his or her death, he or she waives on behalf of himself or herself and his or her estate, and he or she directs the legal representative of his or her estate and any person interested therein to waive the furnishing of any inventory, accounting or appraisal of the assets of the Trust and any right to an audit or examination of the books of account for the Trust, except for such rights as are set forth in Article VIII of the Trust Agreement relating to the books of account and reports of the Trust.

Upon dissolution of the Trust and surrender of Shares by the shareholders, shareholders will receive a distribution in U.S. dollars or in ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, at the sole discretion of the Sponsor, after the Sponsor has sold the Trust’s ZEN, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency, if applicable, and has paid or made provision for the Trust’s claims and obligations.

If the Trust is forced to liquidate, the Trust will be liquidated under the Sponsor’s direction. The Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will engage directly with Digital Asset Markets to liquidate the Trust’s ZEN as promptly as possible while obtaining the best fair value possible. The proceeds therefrom will be applied and distributed in the following order of priority: (a) to the expenses of liquidation and termination and to creditors, including shareholders who are creditors, to the extent otherwise permitted by law, in satisfaction of liabilities of the Trust other than liabilities for distributions to shareholders and (b) to the holders of Shares pro rata in accordance with the respective percentage of percentages of Shares that they hold. It is expected that the Sponsor would be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the Trust, and therefore, the markets available to the Sponsor will be the same markets available to the Trust. 39

If the Trust is forced to liquidate, the Trust will be liquidated under the Sponsor’s direction. The Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will engage directly with Digital Asset Markets to liquidate the Trust’s ZEN as promptly as possible while obtaining the best fair value possible. The proceeds therefrom will be applied and distributed in the following order of priority: (a) to the expenses of liquidation and termination and to creditors, including shareholders who are creditors, to the extent otherwise permitted by law, in satisfaction of liabilities of the Trust other than liabilities for distributions to shareholders and (b) to the holders of Shares pro rata in accordance with the respective percentages of Shares that they hold. It is expected that the Sponsor would be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the Trust, and therefore, the markets available to the Sponsor will be the same markets available to the Trust.

Governing Law

The Trust Agreement and the rights of the Sponsor, Trustee and shareholders under the Trust Agreement are governed by the laws of the State of Delaware.

Description of the Custodian Agreement

The Custodian Agreement establishes the rights and responsibilities of the Custodian, Sponsor, Trust and Authorized Participants with respect to the Trust’s ZEN in the Digital Asset Account, which is maintained and operated by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. For a general description of the Custodian’s obligations, see “—Service Providers of the Trust—The Custodian.”

Account; Location of ZEN

The Trust’s Digital Asset Account is a segregated custody account controlled and secured by the Custodian to store private keys, which allow for the transfer of ownership or control of the Trust’s ZEN, on the Trust’s behalf. Private key shards associated with the Trust’s ZEN are distributed geographically by the Custodian in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States. The locations of the secure vaults may change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes. The Custodian requires written approval of the Trust prior to changing the location of the private key shards, and therefore the Trust’s ZEN, to a location outside the United States. The Digital Asset Account uses offline storage, or cold storage, mechanisms to secure the Trust’s private keys. The term cold storage refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to digital assets are disconnected and/or deleted entirely from the internet.

The Custodian Agreement states that the Custodian serves as a fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf, and the ZEN in the Digital Asset Account are considered fiduciary assets that remain the Trust’s property at all times and are not treated as general assets of the Custodian. Under the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian represents and warrants that it has no right, interest, or title in the ZEN held in the Digital Asset Account, and agrees that it will not, directly or indirectly, lend, pledge, hypothecate or rehypothecate such digital assets. The Custodian does not reflect such digital assets as an asset on the balance sheet of the Custodian, but does reflect the obligation to safeguard such digital assets with a corresponding asset measured at fair value for such obligation. The Custodian Agreement also contains an agreement by the parties to treat the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Digital Asset Account as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”). The Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc., has stated in its public securities filings that in light of the inclusion in its custody agreements of provisions relating to Article 8 it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate, although due to the novelty of digital assets courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares— The Trust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the replacement of such service providers could pose achallenges ~~challenge~~ to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEN and to the operations of the Trust.”

3940

Safekeeping of ZEN

The Custodian will use best efforts to keep in safe custody on behalf of the Trust all ZEN received by the Custodian. All ZEN credited to the Digital Asset Account will (i) be held in the Digital Asset Account at all times, and the Digital Asset Account will be controlled by the Custodian; (ii) be labeled or otherwise appropriately identified as being held for the Trust; (iii) be held in the Digital Asset Account on a non-fungible basis; (iv) not be commingled with other digital assets held by the Custodian, whether held for the Custodian’s own account or the account of other clients other than the Trust; (v) not without the prior written consent of the Trust be deposited or held with any third-party depositary, custodian, clearance system or wallet; and (vi) for any Digital Asset Account maintained by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust, the Custodian will use best efforts to keep the private key or keys secure, and will not disclose such keys to the Trust, the Sponsor or to any other individual or entity except to the extent that any keys are disclosed consistent with a standard of best efforts and as part of a multiple signature solution that would not result in the Trust or the Sponsor “storing, holding, or maintaining custody or control of” the ZEN “on behalf of others” within the meaning of the New York BitLicense Rule (23 NYCRR Part 200) as in effect as of June 24, 2015 such that it would require the Trust or the Sponsor to become licensed under such law.

Insurance

Pursuant to the terms of the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian is required to maintain insurance in such types and amounts as are commercially reasonable for the custodial services provided by the Custodian. The Custodian has advised the Sponsor that it has insurance coverage pursuant to policies held by Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Coinbase”), which procures fidelity (or crime) insurance coverage at commercially reasonable amounts for the custodial services provided. This insurance coverage is limited to losses of the digital assets the Custodian custodies on behalf of its clients, including the Trust’s ZEN, resulting from theft, including internal theft by employees of Coinbase and its subsidiaries and theft or fraud by a director of Coinbase if the director is acting in the capacity of an employee of Coinbase or its subsidiaries.

Moreover, while the Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody and to the extent required by applicable law, 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, Coinbase has represented in securities filings that the total value of crypto assets in its possession and control is significantly greater than the total value of insurance coverage that would compensate Coinbase in the event of theft or other loss of funds.

Deposits, Withdrawals and Storage; Access to the Digital Asset Account

The Custodial Services (i) allow ZEN to be deposited from a public blockchain address to the Digital Asset Account and (ii) allow the Trust or Sponsor to withdraw ZEN from the Digital Asset Account to a public blockchain address the Trust or the Sponsor controls (each such transaction is a “Custody Transaction”).

The Custodian reserves the right to refuse to process or to cancel any pending Custody Transaction as required by law or in response to a subpoena, court order, or other binding government order or to enforce transaction, threshold, and condition limits, in each case as communicated to the Trust and the Sponsor as soon as reasonably practicable where the Custodian is permitted to do so, or if the Custodian reasonably believes that the Custody Transaction may violate or facilitate the violation of an applicable law, regulation or applicable rule of a governmental authority or self-regulatory organization. The Custodian may suspend or restrict the Trust’s and Sponsor’s access to the Custodial Services, and/or deactivate, terminate or cancel the Digital Asset Account if the Trust or Sponsor has taken certain actions, including any Prohibited Use or Prohibited Business as set forth in the Custodian Agreement, or if the Custodian is required to do so by a subpoena, court order, or other binding government order.

From the time the Custodian has verified the authorization of a complete set of instructions to withdraw ZEN from the Digital Asset Account, the Custodian will have up to forty-eight (48) hours to process and complete such withdrawal. The Custodian will ensure that initiated deposits are processed in a timely manner but the Custodian makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of time needed to complete processing which is dependent upon many factors outside of the Custodian’s control.

Subject to certain exceptions in the Custodian Agreement, the Trust, the Sponsor and their authorized representatives will be able to access the Digital Asset Account via the Custodian’s website in order to check information about the Digital Asset Account, deposit ZEN to the Digital Asset Account or initiate a Custody Transaction (subject to the timing described above).

The Custodian makes no other representations or warranties with respect to the availability and/or accessibility of ZEN or the availability and/or accessibility of the Digital Asset Account or Custodial Services.

4041

Subject to any legal and regulatory requirements, in order to support the Trust’s ordinary course of deposits and withdrawals, which involves, or will in the future involve, deposits from and withdrawals to Digital Asset Accounts owned by any Authorized Participant, or a Liquidity Provider, the Custodian will use commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with the Trust and Sponsor to design and put in place via the Custodial Services a secure procedure to allow Authorized Participants to receive a ZEN address for deposits by Authorized Participants, or Liquidity Providers, and to initiate withdrawals to ZEN addresses controlled by Authorized Participants, or Liquidity Providers.

The Custodian Agreement further provides that the Trust’s and the Sponsor’s auditors or third-party accountants upon 30 days’ advance written notice, have inspection rights to inspect, take extracts from and audit the records maintained with respect to the Digital Asset Account. Such auditors or third-party accountants are not obligated under the Custodian Agreement to exercise their inspection rights.

Security of the Account

The Custodian securely stores all digital asset private keys held by the Custodian in offline storage. Under the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian must use best efforts to keep private and public keys secure, and may not disclose such private keys to the Sponsor, Trust or any other individual or entity.

The Custodian has implemented and will maintain a reasonable information security program that includes policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to safeguard the Custodian’s electronic systems and the Trust’s and the Sponsor’s confidential information from, among other things, unauthorized access or misuse. In the event of a Data Security Event (as defined below), the Custodian will promptly (subject to any legal or regulatory requirements) notify the Trust and the Sponsor. “Data Security Event” is defined as any event whereby (a) an unauthorized person (whether within the Custodian or a third party) acquired or accessed the Trust’s or the Sponsor’s information, (b) the Trust’s or the Sponsor’s information is otherwise lost, stolen or compromised or (c) the Custodian’s Chief Information Security Officer, or other senior security officer of a similar title, is no longer employed by the Custodian.

Record Keeping; Inspection and Auditing

The Custodian will keep timely and accurate records of its services pursuant to the Custodian Agreement, and such records must be retained by the Custodian for no less than seven years. The Custodian Agreement also provides that the Custodian will permit, to the extent it may legally do so, the Trust’s or the Sponsor’s auditors or third-party accountants, upon reasonable notice, to inspect, take extracts from and audit the records that it maintains, take such steps as necessary to verify that satisfactory internal control systems and procedures are in place as the Trust or the Sponsor may reasonably request. The Custodian is obligated to notify the Trust and the Sponsor of any audit report prepared by its internal or independent auditors if such report reveals any material deficiencies or makes any material objections.

The Trust and the Sponsor obtain and perform a comprehensive review of the Services Organization Controls (“SOC”) 1 report and SOC 2 each year. For additional information, see “—Description of Trust Documents—Description of the Custodian Agreement—Annual Certificate and Report.” In addition to the review of SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports, the Trust, the Sponsor and/or their respective auditors may inspect or audit the Custodian’s records in a variety of manners if considered necessary. Such processes, may include validating the existing balances as reflected on the Custodian’s user interface to nodes of the underlying blockchain and confirming that such digital assets are associated with its public keys to validate the existence and exclusive ownership of the digital assets. To validate software functionality of the private keys, the Trust may transfer a portion of its digital assets from one public key to another public key of the Trust.

The Trust, the Sponsor and their independent auditors may evaluate the Custodian’s protection of private keys and other customer information, including review of supporting documentation related to the processes surrounding key lifecycle management, the key generation process (hardware, software, and algorithms associated with generation) the infrastructure used to generate and store private keys, how private keys are stored (for example, cold wallets), the segregation of duties in the authorization of digital asset transactions, and the number of users required to process a transaction and the monitoring of addresses for any unauthorized activity. For additional information, see “—Custody of the Trust’s ZEN.”

Annual Certificate and Report

Once each calendar year, the Sponsor or Trust may request that the Custodian deliver a certificate signed by a duly authorized officer to certify that all representations and warranties made by the Custodian in the Custodian Agreement are true and correct on and as of the date of such certificate, and have been true and correct throughout the preceding year.

Once each calendar year, the Trust and the Sponsor will be entitled to request that the Custodian provide a copy of its most recent SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports, which are required to be dated within one year prior to such request. The Custodian reserves the right to

4142

combine the SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports into a comprehensive report. In the event that the Custodian does not deliver a SOC 1 Report or SOC 2 Report, as applicable, the Sponsor and the Trust will be entitled to terminate the Agreement. In addition to the review of the SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports, the Trust may also request letters of representation on a quarterly basis between SOC reports regarding any known changes or conclusions to the SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports.

Standard of Care; Limitations of Liability

The Custodian will use best efforts to keep in safe custody on behalf of the Trust all ZEN received by the Custodian. The Custodian is liable to the Sponsor and the Trust for the loss of any ZEN to the extent that the Custodian directly caused such loss through a breach of the Custodian Agreement and the Custodian is required to return to the Trust a quantity equal to the quantity of any such lost ZEN. In addition, if the Trust or the Sponsor is unable to timely withdraw ZEN from the Digital Asset Account due to the Custodian’s systems being offline or otherwise unavailable for a period of 48 hours or more, the Custodian will use its best efforts to provide the Sponsor and the Trust with an amount of ZEN that is equivalent to any pending withdrawal amounts in order to permit the Sponsor and the Trust to carry on processing withdrawals.

The Custodian’s or Trust’s total liability under the Custodian Agreement will never exceed the value of the ZEN on deposit in the Digital Asset Account at the time of, and directly relating to, the events giving rise to the liability occurred, the value of which will be determined in accordance with the Custodian Agreement. In addition, for as long as a cold storage address holds ZEN 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 ZEN deposited in cold storage addresses for whether the Cold Storage Threshold has been met by determining the U.S. dollar value of ZEN deposited in each cold storage address on business days. Although the Cold Storage Threshold has ~~never~~to date not 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 Custodian orand the Trust are not liable to each other 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.

Furthermore, the Custodian is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, whether temporary or permanent, failure in performance, or interruption of service which result directly or indirectly from any cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the Custodian, including but not limited to, any delay or failure due to any act of God, natural disasters, act of civil or military authorities, act of terrorists, including but not limited to cyber-related terrorist acts, hacking, government restrictions, exchange or market rulings, civil disturbance, war, strike or other labor dispute, fire, interruption in telecommunications or internet services or network provider services, failure of equipment and/or software, other catastrophe or any other occurrence which is beyond the reasonable control of the Custodian and will not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions. For the avoidance of doubt, a cybersecurity attack, hack or other intrusion by a third party or by someone associated with the Custodian is not a circumstance that is beyond the Custodian’s reasonable control, to the extent due to the Custodian’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Custodian Agreement.

The Custodian does not bear any liability, whatsoever, for any damage or interruptions caused by any computer viruses, spyware, scareware, Trojan horses, worms or other malware that may affect the Sponsor’s or the Trust’s computer or other equipment, or any phishing, spoofing or other attack, unless such damage or interruption originated from the Custodian due to its gross negligence, fraud, willful misconduct or breach of the Custodian Agreement.

Indemnity

Each of the Custodian and the Trust has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the other such parties from any third-party claim or third-party demand (including reasonable and documented attorneys’ fees and any fines, fees or penalties imposed by any regulatory authority) arising out of the Custodian’s or the Trust’s, as the case may be, breach of the Custodian Agreement, inaccuracy in any of the Custodian’s or the Trust’s, as the case may be, representations or warranties in the Custodian Agreement, or the Custodian’s or the Trust’s, as the case may be, knowing, in the case of the Custodian, violation of any law, rule or regulation, or the rights of any third party, except where such claim directly results from the gross negligence, fraud or willful misconduct of the other such party. In addition, the Trust has agreed to indemnify the Custodian with respect to any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency abandoned by the Trust and any tax liability relating thereto or arising therefrom.

4243

Fees and Expenses

The Custodian Fee is an annualized fee charged monthly that is a percentage of the Trust’s monthly assets under custody. Following the second anniversary of the Custodian Agreement, the fee may be adjusted by the Custodian with at least six months’ advance notice. Any changes to the fee will be agreed to by the Trust and the Sponsor and the Custodian in writing. To the extent the parties cannot reach an agreement regarding any modifications in pricing, either party may elect to terminate the Custodian Agreement. It is the Trust’s and the Sponsor’s sole responsibility to determine whether, and to what extent, any taxes apply to any deposits or withdrawals conducted through the Custodial Services.

Term; Renewal

Subject to each party’s termination rights, the Custodian Agreement is for a term of two years. Thereafter, the Custodian Agreement automatically renews for successive terms of one year, unless either party elects not to renew, by providing no less than thirty days’ written notice to the other party prior to the expiration of the then-current term, or unless terminated earlier as provided herein.

Termination

During the initial term, either party may terminate the Custodian Agreement for Cause (as defined below) at any time by written notice to the other party, effective immediately, or on such later date as may be specified in the notice. “Cause” is defined as if: (i) such other party commits any material breach of any of its obligations under the Custodian Agreement; (ii) such other party is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or there is commenced against such party a case under any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or other similar law now or hereafter in effect, or such party files an application for an arrangement with its creditors, seeks or consents to the appointment of a receiver, administrator or other similar official for all or any substantial part of its property, admits in writing its inability to pay its debts as they mature, or takes any corporate action in furtherance of any of the foregoing, or fails to meet applicable legal minimum capital requirements; or (iii) with respect to the Trust’s and the Sponsor’s right to terminate, any applicable law, rule or regulation or any change therein or in the interpretation or administration thereof has or may have a material adverse effect on the rights of the Trust, the Sponsor or any of their respective beneficiaries with respect to any services covered by the Custodian Agreement.

After the initial term, either party may terminate the Custodian Agreement (i) upon ninety (90) days’ prior written notice to the other party and (ii) for Cause at any time by written notice to the other party, effective immediately, or on such later date as may be specified in the notice.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Sponsor and the Trust may cancel the Digital Asset Account at any time by withdrawing all balances and contacting the Custodian. Upon termination of the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian will promptly upon the Sponsor’s or the Trust’s order deliver or cause to be delivered all digital assets held or controlled by the Custodian as of the effective date of termination, together with such copies of the records maintained pursuant to the Custodian Agreement and as the Sponsor and the Trust requests in writing.

Governing Law

The Custodian Agreement is governed by New York law.

4344

~~Certain~~MATERIAL U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences

The following discussion addresses the material U.S. federal income tax consequences of the ownership of Shares. This discussion does not describe all of the tax consequences that may be relevant to a beneficial owner of Shares in light of the beneficial owner’s particular circumstances, including tax consequences applicable to beneficial owners subject to special rules, such as:

•

financial institutions;

•

dealers in securities or commodities;

•

traders in securities or commodities that have elected to apply a mark-to-market method of tax accounting in respect thereof;

•

persons holding Shares as part of a hedge, “straddle,” integrated transaction or similar transaction;

•

Authorized Participants (as defined below);

•

U.S. Holders (as defined below) whose functional currency is not the U.S. dollar;

•

entities or arrangements classified as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes;

•

real estate investment trusts;

•

regulated investment companies; and

•

tax-exempt entities, including individual retirement accounts.

This discussion applies only to Shares that are held as capital assets and does not address alternative minimum tax consequences or consequences of the Medicare contribution tax on net investment income.

If an entity or arrangement that is classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes holds Shares, the U.S. federal income tax treatment of a partner will generally depend on the status of the partner and the activities of the partnership. Partnerships holding Shares and partners in those partnerships are urged to consult their tax advisers about the particular U.S. federal income tax consequences of owning Shares.

This discussion is based on the Code, administrative pronouncements, judicial decisions and final, temporary and proposed Treasury regulations as of the date hereof, changes to any of which subsequent to the date hereof may affect the tax consequences described herein. For the avoidance of doubt, this summary does not discuss any tax consequences arising under the laws of any state, local or foreign taxing jurisdiction. Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisers about the application of the U.S. federal income tax laws to their particular situations, as well as any tax consequences arising under the laws of any state, local or foreign taxing jurisdiction.

Tax Treatment of the Trust

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~~gains, losses and deductions will “flow through” to each beneficial owner of Shares.

If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge, certain positions the Trust may take, including with respect to Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency, the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Sponsor has delivered the Pre-Creation Abandonment Notice to the Custodian, stating that the Trust is abandoning irrevocably, ~~abandoning~~for no direct or indirect consideration, 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. 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 ZEN as of any date on which it creates Shares, it ~~would~~might ~~likely~~ cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Because of the evolving nature of digital assets, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets, 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.

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 assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes, 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~~

4445

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 remainder of this discussion is based on the assumption that the Trust will be treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets

Each beneficial owner of Shares will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of an undivided interest in the ZEN (and any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency) held in the Trust. Due to the new and evolving nature of digital assets and the absence of comprehensive guidance with respect to digital assets, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets are uncertain.

In 2014, the ~~Internal Revenue Service (“~~IRS”) released a notice (the “Notice”) discussing certain aspects of the treatment of “convertible virtual currency” (that is, digital assets that have an equivalent value in fiat currency or that act as substitutes for fiat currency) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In the Notice, the IRS stated that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, such digital assets (i) are “property,” (ii) are not “currency” for purposes of the provisions of the Code 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 assets are taxable events giving rise to ordinary income and guidance with respect to the determination of the tax basis of digital assets. However, the Notice and the Ruling & FAQs do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets. Moreover, although the Ruling & FAQs address the treatment of hard forks, there continues to be significant uncertainty with respect to the timing and amount of the income inclusions. While the Ruling & FAQs do not address most situations in which airdrops occur, it is clear from the reasoning of the Ruling & FAQs that the IRS generally would treat an airdrop as a taxable event giving rise to ordinary income.

There can be no assurance that the IRS will not alter its position with respect to digital assets 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 assets 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 prices of digital assets, including the price of ZEN in the Digital Asset Market, and therefore could have an adverse effect on the value of Shares. Future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For example, the Notice addresses only digital assets that are “convertible virtual currency,” and it is conceivable that, as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence, a Trust ~~will~~could hold certain types of digital assets that are not within the scope of the Notice.

The remainder of this discussion assumes that ZEN, and any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency that the Trust may hold, is properly treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as property that may be held as a capital asset and that is not currency for purposes of the provisions of the Code relating to foreign currency gain and loss.

Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisers regarding the tax consequences of an investment in the Trust and in digital assets in general, including, in the case of shareholders that are generally exempt from U.S. federal income taxation, whether such shareholders may recognize “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”) as a consequence of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence.

Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency

It is possible that, in the future, the Trust will hold Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency that it receives in connection with its investment in ZEN. The uncertainties with respect to the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes, described above, apply to Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency, as well as to ZEN. As described above, the Notice addressed only digital assets that are “convertible virtual currency,” defined as digital assets that have an equivalent value in fiat currency or that act as substitutes for fiat currency. It is conceivable that certain IR Virtual Currency the Trust may receive in the future would not be within the scope of the Notice.

4546

In general, it is expected that the Trust would receive Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency as a consequence of a fork, an airdrop or a similar occurrence related to its ownership of ZEN. As described above, the Ruling & FAQs include guidance to the effect that, under certain circumstances, forks (and, presumably, airdrops) of digital assets are taxable events giving rise to ordinary income, but there continues to be uncertainty with respect to the timing and amount of the income inclusions. The Trust’s receipt of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency may give rise to other tax issues. The possibility that the Trust will receive Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency thus increases the uncertainties and risks with respect to the U.S. federal income tax consequences of an investment in Shares.

The Trust may distribute Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, or cash from the sale of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, to the shareholders. Alternatively, the Trust may form a liquidating trust to which it contributes Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency and distribute interests in the liquidating trust to the shareholders. Any such distribution will not be a taxable event for a U.S. Holder (as defined below). A U.S. Holder’s tax basis in the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency distributed, whether directly or through the medium of a liquidating trust, will be the same as the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in the distributed assets immediately prior to the distribution, and the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its pro rata share of the Trust’s remaining assets will not include the amount of such basis. Immediately after any such distribution, the U.S. Holder’s holding period with respect to the distributed Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency will be the same as the U.S. Holder’s holding period with respect to the distributed assets immediately prior to the distribution. A subsequent sale of the distributed Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency will generally be a taxable event for a U.S. Holder.

For simplicity of presentation, the remainder of this discussion assumes that the Trust will hold only ZEN. However, the principles set forth in the discussion below apply to all of the assets that the Trust may hold at any time, including Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency, as well as ZEN. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each beneficial owner of Shares generally will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as owning an undivided interest in any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency held in the Trust, and any transfers or sales of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency by the Trust (other than distributions by the Trust, as described in the preceding paragraph) will be taxable events to shareholders with respect to which shareholders will generally recognize gain or loss in a manner similar to the recognition of gain or loss on a taxable disposition of ZEN, as described below.

Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders

As used herein, the term “U.S. Holder” means a beneficial owner of a Share for U.S. federal income tax purposes that is:

•

an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States for U.S. federal income tax purposes;

•

a corporation, or other entity treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, created or organized in or under the laws of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof; or

•

an estate or trust the income of which is subject to U.S. federal income taxation regardless of its source.

Except as specifically noted, the discussion below assumes that each U.S. Holder will acquire all of its Shares on the same date for the same price per Share and either solely for cash or solely for ZEN that were originally acquired by the U.S. Holder for cash on the same date.

As discussed in the section entitled “Description of Creation of Shares,” a U.S. Holder may be able to acquire Shares of the Trust by contributing ZEN in-kind to the Trust (either directly or through an Authorized Participant acting as agent of the U.S. Holder). Assuming that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, such a contribution should not be a taxable event to the U.S. Holder.

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, each U.S. Holder will be treated as owning an undivided interest in the ZEN held in the Trust and will be treated as directly realizing its pro rata share of the Trust’s income, gains, losses and deductions. When a U.S. Holder purchases Shares solely for cash, (i) the U.S. Holder’s initial tax basis in its pro rata share of the ZEN held in the Trust will be equal to the amount paid for the Shares and (ii) the U.S. Holder’s holding period for its pro rata share of such ZEN will begin on the date of such purchase. When a U.S. Holder acquires Shares in exchange for ZEN, (i) the U.S. Holder’s initial tax basis in its pro rata share of the ZEN held in the Trust will be equal to the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in the ZEN that the U.S. Holder transferred to the Trust and (ii) the U.S. Holder’s holding period for its pro rata share of such ZEN generally will include the period during which the U.S. Holder held the ZEN that the U.S. Holder transferred to the Trust. The Ruling & FAQs confirm that if a taxpayer acquires tokens of a digital asset at different times and for different prices, the taxpayer has a separate tax basis in each lot of such tokens. Under the Ruling & FAQs, if a U.S. Holder that owns more than one lot of ZEN contributes a portion of its ZEN to the Trust in exchange for Shares, the U.S. Holder may designate the lot(s) from which such contribution will be made, provided that the U.S. Holder is able to identify specifically which ZEN it is contributing and to substantiate its tax basis in those ZEN. In general, if a U.S. Holder acquires Shares (i) solely for cash at different prices, (ii) partly for cash and partly in exchange for a contribution of ZEN or (iii) in exchange for a contribution of ZEN with different tax bases, the U.S. Holder’s share of the Trust’s ZEN will consist of separate lots with separate tax bases. In addition, in this

4647

situation, the U.S. Holder’s holding period for the separate lots may be different. In addition, the IR Virtual Currency that the Trust acquires in a hard fork or airdrop that is treated as a taxable event will constitute a separate lot with a separate tax basis and holding period.

When the Trust transfers ZEN to the Sponsor as payment of the Sponsor’s Fee, or sells ZEN to fund payment of any Additional Trust Expenses, each U.S. Holder will be treated as having sold its pro rata share of those ZEN for their fair market value at that time (which, in the case of ZEN sold by the Trust, generally will be equal to the cash proceeds received by the Trust in respect thereof). As a result, each U.S. Holder will recognize gain or loss in an amount equal to the difference between (i) the fair market value of the U.S. Holder’s pro rata share of the ZEN transferred and (ii) the U.S. Holder’s tax basis for its pro rata share of the ZEN transferred. Any such gain or loss will be short-term capital gain or loss if the U.S. Holder’s holding period for its pro rata share of the ZEN is one year or less and long-term capital gain or loss if the U.S. Holder’s holding period for its pro rata share of the ZEN is more than one year. A U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its pro rata share of any ZEN transferred by the Trust generally will be determined by multiplying the tax basis of the U.S. Holder’s pro rata share of all of the ZEN held in the Trust immediately prior to the transfer by a fraction the numerator of which is the amount of ZEN transferred and the denominator of which is the total amount of ZEN held in the Trust immediately prior to the transfer. Immediately after the transfer, the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its pro rata share of the ZEN remaining in the Trust will be equal to the tax basis of its pro rata share of the ZEN held in the Trust immediately prior to the transfer, less the portion of that tax basis allocable to its pro rata share of the ZEN transferred.

As noted above, the IRS has taken the position in the Ruling & FAQs that, under certain circumstances, a hard fork of a digital asset constitutes a taxable event giving rise to ordinary income, and it is clear from the reasoning of the Ruling & FAQs that the IRS generally would treat an airdrop as a taxable event giving rise to ordinary income. Under the Ruling & FAQs, a U.S. Holder will have a basis in any IR Virtual Currency received in a fork or airdrop equal to the amount of income the U.S. Holder recognizes as a result of such fork or airdrop and the U.S. Holder’s holding period for such IR Virtual Currency will begin as of the time it recognizes such income.

U.S. Holders’ pro rata shares of the expenses incurred by the Trust will be treated as “miscellaneous itemized deductions” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, ~~for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026,~~ a non-corporate U.S. Holder’s share of these expenses will not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, a non-corporate U.S. Holder’s share of these expenses will be deductible for regular U.S. federal income tax purposes only to the extent that the U.S. Holder’s share of the expenses, when combined with other “miscellaneous itemized deductions,” exceeds 2% of the U.S. Holder’s adjusted gross income for the particular year, will not be deductible for U.S. federal alternative minimum tax purposes and will be subject to certain other limitations on deductibility.

On a sale or other disposition of Shares, a U.S. Holder will be treated as having sold the ZEN underlying such Shares. Accordingly, the U.S. Holder generally will recognize gain or loss in an amount equal to the difference between (i) the amount realized on the sale of the Shares and (ii) the portion of the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its pro rata share of the ZEN held in the Trust that is attributable to the Shares that were sold or otherwise subject to a disposition. Such tax basis generally will be determined by multiplying the tax basis of the U.S. Holder’s pro rata share of all of the ZEN held in the Trust immediately prior to such sale or other disposition by a fraction the numerator of which is the number of Shares disposed of and the denominator of which is the total number of Shares held by such U.S. Holder immediately prior to such sale or other disposition (such fraction, expressed as a percentage, the “Share Percentage”). If the U.S. Holder’s share of the Trust’s ZEN consists of separate lots with separate tax bases and/or holding periods, the U.S. Holder will be treated as having sold the Share Percentage of each such lot. Gain or loss recognized by a U.S. Holder on a sale or other disposition of Shares will generally be short-term capital gain or loss if the U.S. Holder’s holding period for the ZEN underlying such Shares is one year or less and long-term capital gain or loss if the U.S. Holder’s holding period for the ZEN underlying such Shares is more than one year. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to significant limitations.

After any sale or other disposition of fewer than all of a U.S. Holder’s Shares, the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its pro rata share of the ZEN held in the Trust immediately after the disposition will equal the tax basis in its pro rata share of the total amount of the ZEN held in the Trust immediately prior to the disposition, less the portion of that tax basis that is taken into account in determining the amount of gain or loss recognized by the U.S. Holder on the disposition.

Any brokerage or other transaction fee incurred by a U.S. Holder in purchasing Shares generally will be added to the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in the underlying assets of the Trust. Similarly, any brokerage fee or other transaction fee incurred by a U.S. Holder in selling Shares generally will reduce the amount realized by the U.S. Holder with respect to the sale.

In the absence of guidance to the contrary, it is possible that any income recognized by a U.S. tax-exempt shareholder as a consequence of a hard fork, airdrop or similar occurrence would constitute UBTI. A tax-exempt shareholder should consult its tax adviser regarding whether such shareholder may recognize some UBTI as a consequence of an investment in Shares.

Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders

As used herein, the term “non-U.S. Holder” means a beneficial owner of a Share for U.S. federal income tax purposes that is not a U.S. Holder. The term “non-U.S. Holder” does not include (i) a nonresident alien individual who is present in the United States for 183 days or more in a taxable year, (ii) a former U.S. citizen or U.S. resident or an entity that has expatriated from the United States; (iii) a person whose income in respect of Shares is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States; or (iv) an entity that is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Shareholders described in the preceding sentence should consult their tax advisers regarding the U.S. federal income tax consequences of owning Shares.

(iii) a person whose income in respect of Shares is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States; or (iv) an entity that is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Shareholders described in the preceding sentence should consult their tax advisers regarding the U.S. federal income tax consequences of owning Shares.

A non-U.S. Holder generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax with respect to its share of any gain recognized on the Trust’s transfer of ZEN in payment of the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expense or on the Trust’s sale or other disposition of ZEN. In addition, assuming that the Trust holds no asset other than ZEN, a non-U.S. Holder generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax with respect to any gain it recognizes on a sale or other disposition of Shares. A non-U.S. Holder also will generally not be subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax with respect to any distribution received from the Trust, whether in cash or in-kind.

Provided that it does not constitute income that is treated as “effectively connected” with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” (“FDAP”) income received, or treated as received, by a non-U.S. Holder will generally be subject to U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30% (subject to possible reduction or elimination pursuant to an applicable tax treaty and to statutory exemptions such as the portfolio interest exemption). Although there is no guidance on point, it is likely that any ordinary income recognized by a non-U.S. Holder as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence would constitute FDAP income. It is unclear, however, whether any such FDAP income would be properly treated as U.S.-source or foreign-source FDAP income. Non-U.S. Holders should assume that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including the Sponsor) is likely to withhold 30% from a non-U.S. Holder’s pro rata share of any such income, 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, IR Virtual Currency or proceeds from the disposition of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. A non-U.S. Holder that is a resident of a country that maintains an income tax treaty with the United States may be eligible to claim the benefits of that treaty to reduce or eliminate, or to obtain a partial or full refund of, the 30% U.S. withholding tax on its share of any such income, but only if the non-U.S. Holder’s home country treats the Trust as “fiscally transparent,” as defined in applicable Treasury regulations.

Although the nature of the Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency that the Trust may hold in the future is uncertain, it is unlikely that any such asset would give rise to income that is treated as “effectively connected” with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States or that any income derived by a non-U.S. Holder from any such asset would otherwise be subject to U.S. income or withholding tax, except as discussed above in connection with the fork, airdrop or similar occurrence giving rise to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. There can, however, be no complete assurance in this regard.

In order to prevent the possible imposition of U.S. “backup” withholding and (if applicable) to qualify for a reduced rate of withholding tax at source under a treaty, a non-U.S. Holder must comply with certain certification requirements (generally, by delivering a properly executed IRS Form W-8BEN or W-8BEN-E to the relevant withholding agent).

U.S. Information Reporting and Backup Withholding

The Trust or the appropriate broker will file certain information returns with the IRS and provide shareholders with information regarding their annual income (if any) and expenses with respect to the Trust in accordance with applicable Treasury regulations.

A U.S. Holder will generally be subject to information reporting requirements and backup withholding unless (i) the U.S. Holder is a corporation or other exempt recipient or (ii) in the case of backup withholding, the U.S. Holder provides a correct taxpayer identification number and certifies that it is not subject to backup withholding. In order to avoid the information reporting and backup withholding requirements, a non-U.S. Holder may have to comply with certification procedures to establish that it is not a U.S. person. The amount of any backup withholding will be allowed as a credit against the shareholder’s U.S. federal income tax liability and may entitle the holder to a refund, provided that the required information is furnished to the IRS.

FATCA

As discussed above, it is unclear whether any ordinary income recognized by a non-U.S. Holder as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence would constitute U.S.-source FDAP income. Provisions of the Code commonly referred to as “FATCA” require withholding of 30% on payments of U.S.-source FDAP income and, subject to the discussion of proposed U.S. Treasury regulations below, of gross proceeds of dispositions of certain types of property that produce U.S.-source FDAP income to, “foreign financial institutions” (which is broadly defined for this purpose and in general includes investment vehicles) and certain other non-U.S. entities unless various U.S. information reporting and due diligence requirements (generally relating to ownership by U.S. persons of interests in or accounts with those entities) have been satisfied, or an exemption applies. An intergovernmental agreement between the United States and an applicable foreign country may modify these requirements. In addition, regulations proposed by the U.S. Treasury Department (the preamble to which indicates that taxpayers may rely on the regulations pending their finalization) would eliminate the requirement under FATCA of withholding on gross proceeds. If FATCA withholding is imposed, a beneficial owner that is not a foreign financial institution generally may obtain a refund of any amounts withheld by filing a U.S. federal income tax return (which may entail

4849

States and an applicable foreign country may modify these requirements. In addition, regulations proposed by the U.S. Treasury Department (the preamble to which indicates that taxpayers may rely on the regulations pending their finalization) would eliminate the requirement under FATCA of withholding on gross proceeds. If FATCA withholding is imposed, a beneficial owner that is not a foreign financial institution generally may obtain a refund of any amounts withheld by filing a U.S. federal income tax return (which may entail significant administrative burden). Shareholders should consult their tax advisers regarding the effects of FATCA on an investment in the Trust.

ERISA and Related Considerations

The following section sets forth certain consequences under ERISA and the Code which a fiduciary of an “employee benefit plan” as defined in and subject to the fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA, or of a “plan” as defined in and subject to Section 4975 of the Code, who has investment discretion should consider before deciding to acquire Shares with plan assets (such “employee benefit plans” and “plans” being referred to herein as “Plans,” and such fiduciaries with investment discretion being referred to herein as “Plan Fiduciaries”). The following summary is not intended to be complete, but only to address certain questions under ERISA and the Code that are likely to be raised by the Plan Fiduciary’s own counsel.

* * *

In general, the terms “employee benefit plan” as defined in ERISA and “plan” as defined in Section 4975 of the Code together refer to any plan or account of various types which provides retirement benefits or welfare benefits to an individual or to an employer’s employees and their beneficiaries. Such plans and accounts include, but are not limited to, corporate pension and profit sharing plans, “simplified employee pension plans,” Keogh plans for self-employed individuals (including partners), individual retirement accounts described in Section 408 of the Code and medical benefit plans.

Each Plan Fiduciary must give appropriate consideration to the facts and circumstances that are relevant to an investment in the Trust, including the role an investment in the Trust plays in the Plan’s investment portfolio. Each Plan Fiduciary must be satisfied that investment in the Trust is a prudent investment for the Plan, that the investments of the Plan, including the investment in the Trust, are diversified so as to minimize the risks of large losses and that an investment in the Trust complies with the documents of the Plan and related trust and that an investment in the Trust does not give rise to a transaction prohibited by Section 406 of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code.

Governmental plans, non-U.S. plans and certain church plans (collectively, “Non-ERISA Arrangements”), while generally not subject to the fiduciary responsibility or prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code, may be subject to provisions under other U.S. or non-U.S. federal, state, local or other laws or regulations that are similar to such provisions of ERISA or the Code. Fiduciaries of such plans should consider the consequences of an investment in the Trust under any such applicable similar laws or regulations before acquiring any Shares.

EACH PLAN FIDUCIARY OR FIDUCIARY OF A NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENT CONSIDERING ACQUIRING SHARES MUST CONSULT ITS OWN LEGAL AND TAX ADVISERS BEFORE DOING SO.

Restrictions on Investments by Benefit Plan Investors

ERISA and a regulation issued thereunder contain rules for determining when an investment by a Plan in an entity will result in the underlying assets of the entity being deemed assets of the Plan for purposes of ERISA and Section 4975 of the Code (i.e., “plan assets”). Those rules provide that the assets of an entity will not be deemed “plan assets” of a Plan that purchases an interest therein if the investment in the entity by all “benefit plan investors” is not “significant” or certain other exceptions apply. The term “benefit plan investors” includes all Plans (i.e., all “employee benefit plans” as defined in and subject to the fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA and all “plans” as defined in and subject to Section 4975 of the Code) and all entities that hold “plan assets” (each, a “Plan Assets Entity”) due to investments made in such entities by already described benefit plan investors. ERISA provides that a Plan Assets Entity is considered to hold plan assets only to the extent of the percentage of the Plan Assets Entity’s equity interests held by benefit plan investors. In addition, all or part of an investment made by an insurance company using assets from its general account may be treated as a benefit plan investor. Investments by benefit plan investors will be deemed not significant if benefit plan investors own, in the aggregate, less than 25% of the total value of each class of equity interests of the entity (determined by not including the investments of persons with discretionary authority or control over the assets of such entity, of any person who provides investment advice for a fee (direct or indirect) with respect to such assets, and “affiliates” (as defined in the regulations issued under ERISA) of such persons; provided, however, that under no circumstances are investments by benefit plan investors excluded from such calculation).

In order to avoid causing assets of the Trust to be “plan assets,” the Sponsor intends to restrict the aggregate investment by “benefit plan investors” to under 25% of the total value of the Shares of the Trust (not including the investments of the Trustee, the Sponsor, the distributor, any other person who provides investment advice for a fee (direct or indirect) with respect to the assets of the Trust, any other person who has discretionary authority or control over the assets of the Trust, and any entity (other than a benefit plan investor) that is directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries controlling, controlled by or under common control with any of such entities (including a partnership or other entity for which the Sponsor is the general partner, managing member, investment adviser or

4950

~~distributor, any other person who~~ provides investment advice ~~for a fee (direct or indirect~~) ~~with respect to the assets of the Trust~~, ~~any other person who has discretionary authority or control over the assets of the Trust,~~ and any entity (other than a benefit plan investor) that is directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries controlling, controlled by or under common control with any of such entities (including a partnership or other entity for which the Sponsor is the general partner, managing member, investment adviser or provides investment advice), and each of the principals, officers, and employees of any of the foregoing entities who has the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of such entity or the Trust). Furthermore, because the 25% test is ongoing, it not only restricts additional investments by benefit plan investors, but also can cause the Sponsor to require that existing benefit plan investors redeem from the Trust in the event that other investors redeem their Shares. If rejection of subscriptions or such compulsory redemptions are necessary, as determined by the Sponsor, to avoid causing the assets of the Trust to be “plan assets,” the Sponsor will effect such rejections or redemptions in such manner as the Sponsor, in its sole discretion, determines.

Ineligible Purchasers

In general, Shares may not be purchased with the assets of a Plan if the Trustee, the Sponsor, the distributor, any placement agent, any of their respective affiliates or any of their respective employees either: (i) has investment discretion with respect to the investment of such Plan assets; (ii) has authority or responsibility to give or regularly gives investment advice with respect to such Plan assets, for a fee, and pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such advice will serve as a primary basis for investment decisions with respect to such Plan assets and that such advice will be based on the particular investment needs of the Plan; or (iii) is an employer maintaining or contributing to such Plan. A party that is described in clause (i) or (ii) of the preceding sentence is a fiduciary under ERISA and the Code with respect to the Plan, and any such purchase (as described in clause (i), (ii) or (iii)) could result in a “prohibited transaction” under ERISA and the Code.

Except as otherwise set forth, the foregoing statements regarding the consequences under ERISA and the Code of an investment in the Trust are based on the provisions of ERISA and the Code as currently in effect, and the existing administrative and judicial interpretations thereunder. No assurance can be given that administrative, judicial or legislative changes will not occur that may make the foregoing statements incorrect or incomplete.

ACCEPTANCE OF SUBSCRIPTIONS ON BEHALF OF PLANS OR NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENTS IS IN NO RESPECT A REPRESENTATION BY THE SPONSOR OR ANY OTHER PARTY RELATED TO THE TRUST THAT THIS INVESTMENT MEETS THE RELEVANT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO INVESTMENTS BY ANY PARTICULAR PLAN OR NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENT OR PLANS OR NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENTS GENERALLY, OR THAT THIS INVESTMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR ANY PARTICULAR PLAN OR NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENT OR PLANS OR NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENTS GENERALLY. THE PERSON WITH INVESTMENT DISCRETION WITH RESPECT FOR ANY PLAN OR NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENT SHOULD CONSULT WITH ITS OWN COUNSEL AND ADVISERS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF AN INVESTMENT IN THE TRUST, IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR PLAN OR NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENT BEFORE PURCHASING SHARES. NEITHER THIS DISCUSSION NOR ANYTHING IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT IS OR IS INTENDED TO BE INVESTMENT ADVICE DIRECTED AT ANY POTENTIAL PURCHASER THAT IS A PLAN OR NON-ERISA ARRANGEMENT, OR AT SUCH PURCHASERS GENERALLY.

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 ZEN, have experienced in recent periods and may continue to experience, 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 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 digital assets, such as ZEN, which represent a new and rapidly evolving industry;

•

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 assets;

•

50A temporary or permanent “fork” or a “clone” could adversely affect the value of the Shares;

•

Recent developments in the digital asset economy have led to extreme volatility and disruption in digital asset markets, a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem, significant negative publicity surrounding digital assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity;

•

The largely unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of Digital Asset Trading Platforms may adversely affect the value of digital assets and, consequently, the value of the Shares;

The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of ZEN held by the Trust, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations;

•

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 Reference Rate Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share;

•

The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market;

•

The limited history of the Reference Rate;

•

Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of ZEN and adversely affect the value of the Shares;

•

The Trust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the replacement of such service providers could pose challenges to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEN and to the operations of the Trust;

•

Shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment if the Shares trade above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share;

•

A determination that ZEN or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of ZEN and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust;

•

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 ZEN, mining activity or the operation of the Horizen Network or the Digital Asset Markets 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;

•

Regulatory changes or other events 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 Trading Platform Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares;

•

AnThe 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

•

If the Custodian resigns or is removed by the Sponsor, or otherwise, without replacement, it could trigger early termination of the Trust~~; and~~.

The Trust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the replacement of such service providers could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEN and to the operations of the Trust.

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.

5152

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ZEN, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including declines in the trading prices of ZEN, 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 ZEN, have experienced extreme volatility throughout their existence, including in recent periods, and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including ZEN, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022.

This volatility became extreme in November 2022, when FTX, then a major Digital Asset Trading Platform, halted customer withdrawals. Additionally, on October 10, 2025, it was reported that a sharp decline in digital asset market prices triggered the liquidation of approximately $20 billion in leveraged positions across the digital asset industry. Any similar halting of withdrawals or liquidations across leveraged positions in the digital asset industry in the future could further impact trading prices. See “—Recent developments in the digital asset economy have led to extreme volatility and disruption in digital asset markets, a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem, significant negative publicity surrounding digital assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity.” Digital asset prices, including ZEN, have continued to fluctuate widely ~~throughout 2024 and~~ through the date of this Annual Report.

Extreme volatility in the future, including declines in the trading prices of ZEN, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. Furthermore, negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset economy may reduce confidence in the digital asset economy and may result in greater volatility in the price of ZEN and other digital assets, including a depreciation in 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 ZEN. For additional information that quantifies the volatility of ZEN prices and the value of the Shares, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical NAV and ZEN Prices.”

Furthermore, changes in U.S. political leadership and economic policies may create uncertainty that materially affects the price of ZEN and the Trust’s Shares. For example, on March 6, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a United States Digital Asset Stockpile. Pursuant to this Executive Order, the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve will be capitalized with Bitcoin owned by the Department of Treasury that was forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings, and the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce are authorized to develop budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional bitcoin, provided that those strategies impose no incremental costs on American taxpayers. Conversely, the Digital Asset Stockpile will consist of all digital assets other than Bitcoin owned by the Department of Treasury that were forfeited in criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings, but the U.S. government will not acquire additional assets for the U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile beyond those obtained through such proceedings. The anticipation of a U.S. government-funded strategic cryptocurrency reserve had motivated large-scale purchases of certain digital assets in the expectation of the U.S. government acquiring such assets to fund such reserve, and the market price of such digital assets decreased significantly as a result of the ultimate content of the Executive Order. Any similar action or omission by the U.S. federal administration or other government authorities with respect to ZEN or other digital assets may negatively and significantly impact the price of ZEN and the Trust’s Shares.

Digital assets such as ZEN were only introduced within the past two decades, 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~~recency of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers, and ~~miners~~validators, and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

•

~~Digital~~Certain digital asset networks and related protocols are in the early stages of development. Given the recency of the development of digital asset networks and related protocols, digital assets and the underlying digital asset networks and related protocols 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 and related protocols.

•

The loss of access to a private key required to access a digital asset may be irreversible. If a private key is lost and no backup of the private key is accessible, or if the private key is otherwise compromised, the owner would be unable to access the digital asset corresponding to that private key.

Digital asset networks and related protocols are dependent upon the internet. A disruption of the internet or a digital asset network or related protocol, such as the Horizen Network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including ZEN, and, consequently, their value.53

•

~~The~~Digital ~~acceptance~~asset ofnetworks ~~software~~and ~~patches~~related orprotocols ~~upgrades~~are todependent aupon ~~digital~~the ~~asset~~internet. ~~network~~A bydisruption ~~a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage~~ of the ~~users~~internet ~~and~~or ~~miners in~~ a digital asset network or related protocol, such as the ~~Horizen~~Base Network, ~~could~~would ~~result~~affect inthe aability ~~“fork”~~to intransfer ~~such~~digital ~~network’s blockchain~~assets, ~~resulting~~including inZEN, ~~the~~and, ~~operation~~consequently, oftheir ~~multiple separate blockchain networks~~value.

•

~~Digital~~Adoption ~~asset~~of ~~mining~~proposed ~~operations~~protocol ~~can~~updates ~~consume~~is ~~significant~~determined ~~amounts~~by the outcome of ~~electricity,~~governance ~~which~~votes ~~may~~through ~~have~~the aHorizen ~~negative~~DAO ~~environmental~~and, ~~impact~~in certain cases, by whether developers and ~~give~~users ~~rise~~elect to ~~public~~interact ~~opinion~~with ~~against~~updated ~~allowing~~smart contracts. In some cases, ornot ~~government~~all ~~regulations~~participants ~~restricting~~may adopt a given upgrade, ~~the~~and ~~use~~if different groups of ~~electricity~~participants ~~for~~deploy ~~mining~~or ~~operations.~~interact ~~Additionally,~~with ~~miners~~incompatible ~~may~~smart-contract beversions, ~~forced~~this could lead to ~~cease~~a ~~operations~~divergence ~~during~~or an“fork” ~~electricity~~in ~~shortage~~the Horizen protocol, resulting in separate token or ~~power~~application ~~outage~~states on Base.

•

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 Horizen 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 Horizen Network could damage that network.

•

Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital asset networks and related protocols 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 ZEN 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 ZEN, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Horizen Network may be negatively affected by such an exploit such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for ZEN. Even if another digital asset other than ZEN were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital asset networks and related protocols generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Moreover, because digital assets, including ZEN, have existed for a short period of time and are continuing to be developed, there may be additional risks to digital asset networks and related protocols 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 ZEN.

The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. In general, digital asset networks, including the Horizen Network and related protocols 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:

•

~~ZEN~~Digital isassets have only recently become selectively accepted as a means of payment by retail and commercial outlets, ~~and~~but there is no meaningful degree of use of ZEN as a means of payment by ~~consumers~~retail ~~remains~~or ~~limited~~commercial outlets. Banks and other established financial institutions, whether voluntarily or in response to regulatory feedback, may refuse to process funds for ZEN transactions; process wire transfers to or from Digital Asset Trading Platforms, ZEN-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in ZEN. As a result, the prices of ZEN are largely determined by speculators ~~and miners~~, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept ZEN in the future. While the use of other digital assets, such as Bitcoin, to purchase goods and services from commercial or service businesses is developing, ZEN has not yet been accepted in the same manner due to its infancy and because ZEN has a slightly different purpose than Bitcoin.

•

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 ZEN, and their or its utility as a payment system, which could decrease the price of digital assets generally or individually.

•

The prices of digital assets may be determined on a relatively small number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms by a relatively small number of market participants, many of whom are speculators or those intimately involved with the issuance of such digital assets, such as ~~miners or~~ developers, which could contribute to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept digital assets in the future.

•

Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to a number of digital asset networks. ~~ZEN~~Trading ~~removed some of its privacy features in September 2023. Nevertheless, trading~~ platforms or businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEN may be at an increased risk of having banking services cut off if there is a concern its privacy features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks. For example, in September 2022, the Digital Asset Trading Platform Huobi delisted seven digital assets with privacy preserving features, including ZEN, a move that Huobi explained was “in compliance with the latest financial regulations.” However, in September 2023, the Horizen protocol implemented an update intended to deprecate these privacy shields, with the intent of causing it to no longer be considered a “privacy coin,” and, following the update, the Horizen Network no longer supported transactions from unshielded addresses to shielded addresses. It is unclear whether the removal of those types of shielded transactions from Horizen would mitigate these concerns by regulators, law enforcement agencies, and other digital asset market participants regarding ZEN.

5354

~~Users, developers and miners may switch to or adopt certain digital asset networks or protocols at the expense of their engagement~~ with ~~other~~privacy ~~digital~~preserving ~~asset~~features, ~~networks~~including ~~and protocols~~ZEN, ~~which~~a ~~may~~move ~~negatively~~that ~~impact~~Huobi ~~those~~explained ~~networks~~was ~~and~~“in ~~protocols,~~compliance ~~including~~with the ~~Horizen~~latest ~~Network~~financial regulations.”

•

~~ZEN~~Users, isdevelopers, ~~designed~~and toother ~~foster~~ecosystem ~~sidechain~~members ~~operations,~~may ~~but~~switch itto ~~has~~or ~~not~~adopt ~~been~~certain ~~widely~~digital ~~adopted~~asset ~~even~~networks inor protocols at the ~~context~~expense of ~~ZEN~~their ~~transactions.~~engagement Ifwith ~~ZEN’s~~other ~~capabilities~~digital ~~are~~asset ~~not~~networks ~~more~~and ~~widely utilized~~protocols, itwhich may ~~struggle~~negatively toimpact ~~compete~~those ~~with~~networks ~~other~~and ~~digital~~protocols, ~~assets~~including the Horizen Network.

•

~~Horizen’s~~ZEN is designed to facilitate the use of compliance-oriented privacy-~~preserving~~enabling ~~features~~technology ~~may~~by ~~have~~other ~~been~~applications ~~seen~~on bythe ~~some~~Base asNetwork, ~~primary~~but ~~attributes~~it ~~distinguishing~~has ~~ZEN~~not ~~from~~been ~~its~~widely ~~competitors~~adopted. If the Horizen' protocol’s ~~upgrade~~capabilities ~~deprecating~~are ~~shielded~~not ~~pools~~more ~~could~~widely ~~diminish~~utilized, ZEN's ~~popularity,~~may ~~which~~struggle ~~could~~to ~~adversely~~compete ~~affect~~with ~~the~~other ~~value~~digital ~~of ZEN~~assets.

•

~~Changes~~Horizen’s inprivacy-preserving ~~the~~features ~~governance~~may ofhave abeen ~~digital~~seen ~~asset~~by ~~network~~some oras ~~protocol~~primary ~~may~~attributes ~~not~~distinguishing ~~receive~~ZEN ~~sufficient support~~ from ~~users~~its ~~and~~competitors. ~~miners,~~Horizen's ~~which~~integration ~~may~~of ~~negatively~~compliance-oriented ~~affect~~functionalities ~~that~~could ~~digital~~diminish ~~asset network’~~ZEN's orpopularity, ~~protocol’s~~which ~~ability~~could toadversely ~~grow~~affect ~~and~~the ~~respond~~value toof ~~challenges~~ZEN.

~~The~~Changes in the governance of ~~some~~a digital asset ~~networks~~network ~~and~~or ~~protocols,~~protocol ~~such~~may asnot ~~the~~receive ~~Horizen~~sufficient ~~Network,~~support isfrom ~~generally~~Horizen byDAO ~~voluntary consensus and open competition. For such networks and protocols~~members, ~~there~~which may benegatively aaffect ~~lack of consensus or clarity on~~ that ~~network’s~~digital orasset ~~protocol’s governance, which may stymie such~~ network’s or protocol’s ~~utility, adaptability and~~ ability to grow and ~~face~~respond to challenges.

The ~~foregoing~~governance ~~notwithstanding,~~of ~~the underlying software for~~ some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Horizen Network, is ~~informally~~generally ~~or formally managed or developed~~ by avoluntary ~~group~~consensus of ~~core~~voters ~~developers~~in ~~that propose amendments to~~ the ~~relevant~~Horizen ~~network’s or protocol’s source code~~DAO. ~~Core~~Nonetheless, ~~developers’~~there ~~roles~~ may ~~evolve~~be ~~over time, generally based on self-determined participation. If~~ a ~~significant~~lack ~~majority~~ of ~~users~~consensus, ~~and~~participation, ~~miners~~or ~~were~~clarity toon ~~adopt~~that ~~amendments~~network’s toor ~~the~~protocol’s ~~Horizen~~governance, ~~Network~~which ~~based~~may onstymie ~~the~~such ~~proposals~~network’s ofor ~~such~~protocol’s ~~core developers~~utility, ~~the~~adaptability ~~Horizen~~and ~~Network~~ability ~~would be subject~~ to ~~new~~grow ~~source~~and ~~code~~face ~~that may adversely affect the value of ZEN~~challenges.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the underlying software for some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Horizen Network, is informally or formally managed or developed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s or protocol’s source code. Core developers’ roles may evolve over time, generally based on self-determined participation. If the Horizen DAO were to adopt amendments to the Horizen Network based on the proposals of such core developers, the Horizen Network would be subject to new source code that may adversely affect the value of ZEN.

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, permissionless blockchains generally face a tradeoff between security and scalability. One means through which digital asset networks that utilize public, permissionless blockchains achieve security is decentralization, meaning that no intermediary is responsible for securing and maintaining these systems. For example, a greater degree of decentralization of a public, permissionless blockchain 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 that utilizes a public, permissionless blockchain may be limited in the number of transactions it can process by the computing 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 Layer 2 networks. Off-chain payment channels would allow parties to transact without requiring the full processing power of a blockchain. Layer 2 networks can increase the scalability of a blockchain by allowing users to transact on a second blockchain deployed on top of a “Layer 1” network.

InAs ancorresponding ~~effort~~increases toin ~~increase~~throughput ~~the~~lag ~~volume~~behind ofgrowth ~~transactions~~in ~~that~~the ~~can~~use beof ~~processed on a given~~ digital asset ~~network~~networks, ~~many~~average ~~digital~~transaction ~~assets~~fees ~~are~~and ~~being~~settlement ~~upgraded~~times ~~with~~may ~~various features to~~ increase ~~the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions~~considerably. For example, ~~in August 2017,~~ the Bitcoin Network ~~was~~has ~~upgraded~~been, ~~with~~at atimes, ~~technical~~at ~~feature~~capacity, ~~known~~which ashas ~~“Segregated~~led ~~Witness”~~to ~~that~~increased ~~potentially~~transaction ~~doubles~~fees. ~~the~~Since ~~transactions~~January ~~per~~1, ~~second~~2022, ~~that~~Bitcoin ~~can~~average bedaily ~~handled~~transaction ~~on-chain.~~fees ~~More~~have ~~importantly,~~ranged ~~Segregated~~from ~~Witness~~$0.38 ~~also~~per ~~enables~~transaction ~~so-called~~on ~~second~~September ~~layer~~8, ~~solutions~~2024, ~~such~~to as ~~the~~high ~~Lightning~~as ~~Network,~~$124.17 orper ~~payment~~transaction, ~~channels~~on ~~that~~April ~~greatly~~20, ~~increase transaction throughput (i~~2024.~~e.,~~ ~~millions~~As of ~~transactions~~September ~~per~~30, ~~second). Wallets and “intermediaries~~2025,” orBitcoin ~~connecting~~average ~~nodes~~daily ~~that~~transaction ~~facilitate~~fees ~~payment~~stood ~~channels,~~at ~~that~~$0.65 ~~support~~per ~~Segregated~~Bitcoin ~~Witness~~transaction. orIncreased ~~Lightning~~transaction ~~Network-like~~fees ~~technologies~~and ~~have~~decreased ~~not~~settlement ~~seen~~speeds ~~wide-scale~~could ~~use~~preclude ascertain ofuses ~~September~~for ~~30,~~ZEN ~~2024~~(e.g., ~~Additionally~~micropayments), ~~questions~~and ~~remain~~could ~~regarding~~reduce ~~Lightning~~demand ~~Network~~for, ~~services~~and the price of, ~~such~~ZEN, aswhich ~~its~~could ~~cost~~adversely ~~and~~impact ~~who~~the ~~will~~value ~~serve~~of asthe ~~intermediaries~~Shares.

As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average transaction fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Bitcoin Network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2021, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.38 per transaction on September 8, 2024, to as high as $124.17 per transaction on April 20, 2024. As of September 30, 2024, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees stood at $0.79 per Bitcoin transaction. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ZEN (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ZEN, 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 or throughput of Horizen Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

~~There~~Smart iscontracts ~~significant~~are ~~uncertainty~~a ~~around~~new ~~the~~technology ~~EON~~and ~~2.0~~ongoing ~~Migration~~development may magnify initial problems, ~~and~~cause itvolatility ison ~~possible~~the networks that ~~developments~~use ~~related~~smart tocontracts ~~the~~and ~~EON~~reduce ~~2.0~~interest ~~Migration~~in ~~may~~them, ~~adversely~~which ~~impact~~could ~~the~~have ~~operations~~an ofadverse ~~the~~impact ~~Trust~~on or the value of ~~the Shares~~ZEN.

In June 2024, members of the ZEN ecosystem voted to deprecate the Horizen Network in favor of the yet-to-be-launched “EON 2.0” network. The EON 2.0 network is intended be a smart contract platform, unlike the Horizen Network, which is primarily intended as a payment platform. Just as in the Horizen Network, ZEN is intended to serve as the native digital asset for EON 2.0. The Horizen Network is expected to be deprecated in favor of EON 2.0 in 2025 and holders of ZEN on the Horizen Network are expected to be able to claim an equal amount of ZEN on the EON 2.0 network around that time. The specific mechanism for holders of ZEN to claim the token on the EON 2.0 network is still under development, and it is currently uncertain how such functionality will ultimately be made available. While the Sponsor is monitoring these and other developments related to the EON 2.0 Migration, it is possible that it will prove operationally difficult or impossible to claim the Trust’s ZEN on the EON 2.0 network in the event of a successful EON 2.0 Migration. If the Horizen Network is deprecated before the Sponsor can claim the Trust’s ZEN on the EON 2.0 network, this could result in a partial or total loss of the Trust’s ZEN. Furthermore, if the Custodian is not able to custody the Trust’s ZEN on the EON 2.0 network, the Sponsor may need to find a replacement custodian. If the Sponsor is not able to promptly find a suitable replacement custodian, the Sponsor may decide to liquidate the Trust. In this way, the EON 2.0 Migration, even if successful, could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEN and to the operations of the Trust and may adversely affect the value of the Shares. 55

ItSmart iscontracts ~~also~~are ~~possible~~programs that ~~the~~run ~~EON~~on 2a blockchain that execute automatically when certain conditions are met.0 ~~Migration~~Since ~~encounters~~smart ~~foreseeable~~contracts typically cannot be stopped or ~~unforeseeable~~reversed, ~~challenges~~vulnerabilities in ~~its~~their ~~implementation~~programming can have damaging effects. For example, in June 2016, a vulnerability in the ~~EON~~smart 2contracts underlying The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization for venture capital funding, allowed an attack by a hacker to syphon approximately $60 million worth of Ether from The DAO’s accounts into a segregated account.0 ~~network~~In ~~may~~the ~~experience~~aftermath ~~failures~~of orthe ~~outages~~theft, ~~after~~certain ~~its~~developers ~~launch~~and ~~that~~core ~~cause~~contributors pursued a “hard fork” of the ~~network~~Ethereum Network in order to ~~become~~erase ~~unstable~~any orrecord ~~unusable~~of the theft. In ~~such~~addition, in July 2017, a ~~circumstance~~vulnerability in a smart contract for a multi-signature wallet software developed by Parity led to a $30 million theft of Ether, ~~users~~and ~~may~~in ~~decide~~November 2017, a new vulnerability in Parity’s wallet software led to ~~cease~~roughly ~~using~~$160 million worth of Ether being indefinitely frozen in an account. Other smart contracts, such as bridges between blockchain networks and DeFi protocols have also been manipulated, exploited or used in ways that were not intended or envisioned by their creators such that attackers syphoned over $3.8 billion worth of digital assets from smart contracts in 2022. Initial problems and continued problems with the ~~new~~development, ~~network~~design and deployment of smart contracts, ~~which~~including ~~may~~problems ~~adversely~~affecting ~~affect~~smart contracts linking the ~~market~~Ethereum ~~price~~Network to the Base Network, linking the Horizen Network to the Base Network, or that utilize functionalities provided by the Horizen protocol may have an adverse effect on the value of ZEN, ~~and~~which could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

~~Further,~~The itHorizen isprotocol ~~possible~~and ~~that~~its ~~the~~underlying ~~actual~~technologies ~~implementation~~were ofonly ~~EON~~recently ~~2.0~~conceived and ~~migration from the Horizen Network, including but not limited to the changes to the issuance schedule of new ZEN,~~ may ~~occur differently than is currently expected or possibly~~ not ~~occur~~properly atfunction ~~all.~~as ~~It is possible that even if the EON 2.0 Migration is successful~~intended, ~~deviations from the previously stated plan may cause reputational damage to ZEN or it contributors,~~ which ~~may~~could ~~discourage~~have ~~users’~~an ~~usage~~adverse ofimpact ~~the~~on ~~Horizen Network or~~ the ~~EON~~value ~~2.0 network. This may adversely affect the market price~~ of ZEN and ~~the~~an ~~value~~investment ofin the Shares.

~~Finally~~Layer-2 networks, itsuch isas ~~possible~~the ~~that~~Base ~~miners~~Network, onserve to overcome certain perceived hurdles associated with the ~~Horizen~~Ethereum Network. ~~will~~Layer-2 ~~continue~~blockchains attempt to ~~sustain~~process transactions through sequencer nodes and then periodically sync to the ~~Horizen~~Ethereum Network ~~even~~according ~~after~~to a set of cryptographic rules that allow all of the ~~EON~~transactions that occur on the Layer-2.0 ~~Migration,~~blockchain ~~possibly~~to ~~resulting~~appear inas a ~~fork~~single iftransaction ~~blocks~~on ~~for~~the ~~both~~Ethereum Network. To achieve these scaling goals, the ~~Horizen~~design of the Base Network ~~and~~is ~~EON~~centered ~~2.0~~around ~~network~~the ~~continue~~“Optimism toStack,” bean ~~processed~~open-source software architecture. ~~For~~The Optimism Stack utilizes “optimistic rollups,” a ~~discussion~~mechanism ofby ~~how~~which Layer-2 sequencers process users’ transactions and then batches those transactions into a ~~fork~~single ~~may~~transaction ~~adversely~~that ~~affect~~“rolls up” to the ~~market~~Ethereum ~~price~~Network. ofRather ~~ZEN~~than ~~and~~validating ~~the~~every ~~value~~single oftransaction like the ~~Shares~~Ethereum Network, ~~see~~optimistic ~~“—A~~rollups ~~temporary~~assume orthat ~~permanent~~transactions ~~“fork”~~are orvalid unless challenged by a ~~“clone”~~validator ~~could~~during ~~adversely~~a ~~affect~~dispute ~~the~~period ~~value~~by submitting a mathematical proof of the ~~Shares~~invalid transactions.” ~~For~~If there are no challenges during a ~~discussion~~dispute period applicable to a batch of transactions, those transactions are finalized to the ~~uncertainty~~Ethereum ~~surrounding~~Network Uand cannot be undone without manipulating the Ethereum Network against protocol rules.S. ~~federal~~Layer-2 ~~income~~blockchains ~~tax~~using ~~consequences~~the ofOptimism aStack, ~~fork~~such as the Base Network, ~~see~~utilize a “~~—Risk~~sequencer” ~~Factors~~that ~~Related~~batches and orders Layer-2 transactions to ~~the~~be ~~Regulation~~rolled ofup ~~Digital~~to ~~Assets~~the Ethereum Network, ~~the~~which ~~Trust~~also ~~and~~allows ~~the~~users ~~Shares—The~~to ~~treatment~~more ofeasily transfer digital assets ~~for~~and ~~U.S.~~data ~~federal~~between ~~income~~an ~~tax~~Optimism ~~purposes~~Layer-2 isblockchain ~~uncertain~~and the Ethereum Network at a relatively lower cost.”

While the Optimism Stack is utilized by one Layer-2 blockchain known as “Optimism Mainnet,” any Layer-2 blockchain can use its open-source software architecture. Layer-2 blockchains that utilize the Optimism Stack have the option to join the Optimism “Superchain,” a collaborative network that includes Optimism Mainnet as well as other Layer-2 blockchains such as the Base Network as well as others like World Chain and Fraxtal. Users of Superchain Layer-2 blockchains can more easily transmit assets, operations, and communications across other Superchain Layer-2 blockchains than what can be achieved across other blockchain systems or non-Superchain Layer-2 blockchains.

The Optimism Stack, optimistic rollups, sequencers, and the Superchain are new blockchain technologies that are not widely used. The Optimism Stack, optimistic rollups, sequencers, and the Superchain may not function as intended. For example, programming errors and failures to implement the Optimism Stack according to specifications could cause communications and interoperability between Optimism Layer-2 networks to fail or could cause liquidity fragmentation among Optimism Layer-2 blockchains, which could hinder the Base Network from achieving its scaling goals.

Further, sequencers may fail to properly batch transactions for inclusion on Ethereum Network. This risk may be heightened for Layer-2 blockchains with centralized sequencers, such as is currently the case for the Base Network, since a centralized sequencer represents a single-point of failure that may be manipulated or may fail without other sequencers able to perform its function as a failsafe. In one example from February 2024, the sequencer processing transactions for the Optimism Mainnet suffered an “unsafe head stall” that prevented it from publishing transactions to the Ethereum Network for over one hour. Users could only manually transfer digital assets between the Optimism Mainnet and the Ethereum Network, inhibiting efficiency and ease-of-use of the Layer-2 blockchain, until a fix was deployed. On the other hand, decentralized sequencers may also represent their own unique risks if the mechanism that assigns duties to the participant nodes fails to perform as intended for any reason.

There are also risks around the optimistic rollup mechanism that allows Layer-2 networks to synchronize with the Ethereum Network via optimistic rollups. For example, the game theory architecture underlying the dispute mechanism may prove faulty, either allowing invalid transactions to unintentionally be processed or preventing valid transactions from successful processing. Risk of failure of the Optimism Stack, such as those affecting optimistic rollups, may affect any or all Layer-2 networks that use the Optimistic Stack or may be isolated to a specific Layer-2 network.

Despite most Layer-2 blockchains’ goals of relieving throughput concerns associated with the Ethereum Network, there are also risks that throughput congestion on the Ethereum Network may nonetheless affect the Base Network because Base Network components must still rely on the Ethereum Network to operate. If the Ethereum Network experiences severe throughput congestion despite the existence of Layer-2 solutions such as the Base Network, transaction fees associated with synchronization between the Base Network and the Ethereum Network may drastically increase, which may render the use of either prohibitively expensive for users.

Because the Horizen protocol operates as a Layer-3 network on the Base Network, it inherits many of these risks. The first iterations of the Horizen protocol were launched in 2025. The Horizen Network may also fail to attract a significant number of users. In addition, there may be flaws in the cryptography underlying the Horizen protocol, including flaws that affect functionality of the Horizen Network or make the network vulnerable to attack. The development of the Horizen Network is ongoing and any further disruption could have a material adverse effect on the value of ZEN and an investment in the Shares.

Digital asset networks are developed by a diverse set of contributors and the perception that certain high-profile contributors will no longer contribute to the network could have an adverse effect on the market price of the related digital asset.

Digital asset networks and related protocols are often developed by a diverse set of contributors, but are also often developed by identifiable and high-profile contributors. The perception that certain high-profile contributors may no longer contribute to the applicable digital asset network or protocol may have an adverse effect on the market price of any related digital assets. For example, in June 2017, an unfounded rumor circulated that Ethereum protocol developer Vitalik Buterin had died. Following the rumor, the price of Ether decreased approximately 20% before recovering after Buterin himself dispelled the rumor. Some have speculated that the rumor led to the decrease in the price of Ether. In the event a high-profile contributor to the Horizen Network is perceived as no longer contributing to the Horizen Network due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of ZEN, 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, or any ability to participate in or otherwise influence a digital asset’s underlying network, could have an adverse effect on the market price of such digital asset.

It is possible that persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of ZEN, 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. ~~Because~~If ofthere ~~the~~is ~~privacy-preserving~~any ~~features~~such concentration of ~~the~~ownership, ~~Horizen~~large ~~Network,~~sales itor isdistributions ~~not~~by ~~possible~~such toholders ~~determine~~could ~~whether~~have ~~such~~an ~~concentration~~adverse effect on the market price of ZEN. Concentrated ownership of ZEN ~~exists.~~could Ifalso ~~there~~enable isa ~~any~~limited ~~such~~number ~~concentration~~ of ~~ownership~~holders to exert disproportionate influence over governance decisions made through the Horizen DAO, ~~large~~including ~~sales~~proposals oraffecting ~~distributions~~protocol byparameters, ~~such~~treasury ~~holders~~allocations, ~~could~~or ~~have~~other anmatters ~~adverse~~that ~~effect~~may onmaterially impact the ~~market~~Horizen ~~price~~ecosystem and the value of ZEN.

If the digital asset award for mining blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions on the Horizen Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expanding processing power or demand high transaction fees, which could negatively impact the value of ZEN and the value of the Shares.

If the digital asset awards for mining blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Horizen Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expending processing power to mine blocks and the security of the Horizen Blockchain could be compromised. 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 digital assets 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 could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet obtaining control on the Horizen Network. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Horizen Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Horizen Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Horizen 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 Horizen Blockchain or a software upgrade automatically charges fees for all transactions on the Horizen Network, the cost of using ZEN may increase and the marketplace may be reluctant to accept ZEN as a means of payment. Miners may demand higher transaction fees for a variety of reasons,including to compensate for reduction in the reward received for validating a block as a result of portions of each block reward going to EON 1.0 nodes (10%), Super Nodes (10%) and the Horizen Blockchain Foundation (20%), or as a result of the halving of ZEN creation every four years in accordance with the Horizen Network protocol.

Alternatively, miners could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Horizen Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Horizen Network. Higher transaction fees resulting from collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Horizen Network, the value of ZEN 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 Horizen 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, or when the cost of electricity as compared to mining, validating, or transaction fees makes conducting its operationsuneconomical.

In addition, in response to a double-spend attack in June 2018, the team behind ZEN implemented mitigation procedures to make it more computationally and economically expensive to privately mine blocks and later introduce those blocks to the public Horizen Network as the valid Horizen Blockchain. If miners do not believe the transaction confirmation fees on the Horizen Network are adequate to compensate them for such increased computational difficulty and economic expense, they may demand higher transaction fees or cease recording transactions on the Horizen Network, which could result in a loss of confidence in the digital asset network and/or make it less attractive to users, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the value of ZEN and the value of the Shares of the Trust.

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Horizen Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Horizen 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.

If a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a majority of the processing power on the Horizen Network, it may be able to alter the Blockchain on which transactions in ZEN rely by constructing fraudulent blocks or preventing certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all. The malicious actor or botnet could also control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions. Although the malicious actor or botnet may not be able to generate new digital assets or transactions using such control, it may be able to “double-spend” its own digital assets (i.e., spend the same 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 Horizen Network or the ZEN 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 Horizen 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 Horizen Network could negatively impact the value of ZEN and the value of the Shares.

Moreover, certain mining pools have exceeded in the past, and may exceed now or in Horizen’s future, the 50% threshold on the Horizen Network. For example, on June 2, 2018, the Horizen Network was the target of a double-spend attack by an unknown actor that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Horizen Network. The attack was the result of delayed submission of blocks to the Horizen Network. The team behind ZEN has implemented mitigation procedures to significantly increase the difficulty of attacks of this nature by introducing a penalty for delayed block submissions. The result is that it became more computationally and economically expensive to privately mine blocks and later introduce those blocks to the public Horizen Network as the valid Horizen Blockchain. The failure of these or other mitigating steps, or any future attacks on the Horizen Network, could negatively impact the value of ZEN and the value of the Shares of the Trust.

A malicious actor may also obtain control over the Horizen 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 ZEN ecosystem does not grow, the possibility that a malicious actor may be able to maliciously influence the Horizen Network in this manner will remain heightened.

A temporary or permanent “fork” or a “clone” could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Horizen 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 ZEN 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 Horizen 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 ZEN running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, Bitcoin Cash is the result of a hard fork of Bitcoin. Some users of the Bitcoin Network may harbor ill will toward the Bitcoin Cash network, and vice versa. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the Bitcoin Cash network. 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.

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

InIf ~~addition,~~a ~~many~~malicious ~~developers~~actor ~~have~~or ~~previously~~botnet ~~initiated~~obtains ~~hard~~control ~~forks~~over in the ~~Bitcoin~~Horizen ~~blockchain~~Network toby ~~launch~~compromising ~~new~~the ~~digital~~centralized ~~assets,~~sequencer ~~such~~supporting asthe ~~Bitcoin~~Base ~~Cash~~Network, ~~Bitcoin~~the ~~Gold,~~rollup ~~Bitcoin~~infrastructure ~~Silver~~or ~~and~~smart ~~Bitcoin~~contracts ~~Diamond,~~underlying ~~as well as~~ the ~~Bitcoin~~Base ~~Cash~~Network, ~~blockchain~~or tothe ~~launch~~Ethereum aNetwork ~~new digital asset~~itself, ~~Bitcoin~~or ~~Satoshi’s~~obtains ~~Vision.~~control Toover the ~~extent~~Horizen ~~such~~Network ~~digital~~through ~~assets~~other ~~compete with Horizen~~means, such ~~competition~~actor ~~could~~or ~~impact~~botnet ~~demand~~could ~~for~~manipulate ~~ZEN~~the ~~and~~Horizen ~~could~~Network to adversely ~~impact~~affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

InThe ~~principle~~Base Network currently relies on a ~~fork~~single ~~could~~sequencer ~~change~~operated ~~the~~by ~~source~~Coinbase ~~code~~to order and batch transactions before submitting them to Ethereum for final settlement. If this sequencer were compromised, became unavailable, or were to engage in malicious behavior—such as censoring transactions, reordering transactions for profit, delaying transaction inclusion, or producing invalid rollup data—it could disrupt the Horizen Network’s operations, ~~including~~delay ~~the~~user ~~source~~transactions, ~~code~~or ~~which~~result ~~limits~~in the ~~supply~~temporary unavailability of ZEN. toSimilar 21risks ~~million.~~have ~~There~~been isidentified noin ~~guarantee~~other ~~that~~optimistic ~~the~~rollup ~~current~~systems, 21where ~~million~~centralized ~~supply~~sequencers ~~cap~~or ~~for~~proposer ~~outstanding~~sets ~~ZEN~~have ~~will~~been ~~not~~shown beto ~~changed.~~possess Ifthe aability ~~fork~~to ~~changing~~withhold ~~the~~data 21or ~~million~~manipulate ~~supply~~transaction ~~cap~~ordering. isRollups ~~widely~~may ~~adopted,~~be ~~the~~vulnerable ~~limit~~to ondenial-of-service ~~the~~attacks ~~supply~~when attackers submit large volumes of ~~ZEN~~data-heavy ~~could~~transactions bethat ~~lifted~~congest data-availability capacity, as well as to dispute-game manipulation in which ~~could~~malicious ~~have~~proposers anexploit ~~adverse~~weaknesses ~~impact~~in challenge mechanisms to minimize penalties for fraudulent blocks. Any such events on the ~~value~~Base ofNetwork ~~ZEN~~could ~~and~~impede ~~the~~its ~~value~~ability ofto confirm or finalize transactions, including those involving ZEN or the ~~Shares~~Horizen Network.

~~Furthermore~~In addition, avulnerabilities ~~hard~~or ~~fork~~unauthorized ~~can~~modifications ~~lead~~in tothe ~~new~~smart ~~security~~contracts ~~concerns.~~deployed ~~For~~on ~~example, when the~~ Ethereum ~~and~~that ~~Ethereum~~govern ~~Classic~~the ~~networks,~~Base ~~two~~Network ~~other~~could ~~digital~~also ~~asset~~impair ~~networks,~~the ~~split~~Base inNetwork’s ~~July~~ability ~~2016,~~to ~~replay~~process ~~attacks, in which~~ transactions ~~from~~or ~~one~~post ~~network~~commitments ~~were rebroadcast~~ to ~~nefarious effect on~~ the ~~other~~Ethereum ~~network,~~Network. ~~plagued~~Although ~~Ethereum~~the ~~trading~~Base ~~platforms~~Network ~~through~~does atnot ~~least~~rely ~~October~~directly ~~2016.~~on Anthe Ethereum ~~trading~~Network’s ~~platform~~validator ~~announced~~set infor ~~July~~consensus, ~~2016 that~~ it ~~had~~remains ~~lost~~indirectly ~~40,000~~dependent on Ethereum’s ~~Classic,~~security ~~worth~~for ~~about~~settlement ~~$100,000~~and atdata ~~that~~availability. ~~time~~Accordingly, as a ~~result~~successful ofattack ~~replay~~or ~~attacks.~~coordinated ~~Similar~~control ~~replay~~of ~~attack~~a ~~concerns~~significant ~~occurred~~portion inof ~~connection with~~ the ~~Bitcoin~~Ethereum ~~Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi~~network’s ~~Vision~~validating ~~networks~~power—such ~~split~~as in“33%,” ~~November~~“50%,” ~~2018.~~or ~~Another~~“66%” ~~possible result~~ of athe ~~hard~~total ~~fork~~amount isof anstaked ~~inherent~~Ether—could ~~decrease~~disrupt in the ~~level~~confirmation ofor ~~security~~finality ~~due to significant amounts~~ of ~~mining~~rollup ~~power~~transactions ~~remaining~~submitted onby ~~one network or migrating instead to~~ the ~~new~~Base ~~forked network~~Network. ~~After~~In such a ~~hard fork~~scenario, ittransactions ~~may~~on ~~become~~the ~~easier~~Horizen ~~for~~Network ~~an individual miner~~ or ~~mining~~for ~~pool’s~~ZEN ~~hashing~~could ~~power~~be todelayed, ~~exceed~~reverted, ~~50%~~or ofcensored ~~the~~until ~~processing~~normal ~~power~~operation ofresumed, awhich ~~digital~~could ~~asset~~adversely ~~network~~affect ~~that~~the ~~retained~~functionality orof ~~attracted~~the ~~less~~Horizen ~~mining power~~protocol, ~~thereby~~the ~~making~~transferability ~~digital~~of ~~asset~~ZEN, ~~networks~~and ~~that~~the ~~rely~~value ~~on proof-~~of~~-work~~ ~~more~~the ~~susceptible to attack~~Shares.

~~Digital~~A ~~asset~~temporary ~~networks~~or ~~and~~permanent related protocols may also be cloned. Unlike a fork of a digital asset network, which modifies an existing blockchain, and results in two competing digital asset networks, each with the same genesis block, a “~~clone~~fork” isor a ~~copy of a protocol’s codebase, but results in an entirely new blockchain and new genesis block. Tokens are created solely from the new~~ “clone” ~~network~~could ~~and,~~adversely inaffect ~~contrast to forks, holders of tokens of~~ the ~~existing~~value ~~network that was cloned do not receive any tokens~~ of the ~~new network~~Shares. A “clone” results in a competing network that has characteristics substantially similar to the network it was based on, subject to any changes as determined by the developer(s) that initiated the clone.

AThe ~~hard~~Horizen ~~fork~~Network ~~may~~operates ~~adversely~~using ~~affect~~open-source ~~the price of ZEN at the time of announcement or adoption. For example~~protocols, ~~the~~meaning ~~announcement~~that ofany auser ~~hard~~can ~~fork~~modify ~~could lead to increased demand for~~ the ~~pre-fork~~software ~~digital~~and ~~asset,~~then inpropose ~~anticipation~~adoption ~~that ownership~~ of the ~~pre-fork~~modification. ~~digital~~When ~~asset would entitle holders to~~ a ~~new~~modification ~~digital~~is ~~asset~~introduced ~~following~~and ~~the~~ZEN ~~fork.~~token ~~The~~holders ~~increased~~via ~~demand for~~ the ~~pre-fork~~Horizen ~~digital~~DAO ~~asset~~consent ~~may cause the price of the digital asset~~ to ~~rise. After~~ the ~~hard fork~~modification, ~~it is possible~~ the ~~aggregate~~change ~~price~~is ofable ~~the~~to ~~two~~be ~~versions~~implemented ofand the ~~digital~~network ~~asset~~remains ~~running~~uninterrupted. inHowever, ~~parallel~~if ~~would~~consensus bedoes ~~less~~not ~~than~~form ~~the~~around ~~price~~consenting ~~of the digital asset immediately prior~~ to the ~~fork.~~proposed ~~Furthermore~~modification, ~~while~~ the ~~Trust~~user ~~would~~can belaunch ~~entitled~~their toown ~~both~~version ~~versions~~with of the ~~digital asset running in parallel~~modification, ~~the~~including ~~Sponsor will, as permitted by~~ the ~~terms~~previous ofversion’s ~~the~~state ~~Trust~~and ~~Agreement,~~ledger. ~~determine~~The ~~which~~consequence ~~version~~would ofbe ~~the~~what ~~digital asset~~ is ~~generally~~known ~~accepted~~ as ~~the~~a ~~Horizen~~“hard ~~Network~~fork” ~~and~~of ~~should therefore be considered~~ the ~~appropriate~~Horizen ~~network~~Network. ~~for~~The ~~the~~effect ~~Trust’s~~of ~~purposes,~~such ~~and~~a ~~there~~fork iswould nobe ~~guarantee that~~ the ~~Sponsor~~existence ~~will~~of ~~choose~~two ~~the~~versions ~~digital~~of ~~asset~~ZEN ~~that~~running isin ~~ultimately~~parallel, ~~the~~yet ~~most~~lacking ~~valuable fork~~interchangeability. ~~Either~~For ofexample, ~~these~~Bitcoin ~~events~~Cash ~~could~~is ~~therefore adversely impact~~ the ~~value~~result of ~~the Shares. As an illustrative example of~~ a ~~digital asset~~ hard fork, onof ~~November~~Bitcoin. ~~15,~~Some ~~2020,~~users ~~certain~~of the Bitcoin ~~Cash~~Network ~~developers~~may ~~enacted~~harbor aill ~~proposed~~will ~~update~~toward to the Bitcoin Cash network ~~requiring 8% of mined tokens to be redistributed to the developer pool~~, ~~causing a hard fork,~~ and ~~created~~vice aversa. ~~network~~These ~~with~~users amay ~~token~~attempt ~~labeled~~to ~~BCHA.~~negatively ~~For~~impact the ~~days~~use ~~following~~or ~~the~~adoption ~~fork,~~of the ~~price~~Bitcoin ofCash ~~BCH fluctuated from $246~~network.15 ~~on November 15, 2020 to $256.55 on November 20, 2020.~~

AForks ~~clone~~ may also ~~adversely~~occur ~~affect~~as ~~the~~a ~~price~~digital ofasset ~~ZEN~~network atcommunity’s ~~the~~response ~~time~~to ofa ~~announcement~~significant orsecurity ~~adoption~~breach. For example, onin ~~November~~July 6, 2016, ~~Rhett~~Ethereum ~~Creighton,~~“forked” into Ethereum and a ~~Zcash~~new ~~developer~~digital asset, ~~cloned~~Ethereum Classic, as a result of the ~~Zcash~~Ethereum network community’s response to ~~launch~~a ~~Zclassic~~significant security breach. In June 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited a ~~substantially~~smart ~~identical~~contract ~~version~~running ofon the ~~Zcash~~Ethereum network ~~that~~to ~~eliminated~~syphon ~~the~~approximately ~~Founders’~~$60 ~~Reward~~million of Ether held by The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. ~~For~~In response to the ~~days~~exploit, ~~following~~most ~~the~~participants ~~date~~in the ~~first~~Ethereum ~~Zclassic~~community ~~block~~elected ~~was~~to ~~mined,~~adopt ~~the~~a ~~price~~“fork” ofthat ~~ZEC~~effectively ~~fell~~reversed ~~from~~the ~~$504~~exploit.57 onHowever, ~~November~~a 5,minority ~~2016~~of users continued to ~~$236.01~~develop onthe ~~November~~original 7blockchain, ~~2016~~referred into ~~the~~as ~~midst~~“Ethereum ofClassic” awith ~~broader~~the ~~sell~~digital ~~off~~asset ofon ~~ZEC~~that ~~beginning~~blockchain ~~immediately~~now ~~after~~referred ~~the~~to ~~Zcash~~as ~~network~~ETC. ~~launch~~ETC now trades on ~~October~~several ~~28,~~Digital ~~2016~~Asset Trading Platforms.

ADigital ~~future~~asset ~~fork~~networks inand orrelated ~~clone~~protocols may also be cloned. Unlike a fork of ~~the~~a ~~Horizen~~digital ~~Network~~asset network, ~~such~~which asresults ~~the~~in ~~proposed~~two ~~EON~~competing ~~2.0~~digital ~~Migration~~asset networks or protocols, ~~could~~a ~~adversely~~“clone” ~~affect~~is ~~the~~a ~~value~~copy of ~~the~~a ~~Shares~~protocol’s orcodebase, ~~the~~but ~~ability~~results ofin ~~the~~an ~~Trust~~entirely tonew ~~operate~~blockchain and new genesis block. ItTokens isare ~~unclear~~created ~~how~~solely from the ~~EON~~new ~~2.0~~“clone” ~~Migration~~network ~~will~~and, bein ~~implemented,~~contrast ~~and~~to itforks, isholders ~~possible~~of ~~miners~~tokens inof the ~~Horizen~~existing ~~Network~~network ~~will~~that ~~continue~~was tocloned ~~sustain~~do not receive any tokens of the new network,. ~~possibly~~A ~~resulting~~“clone” results in a ~~fork~~competing ifnetwork ~~blocks~~that ~~for~~has ~~both~~characteristics ~~the~~substantially ~~Horizen~~similar ~~Network~~to ~~and~~the ~~EON~~network ~~2.0~~it ~~network~~was ~~continue~~based on, subject to beany ~~processed~~changes as determined by the developer(s) that initiated the clone.

A hard fork may adversely affect the price of ZEN 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 Horizen 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 named Bitcoin Cash ABC. 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 clone may also adversely affect the price of ZEN at the time of announcement or adoption. For example, on November 6, 2016, Rhett Creighton, a Zcash developer, cloned the Zcash network to launch Zclassic, a substantially identical version of the Zcash network that eliminated the Founders’ Reward. For the days following the date the first Zclassic block was mined, the price of ZEC fell from $504.57 on November 5, 2016 to $236.01 on November 7, 2016 in the midst of a broader sell off of ZEC beginning immediately after the Zcash network launch on October 28, 2016. A clone may also adversely affect the price of ZEN at the time of announcement or adoption.

A future fork in or clone of the Horizen 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 promoters of a new digital asset announce to some group of users, such as the group that are holders of another digital asset, that such group will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they are part of that group.

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 ZEN, 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 benefiting 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 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 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.

“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 ZEN, 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 benefiting 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 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 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.

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 Horizen 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 Horizen Network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine, in good faith, which digital asset network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Horizen Network, is generally accepted as the Horizen Network and should therefore be considered the appropriate digital asset 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 ZEN, users, services, businesses, ~~miners~~ and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Horizen Network. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset network or 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 Reference Rate Provider on what is generally accepted as ZEN and should therefore be considered “ZEN” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with shareholders, security vendors and the Reference Rate Provider on what is generally accepted as ZEN and should therefore be considered “ZEN” 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 ZEN may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of ZEN 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 ZEN. 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 ZEN and the value of the Shares.

59The cryptography used to enhance the privacy of transactions that utilize the Horizen protocol is new and could ultimately fail, or could be used to facilitate illicit activities, and businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEN may be at increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having services cut off, which could negatively affect the price of ZEN and the value of the Shares.

The ~~cryptography~~Horizen ~~used~~protocol supports the use of zk-SNARKs to ~~enhance~~add ~~the~~additional ~~privacy~~layers of confidentiality to dApp transactions on the ~~Horizen~~Base Network. This cryptography is new and could ultimately fail, orresulting ~~could~~in beless ~~used~~privacy tothan ~~facilitate~~believed ~~illicit~~or ~~activities~~no privacy at all, and ~~businesses~~could ~~that~~adversely ~~facilitate~~affect one’s ability to complete transactions inon ~~ZEN~~any ~~may~~such bedigital atasset ~~increased~~network ~~risk~~or otherwise adversely interfere with the integrity of ~~criminal~~the orrelevant ~~civil~~blockchain. ~~lawsuits~~For example, oron ofFebruary ~~having~~5, ~~services~~2019, ~~cut~~the ~~off~~team behind Zcash, ~~which~~another ~~could~~zk-SNARKs-based ~~negatively~~protocol, ~~affect~~announced that it discovered a vulnerability in zk-SNARKs that also existed on the ~~price~~historical ofstandalone ~~ZEN~~Horizen Network and ~~the~~was ~~value~~subsequently ofpatched on the ~~Shares~~Horizen Network in connection with a protocol upgrade in November 2018.

~~The~~Moreover, ~~Horizen~~law ~~Network~~enforcement ~~uses~~agencies ~~zk-SNARKs,~~and ~~which~~other ~~add~~market ~~additional~~participants ~~layers~~have often relied on the transparency of ~~confidentiality~~blockchains to ~~transactions~~facilitate oninvestigations ~~the~~and ~~Horizen~~comply ~~Network~~with bylaws, ~~protecting~~such ~~the~~as ~~amount~~anti-money laundering and economic sanctions laws. Because of the ~~recipient~~privacy-enhancing infeatures ~~ZEN~~of ~~transactions.~~the ~~This~~Horizen ~~cryptography~~protocol, islaw ~~new~~enforcement agencies and ~~could~~other ~~ultimately~~market ~~fail,~~participants ~~resulting~~may inhave less ~~privacy~~visibility ~~than~~into ~~believed~~transaction-level ordata, nowhich ~~privacy~~may atencourage ~~all~~bad actors to misuse the Horizen Network for such illicit purposes. As a result, ~~and~~businesses that facilitate transactions using the Horizen Network could ~~adversely~~be ~~affect~~at ~~one’s~~increased ~~ability~~risk toof ~~complete~~potential ~~transactions~~criminal onor ~~any~~civil ~~such~~lawsuits, ~~digital~~or ~~asset~~of ~~network~~having banking or ~~otherwise~~other ~~adversely~~services cut off, if there is a concern that these features interfere with the ~~integrity~~performance of ~~the~~anti-money ~~relevant~~laundering ~~blockchain~~duties and economic sanctions checks. ~~For~~In August 2019, for example, onCoinbase ~~February~~UK 5,delisted ~~2019,~~Zcash ~~the~~and ~~team~~in ~~behind~~January 2021 Bittrex delisted Zcash as well as Monero and Dash, ~~another~~two zkother privacy-~~SNARKs-based~~focused ~~protocol,~~digital ~~announced~~assets. ~~that~~Although itneither ~~discovered~~trading aplatform ~~vulnerability~~disclosed inthe ~~zk-SNARKs~~reasons for such delisting and both trading platforms subsequently relisted ZEC, it is believed that ~~also~~they ~~existed~~were onthe result of the ~~Horizen~~privacy-enhancing ~~Network~~features of the digital assets, and ~~was~~there ~~subsequently~~is ~~patched~~a onrisk that digital asset trading platforms may remove applications using the Horizen Network infrom ~~connection~~their ~~with~~platforms aas ~~protocol~~well. ~~upgrade~~Other inservice ~~November~~providers ~~2018.~~of ~~The~~such ~~vulnerability~~businesses ~~was~~may aalso ~~counterfeiting~~cut ~~vulnerability~~off services if there is a concern that ~~could~~the ~~have~~Horizen ~~allowed~~Network anis ~~attacker~~being used to ~~exploit~~facilitate acrime. ~~flaw~~Any inof the ~~original~~aforementioned ~~zero-knowledge~~occurrences ~~proof~~could ~~cryptography~~increase toregulatory ~~act~~scrutiny ~~differently~~of ~~than~~the ~~intended~~Horizen Network and/or ~~create~~adversely ~~fake~~affect the price of ZEN, onthe attractiveness of the Horizen Network ~~without~~and ~~being~~an ~~detected.~~investment ~~Although~~in the ~~privacy~~Shares ~~features~~of ~~prevent~~the ~~one~~Trust. ~~from~~It ~~being~~is ~~certain~~unclear nowhether ~~ZEN~~the ~~were~~introduction ~~counterfeited,~~of ~~the~~compliance-oriented ~~team~~functionalities ~~behind~~into the Horizen ~~found~~protocol nowould ~~evidence~~mitigate ~~that~~these ~~counterfeiting~~concerns ~~occurred~~by ~~prior~~regulators, tolaw ~~the~~enforcement ~~patch~~agencies, and ~~believes~~other ~~the~~digital ~~vulnerability~~asset ~~has~~market ~~been fully remediated~~participants.

Moreover, law enforcement agencies and other market participants have often relied on the transparency of blockchains to facilitate investigations and comply with laws, such as anti-money laundering and economic sanctions laws. Because of the privacy-enhancing features of the Horizen Network, law enforcement agencies and other market participants may have less visibility into transaction-level data, which may encourage bad actors to misuse the Horizen Network for such illicit purposes. As a result, businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEN could be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking or other services cut off, if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks. In August 2019, for example, Coinbase UK delisted Zcash and in January 2021 Bittrex delisted Zcash as well as Monero and Dash, two other privacy-focused digital assets. Although neither trading platform disclosed the reasons for such delisting and both trading platforms subsequently relisted ZEC, it is believed that they were the result of the privacy-enhancing features of the digital assets, and there is a risk that digital asset trading platforms may remove ZEN from their platforms as well. Other service providers of such businesses may also cut off services if there is a concern that the Horizen Network is being used to facilitate crime. Any of the aforementioned occurrences could increase regulatory scrutiny of the Horizen Network and/or adversely affect the price of ZEN, the attractiveness of the Horizen Network and an investment in the Shares of the Trust. It is unclear whether the removal of certain types of shielded transactions from Horizen in September 2023 would mitigate these concerns by regulators, law enforcement agencies, and other digital asset market participants regarding ZEN.

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

In accordance with its regulatory obligations, the Authorized Participant, or Liquidity Provider, conducts customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence on its counterparties, which enables it to determine each counterparty’s AML and other risks and assign an appropriate risk rating.

As part of its counterparty onboarding process, each of the Authorized Participant and the Liquidity Provider uses third-party services to screen prospective counterparties against various watch lists, including the Specially Designated Nationals List of the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) and countries and territories identified as non-cooperative by the Financial Action Task Force. If the Sponsor, the Trust, the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider were nevertheless to transact with such a sanctioned entity, the Sponsor, the Trust, the Authorized Participant and the Liquidity Provider would be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits.

Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets

~~Since~~In the ~~fourth~~past ~~quarter of 2021~~ and through to the date of this Annual Report, digital asset prices have ~~fluctuated~~experienced ~~widely.~~significant ~~This~~fluctuations, ~~has~~leading ~~led~~ to volatility and disruption in the digital asset markets and financial difficulties for several prominent industry participants, including Digital Asset Trading Platforms, hedge funds and lending platforms. For example, in the first half of 2022, digital asset lenders Celsius Network LLC and Voyager Digital Ltd. and digital asset hedge fund Three Arrows Capital each entered into insolvency proceedings. This resulted in a loss of confidence in participants in the digital asset ecosystem, negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly and market-wide declines in digital asset trading prices and liquidity.

Thereafter, in November 2022, FTX, the third largest Digital Asset Trading Platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and several affiliates of FTX filed for bankruptcy. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently brought criminal charges, including charges of fraud, violations of federal securities laws, money laundering, and campaign finance offenses, against FTX’s former CEO and others. In November 2023, FTX’s former CEO was convicted of fraud and money laundering. Similar charges related to violations of anti-money laundering laws were brought in November 2023 against Binance and its former CEO. FTX is also under investigation by the SEC, the Justice Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as by various regulatory authorities in the Bahamas, Europe and other jurisdictions. In response to these events, the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and declines in liquidity. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis Capital”), a subsidiary of Genesis Global Holdco, LLC (“Genesis Holdco”). The SEC also brought charges against Genesis Capital and Gemini Trust Company, LLC (“Gemini”) in January 2023 for their alleged unregistered offer and sale of securities to retail investors. In October 2023, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) brought charges against Gemini, Genesis Capital, Genesis Asia Pacific PTE. LTD. (“Genesis Asia Pacific”), Genesis Holdco (together with Genesis Capital and Genesis Asia Pacific, the “Genesis Entities”), Genesis Capital’s former CEO, DCG, and DCG’s CEO alleging violations of the New York Penal Law, the New York General Business Law and the New York Executive Law. In February 2024, the NYAG amended its complaint to expand the charges against Gemini, the Genesis Entities, Genesis Capital’s former CEO, DCG, and DCG’s CEO to include harm to additional investors. Also in February 2024, the Genesis Entities entered into a settlement agreement with the NYAG to resolve the NYAG’s allegations against the Genesis Entities, which settlement was subsequently approved by the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York.

anti-money laundering laws were brought in November 2023 against Binance and its former CEO. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis Capital”), a subsidiary of Genesis Global Holdco, LLC (“Genesis Holdco”). The SEC also brought charges against Genesis Capital and Gemini Trust Company, LLC (“Gemini”) in January 2023 for their alleged unregistered offer and sale of securities to retail investors. In October 2023, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) brought charges against Gemini, Genesis Capital, Genesis Asia Pacific PTE. LTD. (“Genesis Asia Pacific”), Genesis Holdco (together with Genesis Capital and Genesis Asia Pacific, the “Genesis Entities”), Genesis Capital’s former CEO, DCG, and DCG’s CEO alleging violations of the New York Penal Law, the New York General Business Law and the New York Executive Law. In February 2024, the NYAG amended its complaint to expand the charges against Gemini, the Genesis Entities, Genesis Capital’s former CEO, DCG, and DCG’s CEO to include harm to additional investors. Also in February 2024, the Genesis Entities entered into a settlement agreement with the NYAG to resolve the NYAG’s allegations against the Genesis Entities, which settlement was subsequently approved by the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York.

Furthermore, Genesis Holdco, together with certain of its subsidiaries, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in January 2023. While Genesis Holdco is not a service provider to the Trust, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of DCG, and is an affiliate of the Trust and the Sponsor.

These events have led to asignificant ~~substantial~~negative ~~increase~~publicity inaround ~~regulatory~~digital ~~and~~asset ~~enforcement~~market ~~scrutiny~~participants ofincluding ~~the~~DCG, ~~industry~~Genesis ~~as a whole~~ and ofDCG’s ~~Digital~~other ~~Asset~~affiliated ~~Trading~~entities. ~~Platforms~~This inpublicity ~~particular,~~could ~~including~~negatively ~~from~~impact the ~~Department~~reputation of ~~Justice,~~ the ~~SEC,~~Sponsor ~~the CFTC, the White House~~ and ~~Congress.~~have ~~For~~an ~~example,~~adverse ineffect ~~June~~on ~~2023,~~ the ~~SEC~~trading ~~brought~~price ~~charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”)~~ and/or ~~Coinbase (~~the ~~“Coinbase~~value ~~Complaint”), two~~ of the ~~largest digital asset trading platforms, alleging that they solicited U~~Shares.S. ~~investors to buy~~Moreover, ~~sell,~~sales ~~and~~of ~~trade~~a ~~“crypto~~significant ~~asset~~number ~~securities”~~of ~~through~~Shares ~~their~~of unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance.US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the ~~SEC~~Trust ~~brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated~~ as ana ~~unregistered~~result ~~securities~~of ~~exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. Coinbase, Binance and Kraken all continue to litigate~~ these ~~charges~~events ~~against~~could ~~the~~have ~~SEC.~~a ~~The~~negative ~~Binance~~impact ~~Complaint,~~on the ~~Coinbase~~trading ~~Complaint~~price ~~and~~of the ~~Kraken Complaint have led, and may in the future lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices~~Shares.

These events have also led to ~~significant~~a ~~negative~~substantial ~~publicity~~increase ~~around~~in ~~digital~~regulatory ~~asset~~and ~~market~~enforcement ~~participants~~scrutiny ~~including~~of ~~DCG,~~the ~~Genesis~~industry as a whole and ~~DCG’s~~of ~~other~~Digital ~~affiliated~~Asset ~~entities.~~Trading ~~This~~Platforms ~~publicity~~in ~~could~~particular, ~~negatively~~including ~~impact~~from the ~~reputation~~Department of Justice, the ~~Sponsor~~SEC, the CFTC, the White House and ~~have~~Congress. anFor ~~adverse~~example, ~~effect~~in onJune 2023, the ~~trading~~SEC ~~price~~brought ~~and/or~~charges against Binance (the ~~value~~“Binance ofComplaint”) and Coinbase (the ~~Shares~~“Coinbase Complaint”), alleging that they solicited U.S. ~~Moreover~~investors to buy, ~~sales~~sell, ofand atrade ~~significant~~“crypto ~~number~~asset ofsecurities” ~~Shares~~through oftheir unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance.US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the ~~Trust~~SEC brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated as aan ~~result~~unregistered ofsecurities ~~these~~exchange, ~~events~~brokerage ~~could~~and clearing agency. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint have aled, ~~negative~~and ~~impact~~may onin the ~~trading~~future ~~price~~lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the ~~Shares~~Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants, as well.

~~Digital~~In ~~asset~~January ~~markets~~2025, ~~have also been negatively impacted by~~ the ~~failure~~SEC oflaunched ~~entities~~a ~~perceived~~Crypto toTask beForce ~~integral~~dedicated to ~~the~~developing ~~digital~~a ~~asset~~comprehensive ~~ecosystem.~~and ~~For~~clear ~~example,~~regulatory inframework ~~March~~for ~~2023,~~digital ~~state~~assets ~~banking~~led ~~regulators~~by ~~placed~~Commissioner ~~Silicon~~Hester ~~Valley Bank and Signature Bank into FDIC receiverships~~Peirce. ~~Also~~Subsequently, inCommissioner ~~March~~Peirce ~~2023, Silvergate Bank~~ announced ~~plans~~a tolist ~~wind~~of ~~down~~specific ~~and~~priorities ~~liquidate its operations. Because these banks were perceived~~ to befurther ~~the~~that ~~banks most open to providing services for the digital asset ecosystem in the United States~~initiative, ~~their~~which ~~failures~~included ~~may~~pursuing ~~impact~~final ~~the~~rules ~~willingness~~related ~~of banks (based on regulatory pressure or otherwise)~~ to ~~provide~~a ~~banking services to~~ digital asset’s ~~market~~security ~~participants. In addition~~status, ~~because~~a ~~these~~revised ~~banks~~path ~~were perceived~~ to beregistered ~~the~~offerings ~~banks~~and ~~most~~listings ~~open to providing services~~ for ~~the~~ digital asset-based ~~ecosystem~~investment vehicles, ~~their~~and ~~failure~~clarity ~~has~~regarding ~~caused a number of companies that provide~~ digital asset~~-related~~ ~~services~~custody, tolending beand ~~unable to find banks that are willing to provide them with such banking services~~staking. ~~The inability to access banking services could negatively impact digital asset market~~

61Digital asset markets have also been negatively impacted by the failure of entities perceived to be integral to the digital asset ecosystem. For example, in March 2023, state banking regulators placed Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank into Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) receiverships. Also, in March 2023, Silvergate Bank announced plans to wind down and liquidate its operations. Because these banks were perceived to be the banks most open to providing services for the digital asset ecosystem in the United States, their failures may impact the willingness of banks (based on regulatory pressure or otherwise) to provide banking services to digital asset market participants. In addition, because these banks were perceived to be the banks most open to providing services for the digital asset ecosystem, their failure has caused a number of companies that provide digital asset-related services to be unable to find banks that are willing to provide them with such banking services. The inability to access banking services could negatively impact digital asset market participants and therefore the value of digital assets, including ZEN, and thus the Shares. In addition, although these events did not have an impact directly on the Trust or the Sponsor when these bank failures occurred, it is possible that a future closing of a bank with which the Trust or the Sponsor has a financial relationship could subject the Trust or the Sponsor to adverse conditions and pose challenges in finding an alternative suitable bank to provide the Trust or the Sponsor with bank accounts and banking services.

participants and therefore the value of digital assets, including ZEN, and thus the Shares. In addition, although these events did not have an impact directly on the Trust or the Sponsor when these bank failures occurred, it is possible that a future closing of a bank with which the Trust or the Sponsor has a financial relationship could subject the Trust or the Sponsor to adverse conditions and pose challenges in finding an alternative suitable bank to provide the Trust or the Sponsor with bank accounts and banking services.

Events such as these that impact the wider digital asset ecosystem are continuing to develop and change at a rapid pace and it is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Sponsor, the Trust, their affiliates and/or the Trust’s third-party service providers, or on the digital asset industry as a whole.

Continued disruption and instability in the digital asset markets as these events develop, including declines in the trading prices and liquidity of ZEN, or the failure of service providers to the Trust, 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 value of the Shares relates directly to the value of ZEN, 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 ZEN held by the Trust and fluctuations in the price of ZEN could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The market price of ZEN may be highly volatile, and subject to a number of factors, including:

•

Anan increase in the global ZEN supply that is publicly available for trading;

•

~~Manipulative~~manipulative trading activity on Digital Asset Trading Platforms, which, in many cases, are largely unregulated;

•

~~The~~the adoption of ZEN 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 Horizen Network;

•

~~Forks~~forks in the Horizen Network;

•

~~Investors~~investors’ expectations with respect to interest rates, the rates of inflation of fiat currencies or ZEN, and Digital Asset Trading Platform rates;

•

~~Consumer~~consumer preferences and perceptions of ZEN specifically and digital assets generally;

•

~~Fiat~~fiat currency withdrawal and deposit policies on Digital Asset Trading Platforms;

•

~~The~~the liquidity of Digital Asset Markets and any increase or decrease in trading volume on Digital Asset Markets;

•

~~Investment~~investment and trading activities of large investors that invest directly or indirectly in ZEN;

•

Anan active derivatives market for ZEN or for digital assets generally;

•

Aa determination that ZEN is a security or changes in ZEN’s status under the federal securities laws;

•

~~Monetary~~monetary policies of governments, trade restrictions, currency devaluations and revaluations and regulatory measures or enforcement actions, if any, that restrict the use of ZEN as a form of payment or the purchase of ZEN on the Digital Asset Markets;

•

~~Global~~global or regional political, economic or financial conditions, events and situations, such as the novel coronavirus outbreak;

•

~~Fees~~fees associated with processing a ZEN transaction and the speed at which ZEN transactions are settled on the ~~Horizen~~Base Network;

•

~~Interruptions~~interruptions in service from or closures or failures of major Digital Asset Trading Platforms;

•

~~Decreased~~decreased confidence in Digital Asset Trading Platforms due to the largely unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of Digital Asset Trading Platforms;

•

~~Increased~~increased competition from other forms of digital assets or payment services; and

•

~~The~~the Trust’s own acquisitions or dispositions of ZEN, since there is no limit on the amount of ZEN that the Trust may acquire.

In addition, there is no assurance that ZEN will maintain its value in the long or intermediate term. In the event that the price of ZEN declines, the Sponsor expects the value of the Shares to decline proportionately.

The value of ZEN as represented by the Reference Rate 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 ZEN has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of ZEN, inflating and making the Reference Rate Price more volatile. As a result, ZEN may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the Reference Rate Price and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Due to the largely unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of Digital Asset Trading Platforms, they may experience fraud, market manipulation, business failures, security failures or operational problems, which may adversely affect the value of ZEN and, consequently, the value of the Shares.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms are relatively new and, in many ways, are not subject to, or may not comply with, regulation in relevant jurisdictions in a manner similar to other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. While many prominent Digital Asset Trading Platforms provide the public with significant information regarding their on-chain activities, ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices, cybersecurity practices and regulatory compliance, many other Digital Asset Trading Platforms do not provide this information. Furthermore, while Digital Asset Trading Platforms are and may continue to be subject to federal and state licensing requirements in the United States, Digital Asset Trading Platforms do not currently 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 Trading Platforms, including prominent trading platforms that handle a significant volume of ZEN trading.

Many Digital Asset Trading Platforms, both in the United States and abroad, are unlicensed, not subject to, or not in compliance with, regulation in relevant jurisdictions, or operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions and may take the position that they are not subject to laws and regulations that would apply to a national securities exchange or designated contract market in the United States, or may, as a practical matter, be beyond the ambit of U.S. regulators. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these Digital Asset Trading Platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading activity on or reported by regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2022 one report claimed that trading volumes on Digital Asset Trading Platforms were inflated by over 70% due to false or non-economic trades, with specific focus on unlicensed trading platforms located outside of the United States. Such reports may indicate that the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market is significantly smaller than expected and that the U.S. makes up a significantly larger percentage of the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market than is commonly understood, or that a much larger portion of digital asset market activity takes place on decentralized finance platforms than is commonly understood. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of ZEN and/or negatively affect the market perception of ZEN, which could in turn adversely impact the value of the Shares.

The SEC has also identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the Digital Asset Markets generally, including, among others (1) “wash-trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in a digital asset manipulating pricing in such digital asset; (3) hacking of the underlying digital asset network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the underlying digital asset network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in a digital asset, new sources of demand for a digital asset) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether; and (7) fraud and manipulation at Digital Asset Markets. The use or presence of such acts and practices in the Digital Asset Markets could, for example, falsely inflate the volume of ZEN present in the Digital Asset Markets or cause distortions in the price of ZEN, among other things that could adversely affect the Trust or cause losses to shareholders. Moreover, tools to detect and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities, such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash-trading, may not be available to or employed by Digital Asset Markets, or may not exist at all. Many Digital Asset Markets also lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of ZEN on Digital Asset Markets may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges.

In addition, over the past several years, some Digital Asset Trading Platforms have been closed, been subject to criminal and civil litigation and have entered into bankruptcy proceedings due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure and/or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such Digital Asset Trading Platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such Digital Asset Trading Platforms. In some instances, customers are made whole only in dollar terms as of the Digital Asset Trading Platform’s date of failure, rather than on a digital asset basis, meaning customers may still lose out on any price increase in digital assets.

While smaller Digital Asset Trading Platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms more stable, larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and

~~While~~malware. ~~smaller~~For ~~Digital~~example, ~~Asset~~in ~~Trading~~February ~~Platforms~~2025, ~~are~~hackers ~~less~~reportedly ~~likely~~compromised toa ~~have~~transaction ~~the~~from ~~infrastructure~~Bybit’s ~~and~~multisignature ~~capitalization~~cold ~~that make larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms more stable~~wallets, ~~larger~~enabling ~~Digital~~the ~~Asset~~hackers ~~Trading~~to ~~Platforms~~steal ~~are~~over ~~more~~$1.5 ~~likely~~billion toof beEther ~~appealing~~from ~~targets~~Bybit. ~~for~~Shortcomings ~~hackers~~or ~~and~~ultimate ~~malware~~failures ~~and~~of ~~their~~larger ~~shortcomings~~Digital orAsset ~~ultimate~~Trading ~~failures~~Platforms are more likely to have contagion effects on the digital asset ecosystem, ~~including on the price of ZEN,~~ and therefore may also be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, in February 2014, Mt. Gox, the largest Digital Asset Trading Platform at the time, halted withdrawals of Bitcoin and subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan following an exploit that resulted in the loss of several hundred thousand Bitcoin. In the two weeks following the halt of Bitcoin withdrawals from Mt. Gox, the value of one Bitcoin fell on other trading platforms from around $795 to $578. Failure and shortcomings of large Digital Asset Trading Platforms have since continued; in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 Bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets, and in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 Bitcoin, then worth around $78 million, were stolen from Bitfinex. The value of Bitcoin and other digital assets immediately decreased over 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. Regulatory enforcement actions have followed, such as in July 2017, when FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-E, a now defunct Digital Asset Trading Platform, for facilitating crimes such as drug sales and ransomware attacks. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based Digital Asset Trading Platform Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following an exploit that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. In January 2018, the Japanese Digital Asset Trading Platform, Coincheck, was exploited, resulting in losses of approximately $535 million, and in February 2018, the Italian Digital Asset Trading Platform, Bitgrail, was exploited, resulting in approximately $170 million in losses. In May 2019, one of the world’s largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, Binance, was exploited, resulting in losses of approximately $40 million. More recently, in November 2022, FTX, another of the world’s largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, filed for bankruptcy protection and subsequently halted customer withdrawals as well as trading on its FTX.US platform. Fraud, security failures and operational problems all played a role in FTX’s issues and downfall. Moreover, Digital Asset Trading Platforms have been a subject of enhanced regulatory and enforcement scrutiny, and Digital Asset Markets have experienced continued instability, following the failure of FTX. In particular, in June 2023, the SEC brought the Binance Complaint and Coinbase Complaint, alleging that Binance and Coinbase operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought the Kraken Complaint, alleging that Kraken operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants as well.

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

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be exposed to front-running.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be susceptible to “front-running,” which refers to the process when someone uses technology or market advantage to get prior knowledge of upcoming transactions. Front-running is a frequent activity on centralized as well as decentralized trading platforms. By using bots functioning on a millisecond-scale timeframe, bad actors are able to take advantage of the forthcoming price movement and make economic gains at the cost of those who had introduced these transactions. The objective of a front runner is to buy tokens at a low price and later sell them at a higher price while simultaneously exiting the position. To the extent that front-running occurs, it may result in investor frustrations and concerns as to the price integrity of Digital Asset Trading Platforms and digital assets more generally.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be exposed to wash trading.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be susceptible to wash trading. Wash trading occurs when offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes. Wash trading may be motivated by non-economic reasons, such as a desire for increased visibility on popular websites that monitor markets for digital assets so as to improve a trading platform’s attractiveness to investors who look for maximum liquidity, or it may be motivated by the ability to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume trading platforms on which to list their tokens. Results of wash trading may include unexpected obstacles to trade and erroneous investment decisions based on false information.

Even in the United States, there have been allegations of wash trading even on regulated venues. Any actual or perceived false trading on Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of ZEN and/or negatively affect the market perception of ZEN.

To the extent that wash trading either occurs or appears to occur in Digital Asset Trading Platforms, investors may develop negative perceptions about ZEN and the digital assets industry more broadly, which could adversely impact the price of ZEN and, therefore, the price of the Shares. Wash trading also may place more legitimate Digital Asset Trading Platforms at a relative competitive disadvantage.

The Reference Rate has a limited history and a failure of the Reference Rate Price could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Reference Rate has a limited history and the Reference Rate Price is an average composite reference rate calculated using volume-weighted trading price data from various Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Reference Rate Provider. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Reference Rate Provider have also changed over time. For example, on January 4, 2023, CoinDesk Indices, Inc., the Reference Rate Provider, removed Bittrex from the Reference Rate due to the trading platform failing the Reference Rate Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement, and did not add any Constituent Trading Platforms as part of its scheduled quarterly review. Thereafter, on April 4, 2023, the Reference Rate Provider added Bittrex back to the Reference Rate due to the trading platform meeting the Reference Rate Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement. Subsequently, on April 21, 2023, the Reference Rate Provider removed Bittrex from the Reference Rate due to Bittrex’s announcement that the trading platform would no longer service U.S. customers. In addition, effective June 16, 2023, the Reference Rate Provider removed Binance.US from the Reference Rate due to Binance.US’s announcement that the trading platform was suspending USD deposits and withdrawals and planned to delist its USD trading pairs. As a result of this removal, there were no longer sufficient Constituent Trading Platforms for the Reference Rate Provider to continue producing the Reference Rate pursuant to the Constituent Trading Platform selection methodology described in “Item 1. Business— Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Constituent Trading Platform Selection.”

Binance.US’s announcement that the trading platform was suspending USD deposits and withdrawals and planned to delist its USD trading pairs. As a result of this removal, there were no longer sufficient Constituent Trading Platforms for the Reference Rate Provider to continue producing the Reference Rate pursuant to the Constituent Trading Platform selection methodology described in “Item 1. Business— Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Constituent Trading Platform Selection.”

If the Reference Rate becomes unavailable, the Sponsor employs an alternative method to determine the Reference Rate Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable”. Effective June 20, 2023, CoinDesk Indices, Inc. no longer determines the Reference Rate Price, and the Reference Rate Price is the Secondary Reference Rate Price, which is the price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Secondary Reference Rate Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc., the Secondary Reference Rate Provider. Effective June 20, 2023, any references to the “Reference Rate Price” in this Annual Report refers to the Secondary Reference Rate Price set by the Secondary Reference Rate selected by the Secondary Reference Rate Provider.

The Reference Rate Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Reference Rate in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Digital Asset Trading Platforms in the Reference Rate, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price.”

Although the Reference Rate is designed to accurately capture the market price of ZEN, third parties may be able to purchase and sell ZEN on public or private markets not included among the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms of the Reference Rate, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Reference Rate Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of ZEN on the various Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms. For example, based on data provided by the Reference Rate Provider, on any given day during the year ended September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price was 1122.1738% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price was 54.9893%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price was 0.0401%. All Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were included in the Reference Rate throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Reference Rate Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of ZEN, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Reference Rate Price used to calculate the value of the Trust’s ZEN may be volatile, and purchasing activity in the Digital Asset Markets associated with Basket creations may affect the Reference Rate Price and Share trading prices, adversely affecting the value of the Shares.

The price of ZEN on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms has a very limited history, and during this history, ZEN prices on the Digital Asset Markets more generally, and on Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While the Reference Rate is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms, the Reference Rate Price, and the price of ZEN generally, remains subject to volatility experienced by Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and such volatility could adversely affect the value of the Shares. For example, from October 1, ~~2019~~2020 through September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the Reference Rate Price ranged from $35.3114 to $152.74, with the straight average being $2425.6249. In addition, during the year ended September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the Reference Rate Price ranged from $6.1933 to $1737.4688. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Reference Rate Price and average prices from the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually or as a group. The price of ZEN more generally has experienced volatility similar to the Reference Rate Price during these periods. For additional information on movement of the Reference Rate Price and the price of ZEN, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical NAV and ZEN Prices.”

Furthermore, because the number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms is limited, the Reference Rate will necessarily be comprised of a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms. If a Digital Asset Trading Platform were subjected to regulatory, volatility or other pricing issues, the Reference Rate Provider would have limited ability to remove such Digital Asset Trading Platform from the Reference Rate, which could skew the price of ZEN as represented by the Reference Rate. Trading on a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms may result in less favorable prices and decreased liquidity of ZEN and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

~~Furthermore, because~~ the ~~number~~market ofprice ~~Digital Asset Trading Platforms is limited, the Reference Rate will necessarily be composed~~ of aZEN ~~limited~~may ~~number~~decline ofimmediately ~~Digital~~after ~~Asset~~Baskets ~~Trading~~are ~~Platforms~~created. IfDecreases ain ~~Digital Asset Trading Platform were subjected to regulatory, volatility or other pricing issues,~~ the ~~Reference~~market ~~Rate Provider would have limited ability to remove such Digital Asset Trading Platform from the Reference Rate, which could skew the~~ price of ZEN asmay ~~represented~~also byoccur ~~the~~as ~~Reference Rate. Trading on~~ a ~~limited~~result ~~number~~ of ~~Digital~~sales ~~Asset~~in ~~Trading~~Secondary ~~Platforms~~Markets ~~may~~by ~~result~~other inmarket ~~less~~participants. ~~favorable~~If ~~prices~~the ~~and~~Reference ~~decreased~~Rate ~~liquidity~~Price ~~of ZEN and~~declines, ~~therefore, could have an adverse effect on~~ the value of the Shares will generally also decline.

Purchasing activity associated with acquiring ZEN required for the creation of Baskets may increase the market price of ZEN on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Increases in the market price of ZEN 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 ZEN that may result from increased purchasing activity of ZEN connected with the issuance of Baskets. Consequently, the market price of ZEN may decline immediately after Baskets are created. Decreases in the market price of ZEN may also occur as a result of sales in Secondary Markets by other market participants. If the Reference Rate Price declines, the value of the Shares will generally also decline.

Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets or methods of investing in ZEN could have a negative impact on the price of ZEN and adversely affect the value of the Shares.

As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, ZEN was the ~~314th~~293rd largest digital asset by market capitalization as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com had a total market capitalization of approximately $23,~~228~~632.57 billion (including the approximately $~~124~~134.92 million market cap of ZEN), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding tokens pegged to other assets. ZEN faces competition from a wide range of digital assets. Many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms rather than open platforms like the Horizen Network. In addition, ZEN is currently supported by fewer trading platforms than more established digital assets, such as Bitcoin and Ether, which could impact its liquidity. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets ~~and smart contracts platforms~~, such as ~~Ethereum,~~Railgun ~~Solana, Avalanche~~ or ~~Cardano~~Manta, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ZEN and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

InInvestors ~~addition,~~may ~~some~~also ~~digital~~invest ~~asset~~in ~~networks~~ZEN ~~may~~through bemeans other than the ~~target~~Shares, ofincluding ~~ill~~through ~~will~~direct ~~from~~investments ~~users~~in ofZEN and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to ZEN and digital asset ~~networks~~financial vehicles similar to the Trust. ~~For~~Market ~~example~~and financial conditions, ~~Horizen~~and isother conditions beyond the ~~result~~Sponsor’s ofcontrol, amay ~~fork~~make ofit ~~Zclassic,~~more ~~which~~attractive to invest in ~~turn~~other isfinancial avehicles ~~clone~~or ofto ~~Zcash~~invest in ZEN directly, which ~~itself~~could ~~was~~limit athe ~~clone~~market for, and reduce the liquidity of, ~~Bitcoin~~the Shares. In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of ZEN are formed and ~~some~~represent ~~users~~a significant proportion of ~~those~~the demand for ZEN, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset ~~networks~~financial ~~may~~vehicles, ~~harbor~~or ~~ill~~private ~~will~~funds ~~toward~~holding ZEN, could negatively affect the ~~Horizon~~Reference ~~Network~~Rate Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and ~~vice~~the ~~versa~~Principal Market NAV per Share. ~~These~~Moreover, ~~users~~any ofreduced ~~these~~demand ~~other~~for ~~networks~~Shares of the Trust may ~~attempt~~cause tothe ~~negatively~~Shares ~~impact~~of the ~~use~~Trust orto ~~adoption~~trade ofat a discount to the ~~Horizen~~NAV ~~Network~~per Share.

~~Investors~~The SEC may ~~invest~~approve inapplications ~~ZEN~~under ~~through~~Rule ~~means~~19b-4 ~~other~~of ~~than~~ the ~~Shares,~~Exchange ~~including~~Act ~~through direct investments in ZEN and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked~~ to ~~ZEN~~list ~~and~~competing digital ~~asset~~assets ~~financial~~as ~~vehicles~~exchange-traded ~~similar to the Trust. Market and financial conditions~~products, ~~and other conditions beyond the Sponsor’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles or to invest in ZEN directly,~~ which could ~~limit~~reduce ~~the~~demand ~~market~~ for, and ~~reduce~~ the ~~liquidity~~price of, ~~the Shares. In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of~~ ZEN ~~are formed~~ and ~~represent~~adversely aimpact ~~significant proportion of~~ the ~~demand for ZEN, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding ZEN, could negatively affect the Reference Rate Price, the NAV, the~~ value of the Shares~~, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share~~. ~~Moreover, any reduced demand for Shares of the Trust may cause the Shares of the Trust to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share.~~

~~Prices~~To date, the SEC has approved applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products that hold Bitcoin and Ether—as well as generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares holding digital assets. To the extent such competing digital asset exchange-traded products, other than those which hold ZEN, ~~may~~come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for digital assets generally, demand for, and the price of, ZEN could be ~~affected~~reduced. ~~due~~Such toreduced ~~stablecoins~~demand ~~(including~~could ~~Tether~~in turn negatively affect the Reference Rate Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and Uthe Principal Market NAV per Share.S. ~~Dollar~~Accordingly, ~~Coin~~there ~~(“USDC”))~~can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to maintain its scale and achieve its intended competitive positioning relative to competitors, which could adversely affect the ~~activities~~performance of ~~stablecoin~~the ~~issuers~~Trust and ~~their~~the ~~regulatory~~value ~~treatment~~of the Shares.

~~While~~Prices ~~the~~of ~~Trust~~ZEN ~~does not invest in stablecoins, it~~ may ~~nonetheless~~ be ~~exposed~~affected todue ~~these and other risks that stablecoins pose for the market for ZEN and other digital assets. Stablecoins are digital assets designed~~ to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to the value of a referenced asset, normally a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. Although the prices of stablecoins ~~are~~(including ~~intended~~Tether ~~to be stable compared to their referenced asset, in many cases their prices fluctuate, sometimes significantly. This volatility has in the past impacted the prices of certain digital assets,~~ and ~~has at times caused certain stablecoins to lose their “peg” to the underlying fiat currency. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon~~USDC, ~~and it is impossible to know all of~~ the ~~risks~~activities that they could pose to participants in the digital asset markets. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for digital assets, raising their prices. Regulators have also charged stablecoin issuers with violations of ~~law or otherwise required certain~~ stablecoin issuers to cease certain operations. For example, on February 17, 2021, the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and ~~pay~~their ~~$18.5~~regulatory ~~million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether~~treatment. ~~On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others,~~

While the Trust does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to these and other risks that stablecoins pose for the market for ZEN and other digital assets. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to the value of a referenced asset, normally a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable compared to their referenced asset, in many cases their prices fluctuate, sometimes significantly. This volatility has in the past impacted the prices of certain digital assets, and has at times caused certain stablecoins to lose their “peg” to the underlying fiat currency. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the digital asset markets. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for digital assets, raising their prices. Regulators have also charged stablecoin issuers with violations of law or otherwise required certain stablecoin issuers to cease certain operations. For example, on February 17, 2021, the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue.

~~Tether’s~~dollar ~~claims~~at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 (and remained below for multiple days) after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that it$3.3 ~~maintained~~billion ~~sufficient~~of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered FDIC receivership earlier that day. Popular stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. ~~dollar~~banking ~~reserves~~system toand ~~back~~U.S. ~~every~~treasuries, ~~Tether~~and ~~stablecoin~~the infailure ~~circulation~~of ~~with~~either ~~the~~to ~~“equivalent~~function ~~amount~~normally could impede the function of ~~corresponding~~stablecoins ~~fiat~~or ~~currency”~~lead ~~held~~to byoutsized ~~Tether~~redemption ~~were~~requests, ~~untrue.~~and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

USDC is a reserve-backed stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Financial that is commonly used as a method of payment in digital asset markets, including the ZEN market. The issuer of USDC uses the Circle Reserve Fund to hold cash, U.S. Treasury bills, notes and other obligations issued or guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements secured by such obligations or cash, which serve as reserves backing USDC stablecoins. While USDC is designed to maintain a stable value at 1 U.S. dollar at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 (and remained below for multiple days) after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that $3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered FDIC receivership earlier that day. Popular stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. banking system and U.S. treasuries, and the failure of either to function normally could impede the function of stablecoins or lead to outsized redemption requests, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Some stablecoins have been asserted to be securities under the federal securities laws. For example, on June 5, 2023, the SEC alleged in a complaint that the stablecoin BUSD, a U.S. dollar stablecoin issued by Binance, was a “crypto asset security” and that Binance “offered and sold to U.S. investors as part of a profit-earning scheme within the Binance ecosystem.” In another example, the District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants’ motion to dismiss an SEC complaint asserting that the stablecoin UST, a U.S. dollar stablecoin issued by Terra, is a security. Further public concern about the possible security status of stablecoins manifested in November 2023, when the financial technology company PayPal disclosed in a filing that it had received a subpoena from the SEC relating to the PayPal USD stablecoin that requested the production of documents. A determination that a popular stablecoin is a security could lead to outsized redemption requests, and therefore could adversely affect the broader value of the Shares.

Given the role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for ZEN. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in, and/or materially and adversely affect the prices of, digital assets more broadly.

Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins, or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as Bitcoin spot markets, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins and could impact the price of ZEN, and in turn, an investment in the Shares.

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

Moreover, even though NYSE Arca’s requests with respect to Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF, Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF and Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF were approved, there is no guarantee that a similar application to list Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca, or another national securities exchange, would be approved. In particular, Bitcoin is the only digital asset that the SEC has publicly indicated it does not currently view as a security, although the SEC, by action through delegated

authority approving exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based exchange-traded products, has implicitly taken the view that Ether is not a security. The Sponsor believes that the SEC is unlikely to approve a request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product that holds a digital asset that the SEC believes is a security. Moreover, even if the SEC took the view that a digital asset was not a security, based on prior spot exchange-traded product disapprovals, the existence of a CFTC-regulated futures market for the relevant digital asset would be central to the SEC’s approval of any request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product holding such digital asset. As of the date hereof, there are only CFTC-regulated futures markets for a limited number of digital assets, including Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash and Dogecoin. As such, there exist significant barriers to obtaining regulatory approval to list the shares of other digital asset investment vehicles, including the Shares of the Trust. Investors should not assume that recent approvals of spot Bitcoin and spot Ether exchange-traded products will subsequently lead to approval of spot exchange-traded products holding other digital assets, such as the Trust. Accordingly, there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be successful in listing the Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca even if the Sponsor decides to do so.

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 beyond those for funds holding Bitcoin or Ether continue to be 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.

Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares

The Trust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the replacement of such service providers could pose achallenges ~~challenge~~ to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ZEN and to the operations of the Trust.

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

If the Sponsor decides, or is required, to replace Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC as the custodian of the Trust’s ZEN, transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Digital Asset Account to another party will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s ZEN 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.

Moreover, the legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by a third-party custodian, such as the Custodian, in insolvency proceedings are currently uncertain. The Custodian Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Digital Asset Account as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. The Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc., has stated in its public securities filings that in light of the inclusion in its custody agreements of provisions relating to Article 8 it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate in the event the Custodian were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. If the Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied digital assets were part of the Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust could be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets.

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

68The Trust is an “emerging growth company” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make the Shares less attractive to investors.

The Trust is an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and intends to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding

executive compensation in its periodic reports and exemptions from the requirement of shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. The Trust intends to take advantage of these reporting exemptions until it is no longer an emerging growth company. The Sponsor and the Trust cannot predict if investors will find the Shares less attractive because the Trust will rely on these exemptions. The Trust will remain an emerging growth company for up to five years after its initial public offering, although it will lose that status sooner if the Trust has more than $1.235 billion of revenues in a fiscal year, has more than $700 million in market value of Shares held by non-affiliates as of any June 30 or issues more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a rolling three-year period. If some investors find the Shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for the Shares and the price of the Shares may be more volatile.

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 Reference Rate Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.

Shares purchased in ~~the~~a private placement are subject to a holding period under Rule 144. Pursuant to Rule 144, the minimum holding period for Shares purchased in ~~the~~a 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 ZEN to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Reference Rate Price. As a result, the value of the Shares of the Trust may not approximate the value of the Trust’s NAV 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 NAV per Share. For example, in the past, the price of the Shares as quoted on OTCQX varied significantly from the NAV per Share due to these factors, among others, and has historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.

The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market.

The Trust’s NAV per Share will fluctuate with changes in the market value of ZEN, and the Sponsor expects the trading price of the Shares to fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Trust’s NAV per Share, as well as market supply and demand. However, the Shares may trade on OTCQX at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share for a variety of reasons. For example, OTCQX is open for trading in the Shares for a limited period each day, but the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market is a 24-hour marketplace. During periods when OTCQX is closed but Digital Asset Trading Platforms are open, significant changes in the price of ZEN on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market could result in a difference in performance between the value of ZEN as measured by the Reference Rate and the most recent NAV per Share or closing trading price. For example, if the price of ZEN on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and the value of ZEN as measured by the Reference Rate, 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 ZEN on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market drops significantly during hours OTCQX is closed, shareholders may not be able to sell their Shares until after the “gap” down has been fully realized, resulting in an inability to mitigate losses in a ~~rapidly~~ negative market. Even during periods when OTCQX is open, large Digital Asset Trading Platforms (or a substantial number of smaller Digital Asset Trading Platforms) may be lightly traded or closed for any number of reasons, which could increase trading spreads and widen any premium or discount on the Shares.

Shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment if the Shares trade above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share.

Historically, the Shares have traded at both premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, which at times have been substantial. 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 or discount at which the Shares have traded has fluctuated over time. From October 19, 2021 to September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 766% and the average premium was ~~223~~207%. From October 19, 2021 to September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 54%, and the average discount was 20%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between October 19, 2021 and September 30, ~~2024~~2025, has been quoted at a discount on ~~348~~357 days. As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the last business day of the period, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a premium of ~~492~~21% to the Trust’s NAV 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 NAV 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 NAV per Share increases because the decrease in any premium or increase in any discount may offset any increase in the NAV 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 NAV Fee Basis Amount, which is based on the NAV of the Trust, and is paid to the Sponsor in ZEN. See “Item 1. Business—Valuation of ZEN and Determination of NAV—Disposition of ZEN, 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 ZEN 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 ZEN.

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of ZEN and the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate 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 ZEN 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

•

Although the Horizen Network has removed some privacy enhancing features, service providers may decide to terminate their relationships with the Trust due to concerns that ZEN’s remaining privacy features, or the introduction of additional privacy enhancing features to the Horizen Network, may increase the potential for ZEN 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 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.

There is no guarantee that an active trading market for the Shares will continue to develop.

to list the Shares on NYSE Arca sometime in the future, and NYSE Arca must receive approval from the SEC in order to list the Shares, but is not currently seeking approval for required rule changes and currently has no intention to do so. Even if such approval were sought in the future, there can be no guarantee that the Shares will ever be listed on NYSE Arca.

The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of 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. Because the Sponsor does not believe that the SEC would, at this time, entertain an application for the waiver of rules needed in order to operate an ongoing redemption program, the Sponsor currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval from the SEC for the Trust to operate an ongoing redemption program, and significant barriers to regulatory approval for any request to list the shares of other digital asset investment vehicles, including the Shares of the Trust, remain. Absent the institution of such redemption program, the Shares may trade at a discount in the future, and may do so indefinitely. 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.

Affiliates of the Trust previously entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC concerning the operation of one such affiliate’s former redemption programs.

On April 1, 2014, Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, an affiliate of the Trust, launched a program pursuant to which its shareholders could request redemptions from Genesis, an affiliate of the Trust and the sole Authorized Participant of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF 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 Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF’s redemption program, in which its 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 Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF was in the process of creating shares. On July 11, 2016, Genesis and Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF 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 instate a 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. The Sponsor may also seek to list the Shares on NYSE Arca sometime in the future, and NYSE Arca must receive approval from the SEC in order to list the Shares, but is not currently seeking approval for required rule changes and currently has no intention to do so. Even if such approval were sought in the future, there can be no guarantee that the Shares will ever be listed on NYSE Arca. See “—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.”

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 ZEN 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 ZEN 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 ZEN 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 ZEN. 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 ZEN) 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.

ZEN transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred ZEN may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed ZEN transactions could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

ZEN 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 ZEN 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 ZEN 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 ZEN 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. 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 ZEN through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred ZEN. The Trust will also be unable to convert or recover its ZEN 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 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 ZEN 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 insures the Trust’s ZEN.

While the Custodian is required under the Custodian Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that is commercially reasonable for the custodial services it provides, and the Custodian has advised the Sponsor that ~~they~~it ~~maintain~~maintains insurance coverage at commercially reasonable amounts for the digital assets custodied on behalf of clients, including the Trust’s ZEN, shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s ZEN. Moreover, while the Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody and to the extent required by applicable law, 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, Coinbase has represented in securities filings that the total value of crypto assets in its possession and control is significantly greater than the total value of insurance coverage that would compensate Coinbase in the event of theft or other loss of funds.

Furthermore, under the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian’s liability with respect to the Trust will never exceed the value of the ZEN 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 ZEN with a value in excess of 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 ZEN deposited in cold storage addresses for whether the Cold Storage Threshold has been met by determining the U.S. dollar value of ZEN 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 ZEN to the extent that the Custodian directly caused such loss through a breach of 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 ZEN. 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.

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 ZEN, is limited. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s ZEN 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.

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 ZEN is lower than the Reference Rate Price was at the time when shareholders purchased their Shares. In such a case, when the Trust’s ZEN is 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—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.

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—Fiduciary and Regulatory Duties of the Sponsor” for more detail.

The Sponsor is solely responsible for determining the value of the NAV and NAV 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 NAV and NAV 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 Reference Rate Price, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such day. If the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Reference Rate does not reflect an accurate ZEN price, then the Sponsor will employ an alternative method to determine the Reference Rate Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable.” In the context of applying such rules, the Sponsor may determine in good faith that the alternative method applied does not reflect an accurate ZEN price and apply the next alternative method under the cascading set of rules. If the Sponsor determines after employing all of the alternative methods that the Reference Rate Price does not reflect an accurate ZEN price, the Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Reference Rate Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment in these scenarios and such decisions will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion. The Sponsor may calculate the Reference Rate Price in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of ZEN. To the extent that the NAV, NAV per Share or the Reference Rate 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 Reference Rate Price used to calculate the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust. Any such change in the Reference Rate Price could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust.

cascading set of rules set forth in “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEN Industry and Market—ZEN Value—The Reference Rate and the Reference Rate Price—Determination of the Reference Rate Price When Reference Rate Price is Unavailable.” In the context of applying such rules, the Sponsor may determine in good faith that the alternative method applied does not reflect an accurate ZEN price and apply the next alternative method under the cascading set of rules. If the Sponsor determines after employing all of the alternative methods that the Reference Rate Price does not reflect an accurate ZEN price, the Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Reference Rate Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment in these scenarios and such decisions will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion. The Sponsor may calculate the Reference Rate Price in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of ZEN. To the extent that the NAV, NAV per Share or the Reference Rate 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 Reference Rate Price used to calculate the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust. Any such change in the Reference Rate 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 ZEN.” 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 ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency held by the Trust or (ii) deliver ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in-kind to the Sponsor 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 ZEN, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency at a time when the trading prices for those assets are depressed.

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 ZEN, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Consequently, if the Trust incurs expenses in U.S. dollars, the Trust’s ZEN, 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 ZEN, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to the Sponsor or sell ZEN, 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 ZEN, 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~~Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

The Trust’s delivery or sale of ZEN 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 ZEN by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses and each sale of ZEN 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~~Material 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 NAV 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 ZEN, 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 ZEN, 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 ZEN, 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 ZEN, 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.

Pandemics, epidemics and other natural and man-made disasters could negatively impact the value of the Trust’s holdings and/or significantly disrupt its affairs.

Pandemics, epidemics and other natural and man-made disasters could negatively impact demand for digital assets, including ZEN, and disrupt the operations of many businesses, including the businesses of the Trust’s service providers. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic had serious adverse effects on the economies and financial markets of many countries, resulting in increased volatility and uncertainty in economies and financial markets of many countries and in the Digital Asset Markets. Moreover, governmental authorities and regulators throughout the world have in the past responded to major economic disruptions, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, 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 any such policies, or the ineffectiveness of such policies, could 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 ZEN and the value of the Shares.

In addition, pandemics, epidemics and other natural and man-made disasters could disrupt the operations of many businesses. For example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments imposed travel restrictions and prolonged, closed international borders and enhanced health screenings at ports of entry and elsewhere, which disrupted businesses around the world. While the Sponsor and the Trust were not materially impacted by these events, any disruptions to the Sponsor’s, the Trust’s or the Trust’s service providers’ business operations resulting from business restrictions, quarantines or restrictions on the ability of personnel to perform their jobs as a result of any future pandemic, epidemic or other disaster could have an adverse impact on the Trust’s ability to access critical services and could be disruptive to the affairs of the Trust.

Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares

~~Depending~~The onSEC, ~~its~~at ~~characteristics~~least under the prior administration, ahas stated that certain digital ~~asset~~assets may be considered a “~~security~~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. ~~Public~~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 ~~does~~did not consider Bitcoin or Ether to be securities, and does not currently consider Bitcoin to be a security. In addition, the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving the exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based ETPs, appears to have implicitly taken the view that Ether is not a security. The SEC staff has also provided informal assurances via no-action letter to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. OnMoreover, the ~~other~~SEC’s ~~hand~~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 ~~has~~or the SEC itself. In addition the SEC under former SEC Chair Gensler’s leadership brought enforcement actions against the issuers and promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities. More recently, the SEC ~~has~~under ~~also~~former SEC Chair Gensler’s leadership brought enforcement actions against Digital Asset Trading Platforms for allegedly operating unregistered securities exchanges on the basis that certain of the digital assets traded on their platforms are securities.

Whether a digital asset is a security, or offers and sales of a digital asset are securities transactions, under the federal securities laws depends on whether it is included in the lists of instruments making up the definition of “security” in ~~the~~such ~~Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act~~laws. 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, or offer and sale of a 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, or offer and sale of a 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, though recent arguments advanced in ongoing litigation may suggest that the SEC no longer believes the status of a digital asset can change over time.

As part of determining whether ZEN is a security, or transactions in ZEN by the Sponsor are securities transactions, 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 and their progeny, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by 74

75such 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 or the offer and sale of a digital asset is a securities transaction 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 or a particular offer and sale of a digital asset qualifying as a securities transaction 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, though recent arguments advanced in ongoing litigation may suggest that the SEC no longer believes the status of a digital asset can change over time.

~~the~~These ~~SEC,~~developments ~~its~~demonstrate ~~commissioners~~the ~~and~~difficulty ~~its~~in ~~staff~~applying ~~providing~~the ~~guidance~~federal onsecurities ~~when~~laws ato digital ~~asset,~~assets orgenerally. ~~offer~~In ~~and~~January ~~sale~~2025, ofthe SEC launched a ~~digital~~crypto ~~asset,~~task ~~may~~force bededicated to developing a ~~security~~comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for ~~purposes~~digital ofassets ~~the~~led ~~federal~~by ~~securities~~Commissioner ~~laws~~Hester Peirce. ~~Finally~~Subsequently, ~~the~~Commissioner ~~Sponsor~~Peirce ~~discusses~~announced ~~the~~a ~~security~~list ~~status~~ of ~~ZEN~~specific ~~and~~priorities ~~the~~to ~~Sponsor~~further that initiative, which included pursuing final rules related to a digital asset’s ~~transactions~~security instatus, ~~ZEN~~a ~~with~~revised ~~external~~path ~~counsel,~~to registered offerings and ~~has~~listings ~~received~~for adigital ~~memorandum~~assets-based investment vehicles, and clarity regarding ~~the~~digital ~~status~~asset ofcustody, ~~ZEN~~lending, and ~~the~~staking. ~~Sponsor’s~~On ~~transactions~~July in31, ~~ZEN~~2025, ~~under~~Chairman ~~the~~Atkins ~~federal~~announced “Project Crypto,” a Commission-wide initiative to modernize securities ~~laws~~rules ~~from~~for ~~external~~digital ~~counsel.~~assets, ~~Through~~reshore ~~this~~innovation ~~process~~in the ~~Sponsor~~United ~~believes~~States, ~~that~~and itimplement isthe ~~applying~~recommendations of the ~~proper~~working ~~legal~~group ~~standards~~report. inChairman ~~determining~~Atkins ~~that~~had ~~ZEN~~directed isthe ~~not~~SEC’s apolicy ~~security~~divisions into ~~light~~work ofwith the ~~uncertainties~~Crypto ~~inherent~~Task inForce ~~the~~to ~~Howey~~draft “clear and ~~Reves~~simple ~~tests.~~rules ~~The~~of ~~Sponsor~~the ~~has~~road ~~been~~for ~~contacted~~crypto byasset ~~staff~~distributions, ~~from~~custody, and trading,” and the Commission and SEC’s ~~Divisions~~staff ofwill ~~Corporation~~also ~~Finance~~consider using interpretive, exemptive, and ~~Enforcement~~other authorities with respect to ~~securities~~digital ~~law~~asset ~~compliance~~markets. ~~matters~~However, ~~involving~~the ~~ZEN~~efforts of the crypto task force and isProject ~~engaged~~Crypto inhave ~~discussions~~only ~~with~~just begun, and how or whether the SEC ~~staff~~regulates digital asset activity in the future remains to be seen.

As part of determining whether ZEN is a security or a transaction in ZEN by the Sponsor is a securities transaction, 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 and their progeny, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC, its commissioners and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security or when an offer and sale of a digital asset may be a securities transaction for purposes of the federal securities laws. Finally, the Sponsor discusses the security status of ZEN and the Sponsor’s transactions in ZEN with external counsel, and has received a memorandum regarding the status of ZEN and the Sponsor’s transactions in ZEN under the federal securities laws from external counsel. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that ZEN is not a security in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests. However, such policies and procedures are risk-based judgments made by the Sponsor and not a legal standard or determination binding on any regulatory body or court.

In light of these uncertainties and the fact-based nature of the analysis, the Sponsor acknowledges that the SEC may take a contrary position; and the Sponsor’s 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 ZEN, analyses from counsel typically review the often-complex facts surrounding a particular digital asset’s underlying technology, creation, use case and usage, development, distribution and secondary-market trading characteristics as well as contributions ~~and~~ of and marketing or promotional efforts by 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, or transactions in the digital asset, in question is or is not a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, for purposes of the federal securities laws. Often, certain factors appear to support a conclusion that the digital asset in question, or transactions in the digital asset, is a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, 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 limited and in some situations inconsistent, 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 receive, “opinions” of counsel stating that a particular digital asset, or transactions in the digital asset, is or is not a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, 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 ZEN or any other particular digital asset.

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 ZEN or any other particular digital asset.

As such, notwithstanding the Sponsor’s receipt of a memorandum regarding the status of ZEN under the federal securities laws from external counsel and the Sponsor’s view that ZEN is not a security and the Sponsor’s transactions in ZEN are not securities transactions, the SEC or a federal court may in the future take a different view as to the security status of ZEN.

If the Sponsor determines that ZEN, or transactions in ZEN, isare a security or securities transactions, respectively, under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because a federal court upholds an allegation that ZEN is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding ZEN in a way that would violate the federal securities laws (and therefore would either dissolve the Trust or potentially seek to operate the Trust in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act). Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset, or transactions in the digital asset, isare or isare not a security or securities transactions, respectively, often leave room for interpretation, for so long as the Sponsor believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that the Trust’s ZEN is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that ZEN could at some future point be finally determined to be a security.

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that ZEN, or transactions in ZEN, isare a security, or securities transactions, respectively, or a court decision to that effect, would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of ZEN, 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, or transactions in that digital asset, isare determined to be a security or securities transactions, respectively, 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. Any assertion that a digital asset, or transactions in that digital asset, isare a security or securities transactions, respectively, by the SEC or another regulatory authority may have similar effects.

For example, in 2020 the SEC filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through XRP sales that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. In the years prior to the SEC’s action, XRP’s market capitalization at times reached over $140 billion. However, in the weeks following the SEC’s complaint, XRP’s market capitalization fell to less than $10 billion, which was less than half of its market capitalization in the days prior to the complaint.

Subsequently, in July 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that while XRP is not a “security,” certain sales of XRP to certain buyers (but not other types of sales to other buyers) amounted to “investment contracts” under the Howey test. The District Court entered a final judgment in the case on August 7, 2024 and the parties each dismissed their appeals to the Second Circuit on August 7, 2025.

Likewise, in the days following the announcement of SEC enforcement actions against certain digital asset issuers and trading platforms, the prices of various digital assets have declined significantly and may continue to decline as such cases advance through the federal court system. Furthermore, the decisions in cases involving digital assets have resulted in seemingly inconsistent views of different district court judges, including one that explicitly disagreed with the analysis underlying the decision regarding XRP, which underscore the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets, or transactions in digital assets, are securities and what the correct analysis is to determine each digital asset’s status. For example, the conflicting district court opinions and analyses demonstrate that factors such as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is, the manner in which it is offered, sold or promoted, and whether it has actual use in commercial transactions, ultimately may have limited or no bearing on whether the SEC, a state securities regulator or any particular court will find it to be a security.

In addition, if ZEN, or transactions in ZEN are in fact a security, or securities transactions, respectively, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under the Investment Company Act, 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 investment company 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 determination that the Trust’s assets include securities or the Trust’s transactions in digital assets constitute securities transactions, the Sponsor may nevertheless decide to terminate the Trust, in order, if possible, to liquidate the Trust’s assets while a liquid market still exists. For example, in response to the SEC’s action against the issuer of the digital asset XRP, certain significant market participants announced they would no longer support XRP and announced measures, including the delisting of XRP from major Digital Asset Trading Platforms, resulting in the Sponsor’s conclusion that it was likely to be increasingly difficult for U.S. investors, including

~~For~~Grayscale ~~example,~~XRP inTrust ~~2020~~(XRP), ~~the~~an ~~SEC~~affiliate ~~filed~~of ~~a complaint against~~ the ~~issuer~~Trust, ofto convert XRP, ~~Ripple~~into ~~Labs,~~U.S. ~~Inc~~dollars., ~~and~~The ~~two~~Sponsor ofsubsequently ~~its~~dissolved ~~executives,~~Grayscale ~~alleging~~XRP ~~that~~Trust ~~they~~(XRP) ~~raised~~and ~~more~~liquidated ~~than~~its $1assets.3 ~~billion~~The ~~through~~Sponsor ~~XRP~~has ~~sales~~since ~~that~~established ~~should~~a ~~have~~new ~~been~~investment ~~registered~~vehicle ~~under~~that ~~the~~holds ~~federal securities laws~~XRP, ~~but~~Grayscale ~~were~~XRP ~~not~~Trust. InIf the ~~years~~SEC ~~prior~~or toa ~~the~~federal ~~SEC’s~~court ~~action,~~were ~~XRP’s~~to ~~market~~determine ~~capitalization~~that atZEN ~~times~~is ~~reached~~a ~~over~~security ~~$140~~or ~~billion.~~transactions ~~However,~~ in ~~the~~ZEN ~~weeks~~are ~~following~~securities ~~the SEC’s complaint~~transactions, ~~XRP’s~~it ~~market~~is ~~capitalization~~likely ~~fell~~that tothe ~~less~~value ~~than~~of ~~$10~~the ~~billion,~~Shares ~~which was less than half~~ of ~~its market capitalization in~~ the ~~days~~Trust ~~prior~~would todecline ~~the complaint~~significantly. ~~Subsequently~~Furthermore, inif ~~July~~a ~~2023,~~federal ~~the~~court ~~District~~upholds ~~Court~~an ~~for~~allegation ~~the Southern District of New York held~~ that ~~while~~ZEN ~~XRP~~ is ~~not~~ a security, ~~certain~~or ~~sales~~transactions ofin ~~XRP~~ZEN toare ~~certain~~securities ~~buyers~~transactions, ~~(but not other types of sales to other buyers) amounted to “investment contracts” under~~ the ~~Howey~~Trust ~~test.~~itself ~~The~~may ~~District~~be ~~Court~~terminated ~~entered a final judgment in the case on August 7~~and, ~~2024.~~if ~~In October 2024~~practical, ~~the~~its ~~SEC~~assets ~~filed a notice of appeal~~liquidated.

Likewise, in the days following the announcement of SEC enforcement actions against certain digital asset issuers and trading platforms, the price of various digital assets have declined significantly and may continue to decline as such cases advance through the federal court system. Furthermore, the decisions in cases involving digital assets have resulted in seemingly inconsistent views of different district court judges, including one that explicitly disagreed with the analysis underlying the decision regarding XRP, which underscore the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets, or transactions in digital assets, are securities and what the correct analysis is to determine each digital asset’s status. For example, the conflicting district court opinions and analyses demonstrate that factors such as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is, the manner in which it is offered, sold or promoted, and whether it has actual use in commercial transactions, ultimately may have limited to no bearing on whether the SEC, a state securities regulator or any particular court will find it to be a security.

In addition, if ZEN, or transactions in ZEN, is in fact a security, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under the Investment Company Act, 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 investment company 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 determination that the Trust’s assets or the Trust’s transactions include securities, the Sponsor may nevertheless decide to terminate the Trust, in order, if possible, to liquidate the Trust’s assets while a liquid market still exists. For example, in response to the SEC’s action against the issuer of the digital asset XRP, certain significant market participants announced they would no longer support XRP and announced measures, including the delisting of XRP from major Digital Asset Trading Platforms, resulting in the Sponsor’s conclusion that it was likely to be increasingly difficult for U.S. investors, including Grayscale XRP Trust (XRP), an affiliate of the Trust, to convert XRP into U.S. dollars. The Sponsor subsequently dissolved Grayscale XRP Trust (XRP) and liquidated its assets. The Sponsor has since established a new investment vehicle that holds XRP, Grayscale XRP Trust. If the SEC or a federal court were to determine that ZEN is a security or transactions in ZEN are securities, it is likely that the value of the Shares of the Trust would decline significantly. Furthermore, if a federal court upholds an allegation that ZEN is a security or transactions in ZEN are securities, the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.

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, OFAC, SEC, CFTC, FINRA, ~~the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau~~CFPB, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and state financial institution and securities 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, evade sanctions, or fund criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness of trading platforms and other service providers that hold or custody 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 ZEN 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.

InOn ~~August~~January ~~2021~~23, ~~the~~2025, ~~chair~~President ofTrump ~~the~~issued ~~SEC~~an ~~stated~~executive ~~that~~order hetitled ~~believed~~“Strengthening ~~investors~~American ~~using~~Leadership ~~digital~~in ~~asset~~Digital ~~trading~~Financial ~~platforms~~Technology” ~~are~~aimed ~~not~~at ~~adequately~~supporting ~~protected,~~“the responsible growth and ~~that~~use ~~activities~~of ondigital ~~the~~assets, ~~platforms~~blockchain ~~can~~technology, ~~implicate~~and ~~the~~related ~~securities~~technologies ~~laws,~~across ~~commodities~~all ~~laws~~sectors ~~and~~of ~~banking~~the ~~laws,~~economy.” ~~raising~~The aExecutive ~~number~~Order ofalso ~~issues~~established ~~related~~an tointeragency ~~protecting~~working ~~investors~~group ~~and~~that ~~consumers,~~is ~~guarding~~tasked ~~against~~with ~~illicit~~“proposing ~~activity,~~a ~~and~~Federal ~~ensuring~~regulatory ~~financial~~framework ~~stability.~~governing ~~The~~the ~~chair~~issuance ~~expressed~~and aoperation ~~need~~of ~~for~~digital ~~the~~assets” ~~SEC~~in tothe ~~have~~United ~~additional~~States. ~~authorities~~Pursuant to ~~prevent~~this ~~transactions,~~Executive ~~products~~Order, ~~and~~the ~~platforms~~working ~~from~~group ~~“falling~~released ~~between~~a ~~regulatory~~report ~~cracks,”~~in asJuly ~~well~~2025 asoutlining ~~for~~the ~~more~~administration's ~~resources~~recommendations to ~~protect~~Congress ~~investors~~and invarious agencies reflecting the administrations “~~this~~pro-innovation ~~growing~~mindset toward digital assets and ~~volatile~~blockchain ~~sector~~technologies.” ~~The~~In ~~chair~~particular, ~~called~~the ~~for~~report ~~federal~~recommends that Congress enact legislation ~~centering~~regarding onself ~~digital~~custody ~~asset~~of ~~trading,~~digital ~~lending~~assets, ~~and~~clarifying ~~decentralized~~the ~~finance~~applicability ~~platforms,~~of ~~seeking~~Bank ~~“additional~~Secrecy ~~plenary~~Act ~~authority”~~obligations towith ~~write~~respect ~~rules~~to ~~for~~ digital asset ~~trading~~service ~~and~~providers, ~~lending.~~granting ~~There~~the ~~have~~CFTC ~~also~~authority ~~been~~to ~~several~~regulate ~~bills~~spot ~~introduced~~markets in ~~Congress~~non-security ~~that~~digital ~~propose~~assets, toprohibiting ~~establish~~the ~~additional~~adoption ~~regulation~~of a CBDC, and ~~oversight~~clarifying oftax ~~the~~laws ~~digital~~as ~~asset~~relevant ~~markets~~to digital assets. In ~~connection~~addition, ~~with~~the ~~these~~report ~~developments~~recommends that agencies reevaluate existing guidance on digital asset activities, ~~the~~use ~~SEC~~existing ~~has~~authorities ~~taken~~to aenable ~~number~~the trading of ~~actions.~~digital ~~For~~assets ~~example~~at the federal level, inembrace ~~February~~DeFi, ~~2023~~launch ~~the~~or ~~SEC~~relaunch ~~proposed~~crypto ~~amendments~~innovation toefforts, ~~the~~and ~~custody~~promote ~~rules~~U.S. ~~under~~private ~~Rule~~sector ~~206(4)-2~~leadership ofin the ~~Investment~~responsible development of cross-border payments and financial markets technologies, among others.

There have also been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets. For example, the CLARITY Act was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2025, which would, if enacted, regulate digital asset markets and digital asset trading platforms in the United States. In addition, also in July 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (the “GENIUS Act”) became the first federal law specifically regulating the issuance, custody and other stablecoin-related matters in the United States. It is difficult to predict whether, or when, the CLARITY Act or another bill that would regulate digital asset markets and digital asset trading platforms may become law or what any such bill may entail. It is also difficult to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of Digital Asset Markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and ZEN 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.

~~Advisers~~following ~~Act.~~the ~~The~~update, ~~proposed~~the ~~rule~~Horizen ~~changes~~Network ~~would~~will ~~amend~~no ~~the~~longer ~~definition~~support oftransactions afrom ~~“qualified~~unshielded ~~custodian”~~addresses ~~under~~to ~~Rule~~shielded ~~206(4)-2(d)(6)~~addresses. ~~and~~It ~~expand~~is unclear the ~~current~~removal ~~custody~~of ~~rule~~those inkinds ~~206(4)-2~~of toshielded ~~cover~~transactions ~~digital~~from ~~assets~~Horizen ~~and~~would ~~related~~mitigate ~~advisory~~these ~~activities.~~concerns Ifby ~~enacted~~regulators, aslaw ~~proposed~~enforcement agencies, ~~these~~and ~~rules~~other ~~would~~digital ~~likely~~asset ~~impose~~market ~~additional~~participants. ~~regulatory~~Additionally, ~~requirements~~in ~~with~~October ~~respect~~2023, toFinCEN ~~the~~issued ~~custody~~a ~~and~~notice ~~storage~~ of ~~digital~~proposed ~~assets~~rulemaking ~~and~~that ~~could~~identified ~~lead~~convertible tovirtual ~~additional~~currency ~~regulatory~~(CVC) ~~oversight~~mixing as a class of ~~the~~transactions ~~digital~~of ~~asset~~primary ~~ecosystem~~money ~~more~~laundering ~~broadly.~~concern Itand isproposed ~~also~~requiring ~~possible~~covered ~~that~~financial ainstitutions ~~new~~to ~~Administration~~implement certain recordkeeping and areporting ~~new~~requirements ~~Congress~~on intransactions ~~the~~that ~~United~~covered ~~States~~financial ~~proposes~~institutions ~~new~~know, ~~laws~~suspect, ~~and~~or ~~regulations~~have ~~related~~reason to ~~digital~~suspect ~~assets.~~involve ~~Moreover,~~CVC mixing within or involving jurisdictions outside the ~~failure~~United ofStates. ~~FTX~~In inApril ~~November~~2024, ~~2022~~the DOJ arrested and charged the ~~resulting~~developers ~~market~~of ~~turmoil~~the ~~substantially~~Samourai ~~increased~~Wallet ~~regulatory~~mixing ~~scrutiny~~service inwith ~~the~~conspiracy ~~United~~to ~~States~~commit ~~and~~money ~~globally~~laundering and ~~led~~conspiracy to ~~SEC~~operate ~~and~~an ~~criminal~~unlicensed ~~investigations~~money transmitting business. In May 2024, ~~enforcement~~a ~~actions~~co-founder ~~and~~of ~~other~~Tornado ~~regulatory~~Cash ~~activity~~was ~~across~~sentenced ~~the~~to ~~digital~~more ~~asset~~than ~~ecosystem.~~five ~~For~~years ~~example,~~imprisonment in ~~June~~the ~~2023,~~Netherlands for developing Tornado Cash on the ~~SEC~~basis ~~brought~~that ~~enforcement~~he ~~actions~~had ~~against~~helped ~~Binance~~launder ~~and~~more ~~Coinbase,~~than ~~two~~$2 ofbillion ~~the~~worth ~~largest~~of digital ~~asset~~assets ~~trading~~through ~~platforms~~Tornado Cash. In August 2025, ~~alleging~~a ~~that~~co-founder ~~Binance~~of ~~and~~Tornado ~~Coinbase~~Cash ~~operated~~was ~~unregistered~~convicted ~~securities~~of ~~exchanges,~~conspiracy ~~brokerages~~to ~~and~~operate ~~clearing~~an ~~agencies.~~unlicensed Inmoney ~~addition~~transmitting business, inbut ~~November~~a ~~2023,~~mistrial ~~the~~was ~~SEC~~declared ~~brought~~with ~~similar~~respect to charges ~~against~~of ~~Kraken,~~conspiracy ~~alleging~~to ~~that~~commit itmoney ~~operated~~laundering asand anconspiracy ~~unregistered~~to ~~securities~~violate ~~exchange,~~U.S. ~~brokerage~~sanctions. ~~and~~Future ~~clearing~~additional ~~agency~~regulatory action with respect to privacy-enhancing digital assets is possible.

It is difficult to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of Digital Asset Markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and ZEN 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, including the Horizen Network. These features, including those adopted by the Horizen Network or which may be introduced on the Horizen Network in the future, 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. In August 2022, OFAC banned all transactions by U.S. persons or in the United States involving Tornado Cash, a digital asset protocol designed to obfuscate blockchain transactions, by adding Tornado Cash and certain Ethereum wallet addresses associated with the protocol to its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. A large portion of validators globally, as well as notable industry participants such as Centre, the issuer of the USDC stablecoin, have reportedly complied with the sanctions and blacklisted the sanctioned addresses from interacting with their networks. In September 2022, the Digital Asset Trading Platform Huobi delisted seven digital assets with privacy preserving features, including ZEN, a move that Huobi explained was “in compliance with the latest financial regulations.” However, in September 2023, the Horizen protocol implemented an update intended to deprecate these privacy shields, with the intent of causing it to no longer be considered a “privacy coin,” and, following the update, the Horizen Network will no longer support transactions from unshielded addresses to shielded addresses. It is unclear the removal of those kinds of shielded transactions from Horizen would mitigate these concerns by regulators, law enforcement agencies, and other digital asset market participants. Additionally, in October 2023, FinCEN issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that identified convertible virtual currency (CVC) mixing as a class of transactions of primary money laundering concern and proposed requiring covered financial institutions to implement certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements on transactions that covered financial institutions know, suspect, or have reason to suspect involve CVC mixing within or involving jurisdictions outside the United States. In April 2024, the DOJ arrested and charged the developers of the Samourai Wallet mixing service with conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. In May 2024, a co-founder of Tornado Cash was sentenced to more than five years imprisonment in the Netherlands for developing Tornado Cash on the basis that he had helped launder more than $2 billion worth of digital assets through Tornado Cash. Additional regulatory action with respect to privacy-enhancing digital assets is possible in the future differently, this may change in the future.

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, with the exception of funds that hold Bitcoin, Ether and certain Bitcoin-based derivatives or Ether-based derivatives, the SEC has not yet approved the listing on a national securities exchange of any non-futures based digital-asset focused exchange-traded fund or exchange-traded product (such product, an “ETF”). If the SEC were to approve any ~~such~~ ETF other than ours 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~~may ~~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, although its influence over public policy is increasing, and it ~~does~~may 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 digital asset platforms, which could adversely impact the value of ZEN and therefore the value of the Shares.

78Regulatory changes or other events in foreign jurisdictions may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of one or more digital assets, block production activity or the operation of their networks or the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares.

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 digital asset platforms, which could adversely impact the value of ZEN and therefore 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 Trading Platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example, if foreign jurisdictions in addition to China 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 Horizen 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. 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. A new law, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (“FSMA”), received royal assent in June 2023. The FSMA brings digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets. In addition, the Parliament of the European Union approved the text of MiCA in April 2023, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. Certain parts of MiCA became effective as of June 2024 and the remainder ~~will~~became ~~start~~effective ~~to apply~~ as of December 2024. MiCA is intended to serve as a comprehensive regulation of digital asset markets and imposes various obligations on digital asset issuers and service providers. The main aims of MiCA are industry regulation, consumer protection, prevention of market abuse and upholding the integrity of digital asset markets. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEN 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 ZEN. Moreover, other events, such as the interruption in telecommunications or internet services, cyber-related terrorist acts, civil disturbances, war or other catastrophes, could also negatively affect the digital asset economy in one or more jurisdictions. For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 led to volatility in digital asset prices, with an initial steep decline followed by a sharp rebound in prices. The effect of any future regulatory change or other events on the Trust or ZEN is impossible to predict, and 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 Horizen 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 September 30, 2024, over 602 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 Horizen 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. For example, in November 2022, New York imposed a two-year moratorium on new proof-of-work mining permits at fossil fuel plants in the state. A significant reduction in mining activity as a result of such actions could adversely affect the security of the Horizen Network by making it easier for a malicious actor or botnet to manipulate the Blockchain. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Horizen Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Horizen Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Horizen Network 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 Horizen 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, the Trust or the Sponsor 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 ‘NYDFS’ BitLicense regulations or California’s Digital Financial Assets Law, once effective.

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, or registration, 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~~Statutory or 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 ZEN is treated. In particular, ZEN 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. It is also possible that a new Administration and Congress in the United States creates a new classification for digital assets. For example, the current draft of the CLARITY Act would add “digital commodities” to the list of assets that are commodity interests under the CEA. The Sponsor and the Trust cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of ZEN 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 ZEN is deemed to fall within the definition of a “commodity interest” under the CEA, , due to the passage of the CLARITY Act or otherwise, 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 ZEN at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

To the extent that ZEN is determined to be 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 ZEN at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

The treatment of the Trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes is uncertain.

If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge certain positions the Trust may take, including with respect to Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency, the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Sponsor has delivered the Pre-Creation Abandonment Notice to the Custodian stating that the Trust is abandoning irrevocably, ~~abandoning~~for no direct or indirect consideration, 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. 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 ZEN as of any date on which it creates Shares, it might cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

will be treated as effective for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If the Trust were treated as owning any asset other than ZEN 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.

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 assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes (as discussed ~~below~~above in “~~Certain~~Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets”), 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 assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes is uncertain.

As discussed in the section entitled “~~Certain~~Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets” ~~below~~above, 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 ZEN (and, if applicable, any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency) held in the Trust. Due to the new and evolving nature of digital assets and the absence of comprehensive guidance with respect to digital assets, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets are uncertain.

In 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released a notice (the “Notice”) discussing certain aspects of “convertible virtual currency” (that is, digital assets that have an equivalent value in fiat currency or that act as substitutes for fiat currency) for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, in particular, stating that such digital assets (i) are “property” (ii) are 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 assets are taxable events giving rise to ordinary income and guidance with respect to the determination of the tax basis of digital assets. However, the Notice and the Ruling & FAQs do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets. 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 assets 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 assets 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 ZEN. Future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For example, the Notice addresses only digital assets that are “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 assets that are not within the scope of the Notice.~~

and it is conceivable that, as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence, the Trust could hold certain types of digital assets 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 assets in general.

Future developments regarding the treatment of digital assets 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 assets, such as ZEN, are uncertain, and it is unclear what guidance on the treatment of digital assets 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 assets, including on the price of ZEN 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 assets, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets, including forks, airdrops and similar occurrences. Such developments may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital assets 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.

to the treatment of digital assets 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 assets 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 assets for state income tax purposes and/or (ii) have issued guidance exempting the purchase and/or sale of digital assets for fiat currency from state sales tax. However, it is unclear what further guidance on the treatment of digital assets for state tax purposes may be issued in the future.

The treatment of digital assets for tax purposes by non-U.S. jurisdictions may differ from the treatment of digital assets 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 assets for fiat currency. If a foreign jurisdiction with a significant share of the market of ZEN users imposes onerous tax burdens on digital asset users, or imposes sales or value-added tax on purchases and sales of digital assets for fiat currency, such actions could result in decreased demand for ZEN in such jurisdiction.

Any future guidance on the treatment of digital assets 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 assets, including on the price of ZEN 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” as 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 assets 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. See “~~Certain~~Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

The tax treatment of ZEN and transactions involving ZEN for state and local tax purposes is not settled.

Because ZEN is a new technological innovation, the tax treatment of ZEN for state and local tax purposes, including, without limitation state and local income and sales and use taxes, is not settled. It is uncertain what guidance, if any, on the treatment of ZEN for state and local tax purposes may be issued in the future. A state or local government authority’s treatment of ZEN may have negative consequences, including the imposition of a greater tax burden on investors in ZEN or the imposition of a greater cost on the acquisition and disposition of ZEN generally. Any such treatment may have a negative effect on prices of ZEN and may adversely affect the value of the 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~~Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders” ~~below~~above) 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. See “~~Certain~~Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

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 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 respective 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 ZEN 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 Reference Rate 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;

•

The Sponsor’s indirect parent company, DCG, and certain of its subsidiaries, including Grayscale Securities, LLC, hold 3418.4980% of the Shares representing ownership in the Trust, as of November 1820, ~~2024~~2025. On March 2, 2022, the board of directors of the Sponsor (the “Board”) approved the purchase by DCG, the indirect parent company of the Sponsor, of up to $10 million worth of Shares of the Trust. Subsequently, DCG authorized such purchase. From March 2, 2022 through June 30, 2022, DCG purchased a total of $0.01 million worth of Shares of the Trust. From July 1, 2022 through September 30, ~~2024~~2025, DCG had not purchased any Shares of the Trust under this authorization. ~~Additional~~However, in the event DCG chooses to purchase additional Shares of the Trust, such purchases would further increase DCG’s ownership interest in the Trust, which could ultimately result in DCG holding a majority of the Shares representing ownership in the Trust, and its interests as a shareholder may conflict with the interests of the Trust’s other shareholders;

•

Several employees of the Sponsor and the Sponsor’s indirect parent company, DCG, are FINRA-registered representatives who historically maintained their licenses through Genesis and currently maintain their licenses through Grayscale Securities;

•

DCG is (i) the sole ~~member~~equity holder and indirect parent company of the Sponsor, and ~~parent company of Genesis, a Liquidity Provider to the Authorized Participant from October 3, 2022 through September 12, 2023;~~ (ii) the indirect parent company of Grayscale Securities, the only acting Authorized Participant, as of the date of this Annual Report; (iii) formerly the indirect parent company of the Reference Rate Provider (prior to its sale to an unaffiliated third party on November 20, 2023); and (iv) a minority interest holder in Coinbase, Inc., which operates Coinbase, one of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate and the Trust’s principal market, and which is the parent company of the Custodian, 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 trading platforms and custodians. DCG’s positions on changes that should be adopted in the Horizen Network could be adverse to positions that would benefit the Trust or its shareholders. Additionally, before or after a hard fork on the Horizen Network, DCG’s position regarding which fork among a group of incompatible forks of the Horizen Network should be considered the “true” Horizen 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 ZEN. Any investments in, or public positions taken on, digital assets other than ZEN by DCG could have an adverse impact on the price of ZEN;

•

The Sponsor decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to perform services for the Trust;

•

The Sponsor and Grayscale Securities, which acts as Authorized Participant and distributor and marketer for the Shares, are affiliated parties that share a common indirect parent company, DCG;

•

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, and such agent may be the Sponsor or an affiliate of the Sponsor; and

•

The Sponsor has historically, and may again select a Reference Rate Provider that is an affiliate of the Sponsor and the Trust.

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, Authorized Participant, Liquidity Providers, 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 ZEN in arm’s-length transactions.

The Sponsor is the ~~parent~~an ~~company~~affiliate of Grayscale Securities, LLC, 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 ZEN. See “Item 1. Business—Description of Creation of Shares.” As the sole Authorized Participant, Grayscale Securities 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 Grayscale Securities, on the one hand, and the Trust and shareholders, on the other hand, in favor of Grayscale Securities (including, but not limited to, questions as to the calculation of the Basket Amount).

DCG is a minority interest holder in Coinbase, Inc., one of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate Price.

DCG, the sole member and indirect parent company of the Sponsor, holds a minority interest of less than 1.0% in Coinbase, Inc., which operates Coinbase. The Sponsor values its digital assets by reference to the Reference Rate Price. The Reference Rate Price is the price in U.S. dollars of a ZEN derived from the Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are reflected in the Reference Rate developed by CoinDesk Indices, Inc. as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. Coinbase is one of such Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Reference Rate.

Although DCG does not exercise control over Coinbase, it is possible that investors could have concerns that DCG could influence market data provided by this Digital Asset Trading Platform in a way that benefits DCG, for example by artificially inflating the values of ZEN 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 ZEN 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 ZEN.

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, if the Custodian resigns or is removed by the Sponsor, or otherwise, without replacement, it 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, and is licensed to custody the Trust’s ZEN in trust on the Trust’s behalf. However, the SEC has ~~recently~~ released proposed amendments to ~~rule~~Rule 206(4)-2 that, if enacted as proposed, would amend the definition of a “qualified custodian” under Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6). Executive officers of the Custodian’s parent company have made public statements indicating that the Custodian will remain a qualified custodian under the proposed SEC rule, if enacted as currently proposed. However, there can be no assurance that the Custodian would continue to qualify as a “qualified custodian” under a final rule.

Furthermore, 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 by the Sponsor or otherwise, without replacement, the Trust will dissolve in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement.

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.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

To prevent, detect and respond to information security threats, the Sponsor maintains a cyber risk management program. The program is supervised by an in-house dedicated Chief Information Security Officer (“CISO”), with over 15 years of experience in financial services risk management, whose team is responsible for leading enterprise-wide cybersecurity strategy, policy, standards, architecture, and processes. The Enterprise Risk Committee (“ERC”), which includes members of management of the Sponsor, receives regular reports from the CISO on, among other things, the Sponsor’s cyber risks and threats, the status of projects to strengthen the Sponsor’s information security systems, assessments of the Sponsor’s security program and the emerging threat landscape.

The ~~CISO~~ERC provides updates ~~the~~to ~~ERC and~~ the Board quarterly~~. These regular reports include the Sponsor’s performance preparing for~~, ~~preventing,~~including ~~detecting,~~on ~~responding~~changes to, ~~and~~security ~~recovering~~risks ~~from,~~and ~~cyber incidents~~outcomes. The CISO also promptly informs and updates the ERC and the Board of the Sponsor about any information security incidents that may pose a material risk to the Sponsor. The Sponsor contracts an independent third party to conduct a full cyber risk assessment annually, and the results of those assessments are ~~reported~~included in reporting to the ERC and the Board. Material outcomes from any penetration testing, vulnerability scanning, and business continuity or disaster recovery testing are additionally ~~reported~~included in reporting to the ERC and Board.

The Sponsor’s Security Awareness Program includes training that reinforces the Sponsor’s Information Security policies, standards, and practices, and the expectation that employees will comply with these policies. The Security Awareness Program engages personnel through training on how to identify potential cybersecurity risks and protect the Sponsor’s resources and information. This training is mandatory for all employees upon onboarding at the firm and again annually, and it is supplemented by firmwide training and testing initiatives, including periodic phishing tests.

The Sponsor administers a Third-Party Risk Management Program at the firm to identify, assess and oversee the risk associated with service providers and third parties involved in the supply chain. Third parties are assessed for risk~~-rated~~ and ~~must~~may additionally be required to adhere to additional security diligence requirements administered with oversight from the CISO according to risk, including cybersecurity diligence questionnaires, evidence validation, SOC report reviews, and/or on-site assessments. Material changes to the program, new, or worsening security risks associated with third parties are reported to the ERC at least quarterly.

Cybersecurity Breaches:

There have not been any breaches at the Sponsor or the Trust during the year ended September 30, ~~2024~~2025. However, even though we take steps to employ reasonable cybersecurity efforts, not every cybersecurity incident can be prevented or detected. Therefore, while we believe there are currently no risks from any potential cybersecurity threat or cybersecurity incident that are reasonably likely to have a material effect on our results of operations or financial condition, the likelihood or severity of such risks are difficult to predict.

Item 2. Properties

None.

8584

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

~~The~~Grayscale ~~Sponsor~~Operating, ~~and~~LLC, anthe ~~affiliate~~former Co-Sponsor of the Trust, ~~Grayscale~~until ~~Bitcoin~~May ~~Trust~~3, ~~ETF (“Grayscale Bitcoin Trust”)~~2025, ~~are~~was ~~currently~~a ~~parties~~party to certain legal proceedings during the period covered by this report. Although the Trust is not a party to these proceedings, the Trust may in the future be subject to legal proceedings or disputes.

On ~~January~~May 3019, ~~2023~~2025, ~~Osprey~~Genesis ~~Funds~~Global Capital, LLC (“~~Osprey~~Genesis Capital”) ~~filed a suit in Connecticut Superior Court against the Sponsor alleging that statements the Sponsor made in its advertising~~ and ~~promotion~~Genesis ofAsia ~~Grayscale~~Pacific ~~Bitcoin~~Pte. ~~Trust violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief~~Ltd. On(“Genesis ~~April~~Asia”) ~~17, 2023, the Sponsor~~ filed a ~~motion~~complaint toin ~~dismiss~~ the ~~complaint~~United ~~and,~~States ~~following~~Bankruptcy ~~briefing,~~Court afor ~~hearing on~~ the ~~motion~~Southern toDistrict ~~dismiss~~of ~~was~~New ~~held~~York on(“SDNY ~~June~~Bankruptcy ~~26,~~Court”) ~~2023.~~against OnDigital ~~October~~Currency 23Group, ~~2023, the Court denied the Sponsor’s motion to dismiss~~Inc. On(“DCG”) ~~November~~and 6,certain ~~2023, the Sponsor filed a motion for reargument~~ of ~~the~~its ~~Court’s~~affiliates ~~order~~including ~~denying~~GSO ~~the~~alleging ~~Sponsor’s~~that ~~motion~~Genesis toCapital ~~dismiss.~~made Oncertain ~~November~~preferential ~~16,~~transfers ~~2023, Osprey filed an opposition~~ to ~~the Sponsor’s motion for reargument~~GSI, ~~and on November 30, 2023,~~ the ~~Sponsor~~predecessor ~~filed a reply~~ in ~~further~~interest ~~support~~to ofGSO ~~its~~prior ~~motion~~to ~~for reargument. On March 11, 2024,~~ the ~~Court denied the Sponsor’s motion for reargument. On March 25~~Merger, ~~2024,~~during the ~~Sponsor~~preference ~~filed~~period anprior ~~application for interlocutory appeal. On March 28, 2024, Osprey filed an opposition~~ to ~~the~~Genesis ~~Sponsor~~Capital’s ~~application~~filing ~~for~~of ~~interlocutory~~a ~~appeal.~~bankruptcy Onpetition ~~April~~in 1,SDNY ~~2024,~~Bankruptcy ~~the~~ Court ~~denied~~while ~~the~~GSI ~~Sponsor’s~~was ~~application~~allegedly ~~for~~an ~~interlocutory~~insider ~~appeal.~~to OnGenesis ~~April~~Capital ~~10,~~pursuant ~~2024, Osprey filed a motion~~ to ~~amend~~11 ~~the complaint~~U. ~~The amended complaint went into effect on April 25, 2024~~S. ~~A scheduling order was entered by the Court with trial scheduled to begin on July 15, 2025~~C. On§ ~~July~~ 101(31,). ~~2024,~~Genesis ~~the~~Capital ~~Sponsor~~seeks ~~filed a motion~~ to ~~strike~~avoid the ~~amended~~alleged ~~complaint.~~preferential Ontransfers ~~August~~pursuant ~~30, 2024, Osprey filed an opposition~~ to ~~the~~11 ~~Sponsor’s motion to strike the amended complaint~~U.S.C. On§ ~~October 11~~547(b), ~~2024,~~as ~~the~~well ~~Court~~as ~~denied~~recovery ~~the~~of ~~Sponsor’s~~property ~~motion to strike. The Sponsor~~ and ~~Grayscale~~disallowance ~~Bitcoin~~of ~~Trust~~claims. ~~believe~~GSO believes this lawsuit is without merit and ~~intend~~intends to vigorously defend against it.

As of the date of this Annual Report, the Sponsor does not expect the foregoing proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Trust’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

The Sponsor and/or the Trust may be subject to additional legal proceedings and disputes in the future.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

8685

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Prior to October 3, 2022, Shares were distributed by Genesis, acting as the sole Authorized Participant, through sales in private placement transactions exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act pursuant to Rule 506(c) thereunder. Since October 3, 2022, Grayscale Securities has been the only acting Authorized Participant of the Trust, and Liquidity Provider(s) have been engaged to source ZEN in connection with the creation of Shares. The Shares are quoted on OTCQX under the ticker symbol “HZEN.” Over-the-counter market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

Holders of Record

As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, there were approximately 1626 holders of record. This includes Cede & Co. as nominee for DTC for the Shares traded on OTCQX, but not its direct participants. Therefore, this number does not include the individual holders who have bought Shares on OTCQX or transferred their eligible Shares to their brokerage accounts. Because most of the Trust’s Shares are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of shareholders, we are unable to estimate the total number of shareholders represented by these record holders.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Shares

As of September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the Registrant has distributed 611,~~838~~425,~~000~~100 Shares at varying prices determined by reference to the NAV per Share to selected “accredited investors,” within the meaning of Rule 501 of Regulation D under the Securities Act. The Shares were sold in connection with an ongoing offering pursuant to Rule 506(c) of Regulation D under the Securities Act. Grayscale Securities acted as the Authorized Participant with respect to these distributions beginning October 3, 2022. For all such distributions prior to October 3, 2022, Genesis acted as the Authorized Participant with respect to these distributions. In exchange for these sales, the Trust received an aggregate of ~~666~~1,~~351~~057,131.~~02062050~~35158227 ZEN. During the year ended September 30, ~~2024~~2025, the Registrant did not distribute any Shares. Because Shares have been, and continue to be, created and issued on a periodic basis, a “distribution,” as such term is used in the Securities Act, may be occurring from time to time. As a result, the Authorized Participant facilitating the creation of Shares and acting as a distributor and marketer during any such period may be deemed an “underwriter” under Section 2(a)(11) of the Securities Act. No underwriting discounts or commissions were paid to the Authorized Participant with respect to such sales.

Purchases of Equity Securities

Purchases of equity securities by the issuer and affiliated purchasers —The table below sets forth information regarding open market purchases of Shares of Grayscale Horizen Trust (ZEN) (OTCQX: HZEN) by DCG, the indirect parent company of the Sponsor, on a monthly basis during the three months ended September 30, ~~2024~~2025:

Period	(a) Total Number of Shares of HZEN Purchased		(b) Average Price Paid per Share of HZEN		(c) Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs(1)		(d) Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs(1)
							(in millions)
July 1, 2024 - July 31, 2024		-	$	-		-	$	9.99
July 1, 2025 - July 31, 2025		-	$	-		-	$	9.99
August 1, 2024 - August 31, 2024		-		-		-		9.99
August 1, 2025 - August 31, 2025		-		-		-		9.99
September 1, 2024 - September 30, 2024		-		-		-		9.99
September 1, 2025 - September 30, 2025		-		-		-		9.99
Total		-	$	-		-	$	9.99

(1)

On March 2, 2022, the Board approved the purchase by DCG, the indirect parent company of the Sponsor, of up to $10 million worth of Shares of the Trust. Subsequently, DCG authorized such purchase. The Share purchase authorization does not obligate DCG to acquire any specific number of Shares in any period, and may be expanded, extended, modified, or discontinued at any time. From March 2, 2022 through June 30, 2022, DCG purchased $0.01 million worth of Shares of the Trust under this authorization. From July 1, 2022 through November 1820, ~~2024~~2025, DCG had not purchased any Shares of the Trust under this authorization.

Item 6. [Reserved]

8786

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read together with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, our audited financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”). The following discussion may contain forward-looking statements based on assumptions we believe to be reasonable. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed below and elsewhere in this Annual Report, particularly in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements.”

Trust Overview

The Trust is a passive entity that is managed and administered by the Sponsor and does not have any officers, directors or employees. The Trust holds ZEN and, from time to time on a periodic basis, issues Creation Baskets in exchange for deposits of ZEN. As a passive investment vehicle, the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on ZEN per Share) to reflect the value of ZEN held by the Trust, determined by reference to the Reference Rate Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in ZEN, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to ZEN. To date, the Trust has not met its investment objective and the Shares quoted on OTCQX have not reflected the value of ZEN held by the Trust, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, but instead have traded at both premiums and discounts to such value, which at times have been substantial. The Trust is not managed like a business corporation or an active investment vehicle. On October 7, 2021, the Trust completed a 10-for-1 Share split (the “Share Split”) of the Trust’s issued and outstanding Shares. Each Shareholder of record as of the close of business on October 6, 2021 received 9 additional Shares of the Trust for each Share held. The number of outstanding Shares and per-Share amounts disclosed for all periods prior to October 7, 2021 have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the effects of the Share Split. The Trust is not managed like a business corporation or an active investment vehicle. The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

	As of September 30,
	2024		2023		2022
	2025		2024		2023
Number of Shares authorized	Unlimited		Unlimited		Unlimited
Number of Shares outstanding		611,~~838~~425,~~000~~100		6,838,000		6,838,000
Number of Shares freely tradable(1)		38,~~469~~224,~~864~~933		3,~~278~~469,~~635~~864		3,~~210~~278,~~776~~635
Number of beneficial holders owning at least 100 Shares(2)		1626		2216		2622
Number of holders of record(2)		1626		2216		2622

(1)

Includes the total number of Shares that are not restricted securities as such term is defined under Rule 144.

(2)

Includes Cede & Co. as nominee for DTC for the Shares traded on OTCQX, but not its direct participants. Therefore, this number does not include the individual holders who have bought/sold Shares on OTCQX or transferred their eligible Shares to their brokerage accounts.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Investment Transactions and Revenue Recognition

The Trust considers investment transactions to be the receipt of ZEN for Share creations and the delivery of ZEN for Share redemptions or for payment of expenses in ZEN. At this time, the Trust is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. The Trust records its investment transactions on a trade date basis and changes in fair value are reflected as net change in unrealized appreciation or depreciation on investments. Realized gains and losses are calculated using the specific identification method. Realized gains and losses are recognized in connection with transactions including settling obligations for the Sponsor’s Fee in ZEN.

Principal Market and Fair Value Determination

To determine which market is the Trust’s principal market (or in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market) for purposes of calculating the Trust’s net asset value in accordance with U.S. GAAP (“Principal Market NAV”), the Trust follows Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 820-10, Fair Value Measurement, which outlines the application of fair value accounting. ASC 820-10 determines fair value to be the price that would be received for ZEN in a current sale, which assumes an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. ASC 820-10 requires the Trust to assume that ZEN is sold in its principal market to market participants or, in the absence of a principal market, the most ~~advantageous market. Market participants are defined as buyers and sellers in the principal or most advantageous market that are independent, knowledgeable, and willing and able to transact.~~

88advantageous market. Market participants are defined as buyers and sellers in the principal or most advantageous market that are independent, knowledgeable, and willing and able to transact.

The Trust only receives ZEN in connection with a creation order from the Authorized Participant (or a Liquidity Provider) and does not itself transact on any Digital Asset Markets. Therefore, the Trust looks to market-based volume and level of activity for Digital Asset Markets. The Authorized Participant(s), or a Liquidity Provider, may transact in a Brokered Market, a Dealer Market, Principal-to-Principal Markets and Exchange Markets (referred to as “Trading Platform Markets” in this Annual Report), each as defined in the FASB ASC Master Glossary (collectively, “Digital Asset Markets”).

In determining which of the eligible Digital Asset Markets is the Trust’s principal market, the Trust reviews these criteria in the following order:

•

First, the Trust reviews a list of Digital Asset Markets that maintain practices and policies designed to comply with anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-customer (“KYC”) regulations, and non-Digital Asset Trading Platform Markets that the Trust reasonably believes are operating in compliance with applicable law, including federal and state licensing requirements, based upon information and assurances provided to it by each market.

•

Second, the Trust sorts these Digital Asset Markets from high to low by market-based volume and level of activity of ZEN traded on each Digital Asset Market in the trailing twelve months.

•

Third, the Trust then reviews pricing fluctuations and the degree of variances in price on Digital Asset Markets to identify any material notable variances that may impact the volume or price information of a particular Digital Asset Market.

•

Fourth, the Trust then selects a Digital Asset Market as its principal market based on the highest market-based volume, level of activity and price stability in comparison to the other Digital Asset Markets on the list. Based on information reasonably available to the Trust, Trading Platform Markets have the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset. The Trust therefore looks to accessible Trading Platform Markets as opposed to the Brokered Market, Dealer Market and Principal-to-Principal Markets to determine its principal market. As a result of the aforementioned analysis, a Trading Platform Market has been selected as the Trust’s principal market.

The Trust determines its principal market (or in the absence of a principal market the most advantageous market) annually and conducts a quarterly analysis to determine (i) if there have been recent changes to each Digital Asset Market’s trading volume and level of activity in the trailing twelve months, (ii) if any Digital Asset Markets have developed that the Trust has access to, or (iii) if recent changes to each Digital Asset Market’s price stability have occurred that would materially impact the selection of the principal market and necessitate a change in the Trust’s determination of its principal market.

The cost basis of the ZEN received by the Trust in connection with a creation order is recorded by the Trust at the fair value of ZEN at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the creation date for financial reporting purposes. The cost basis recorded by the Trust may differ from proceeds collected by the Authorized Participant from the sale of the corresponding Shares to investors.

Investment Company Considerations

The Trust is an investment company for U.S. GAAP purposes and follows accounting and reporting guidance in accordance with the FASB ASC Topic 946, Financial Services —Investment Companies. The Trust uses fair value as its method of accounting for ZEN in accordance with its classification as an investment company for accounting purposes. The Trust is not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act ~~of 1940~~. U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates and these differences could be material.

Review of Financial Results

Financial Highlights for the Years ended September 30, ~~2024~~2025, ~~2023~~2024 and ~~2022~~2023

(All amounts in the following table and the subsequent paragraphs, except Share, ~~per Share,~~ ZEN and price of ZEN amounts, are in thousands)

	For the Years Ended September 30,
	2024			2023			2022
	2025			2024			2023
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investment	$	236		$	(3,873	)	$	(34,585	)
Net realized and unrealized (loss) gain on investment	$	(3,639	)	$	236		$	(3,873	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations	$	96		$	(4,020	)	$	(35,249	)
Net (decrease) increase in net assets resulting from operations	$	(3,885	)	$	96		$	(4,020	)
Net assets(1)	$	47,~~767~~481		$	4,~~671~~767		$	84,~~691~~671

(1)

Net assets in the above table and subsequent paragraphs are calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP based on the Digital Asset Market price of ZEN on the Digital Asset Trading Platform that the Trust considered its principal market, as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date.

89Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN for the year ended September 30, 2025 was ($3,639), which includes a realized loss of ($173) on the transfer of ZEN to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized depreciation on investment in ZEN of ($3,466). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN for the year was driven by ZEN price depreciation from $8.13 per ZEN as of September 30, 2024, to $7.83 per ZEN as of September 30, 2025. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($3,885) for the year ended September 30, 2025, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $246. Net assets increased to $7,481 at September 30, 2025, a 57% increase for the year. The increase in net assets resulted from the contribution of approximately 390,780 ZEN with a value of $6,599 to the Trust in connection with Share creations during the year, partially offset by the aforementioned ZEN price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 21,655 ZEN to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEN for the year ended September 30, 2024 was $236, which includes a realized loss of ($164) on the transfer of ZEN to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized depreciation on investment in ZEN of $400. Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEN for the year was driven by ZEN price appreciation from $7.77 per ZEN as of September 30, 2023, to $8.13 per ZEN as of September 30, 2024. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was $96 for the year ended September 30, 2024, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEN, less the Sponsor’s Fee of $140. Net assets increased to $4,767 at September 30, 2024, a 2% increase for the year. The increase in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ZEN price appreciation, partially offset by the withdrawal of approximately 14,853 ZEN to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN for the year ended September 30, 2023 was ($3,873), which includes a realized loss of ($164) on the transfer of ZEN to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized depreciation on investment in ZEN of ($3,709). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN for the year was driven by ZEN price depreciation from $14.10 per ZEN as of September 30, 2022, to $7.77 per ZEN as of September 30, 2023. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($4,020) for the year ended September 30, 2023, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $147. Net assets decreased to $4,671 at September 30, 2023, a 46% decrease for the year. The decrease in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ZEN price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 15,218 ZEN to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN for the year ended September 30, 2022 was ($34,585), which includes a realized gain of $346 on the transfer of ZEN to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized depreciation on investment in ZEN of ($34,931). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN for the year was driven by ZEN price depreciation from $69.53 per ZEN as of September 30, 2021, to $14.10 per ZEN as of September 30, 2022. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($35,249) for the year ended September 30, 2022, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEN, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $664. Net assets decreased to $8,691 at September 30, 2022, an 80% decrease for the year. The decrease in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ZEN price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 15,604 ZEN to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Cash Resources and Liquidity

The Trust has not had a cash balance at any time since inception. When selling ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in the Digital Asset Market to pay Additional Trust Expenses on behalf of the Trust, the Sponsor endeavors to sell the exact amount of ZEN, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency needed to pay expenses in order to minimize the Trust’s holdings of assets other than ZEN. As a consequence, the Sponsor expects that the Trust will not record any cash flow from its operations and that its cash balance will be zero at the end of each reporting period. Furthermore, the Trust is not a party to any off-balance sheet arrangements.

In exchange for the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor has agreed to assume most of the expenses incurred by the Trust. As a result, the only ordinary expense of the Trust during the periods covered by this Annual Report was the Sponsor’s Fee. The Trust is not aware of any trends, demands, conditions or events that are reasonably likely to result in material changes to its liquidity needs.

Selected Operating Data

	For the Years Ended September 30,
	2024			2023			2022(1)
	2025			2024			2023
	(All ZEN balances are rounded to the nearest whole ZEN)
ZEN:
Opening balance		~~601~~586,~~139~~286			~~616~~601,~~357~~139			~~615~~616,~~586~~357
Creations		-390,780			-			~~16,375~~-
Sponsor’s Fee, related party		(1421,~~853~~655	)		(1514,~~218~~853	)		(15,~~604~~218	)
Closing balance		~~586~~955,~~286~~411			~~601~~586,~~139~~286			~~616~~601,~~357~~139
Accrued but unpaid Sponsor’s Fee, related party		-			-			-
Net closing balance		~~586~~955,~~286~~411			~~601~~586,~~139~~286			~~616~~601,~~357~~139
Number of Shares:
Opening balance		6,838,000			6,838,000			6,838,000
Creations		-4,587,100			-			-
Closing balance		611,~~838~~425,~~000~~100			6,838,000			6,838,000


	September 30,
	2025		2024		2023
Price of ZEN on principal market(1)	$	7.83	$	8.13	$	7.77
Principal Market NAV per Share(2)	$	0.65	$	0.70

Filing Compare · Grayscale Horizen Trust (ZEN)