FYfalsetrue0002020455UnlimitedUnlimited0.10.1http://fasb.org/srt/2025#ChiefExecutiveOfficerMember http://fasb.org/srt/2025#ChiefFinancialOfficerMember10.10.100020204552025-07-012025-09-300002020455us-gaap:CommonStockMember2024-05-312024-05-310002020455us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2025-12-3100020204552024-11-192024-11-190002020455eth:PriorToEndOfSixMonthPeriodMembereth:SponsorMember2024-07-232024-07-230002020455eth:SponsorMember2024-05-310002020455eth:SponsorMember2024-12-3100020204552024-07-232024-09-3000020204552025-10-012025-12-310002020455us-gaap:CommonStockMember2024-05-310002020455eth:LiabilitiesMember2025-12-310002020455eth:SponsorsStakingMember2025-12-310002020455us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2025-12-310002020455eth:InvestmentMember2025-12-310002020455eth:AfterSix-MonthWaiverPeriodMembereth:SponsorMember2025-01-242025-01-240002020455eth:InvestmentInEthereumMember2025-12-3100020204552025-01-012025-12-3100020204552024-07-230002020455us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2024-12-310002020455eth:SponsorMember2024-07-162024-07-160002020455eth:GrayscaleEthereumTrustMember2024-07-2300020204552025-10-060002020455eth:GrayscaleEthereumTrustMember2025-12-310002020455eth:SponsorMember2025-01-012025-12-310002020455eth:GrayscaleEthereumTrustMember2024-11-192024-11-190002020455eth:InvestmentMember2024-12-310002020455eth:SponsorMember2024-05-312024-05-310002020455us-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2026-02-202026-02-200002020455eth:SponsorsStakingMember2024-12-3100020204552024-07-232024-12-3100020204552024-07-2200020204552026-02-2000020204552024-10-012024-12-3100020204552024-12-310002020455us-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2026-02-200002020455eth:SponsorMembereth:FirstSixMonthsMember2024-07-232024-07-230002020455eth:InvestmentInEthereumMember2024-12-3100020204552024-01-012024-12-310002020455srt:MinimumMembereth:NonSponsorPaidExpensesMember2025-01-012025-12-3100020204552025-12-310002020455us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2024-12-310002020455us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2024-12-310002020455eth:GrayscaleEthereumTrustMember2024-12-3100020204552025-06-300002020455srt:MaximumMembereth:SponsorMember2025-01-012025-12-310002020455us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2025-12-3100020204552025-01-012025-03-310002020455eth:SponsorMember2025-12-3100020204552025-04-012025-06-30eth:Etherxbrli:purexbrli:shareseth:Ethereumeth:Rightiso4217:USDxbrli:shareseth:Segmentiso4217:USD

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 December 31, 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 001-42184

Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF

SPONSORED BY GRAYSCALE INVESTMENTS SPONSORS, LLC

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)


Delaware	99-6447880
(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(b) of the Act:



Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF Shares	ETH	NYSE Arca, Inc.

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 June 30, 2025, as reported by NYSE Arca, Inc. on that date: $1,331,604,817

Number of Shares of the registrant outstanding as of February 20, 2026: 84,750,788

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 Ethereum 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 Ethereum Staking Mini ETF (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 Sponsors, LLC (the “Sponsor”), 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, those described in “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 in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” Some of the factors that could materially and adversely affect our business include, but are not limited to, the following:

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

•

Extreme volatility of trading prices that many digital assets, including Ether, 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.

•

Digital assets represent a relatively new and rapidly evolving industry, and the value of the Shares depends on the acceptance of Ether.

•

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.

•

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

Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets

•

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 value of the Shares relates directly to the value of Ether held by the Trust, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations.

•

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.

•

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

•

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

•

Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of Ether and 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 challenges to the safekeeping of the Trust’s Ether and to the operations of the Trust.

•

The liquidity of the Shares may be affected if Authorized Participants cease to perform their obligations under the Participant Agreements or the Liquidity Engager is unable to engage Liquidity Providers.

•

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-concurrent trading hours between NYSE Arca and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market.

•

Any suspension or other unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program may cause the Shares to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share.

•

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

•

The limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions of Shares could have adverse consequences for the Trust.

•

Extraordinary expenses, tax liabilities arising from Ether sales without distributions, indemnification obligations, intellectual property claims, and disruptions from pandemics or other disasters could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

•

A determination that Ether or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of Ether 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 one or more digital assets, validating activity or the operation of their networks or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects 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, validating 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 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 uncertain and evolving tax treatment of the Trust, digital assets, Ether and transactions involving Ether under U.S. federal, state, and local tax laws could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Risk Factors Related to Potential Conflicts of Interest

•

Conflicts of interest may arise among the Sponsor or its affiliates and the Trust.

•

Shareholders cannot be assured of the Sponsor’s continued services, the discontinuance of which may be detrimental to the Trust.

•

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

iii

Risk Factors Related to Staking

•

The lack of ability to participate in any different form of Staking to the extent the Staking Condition is not satisfied, which could have adverse consequences for the Trust.

•

Staking introduces a risk of loss of Ether which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

•

Staked Ether tokens will be inaccessible for a variable period of time, determined by a range of factors, which could result in certain liquidity risk to the Trust.

•

The Trust will be dependent on third parties to effectively execute the Trust’s Staking Arrangements.

•

The regulatory landscape surrounding Staking is uncertain.

•

Beneficial owners of Shares could incur tax liabilities without receiving corresponding distributions from the Trust.

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 122.

Table of Contents


Item No.	Item Caption	Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	54
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	93
Item 1C.	Cybersecurity	93
Item 2.	Properties	93
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	94
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	94
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	95
Item 6.	[Reserved]	95
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	96
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	103
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	103
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	103
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	104
Item 9B.	Other Information	104
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	104
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	105
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	106
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	106
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	107
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	108
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	109
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	110
	Glossary of Defined Terms	111

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview of the Trust and the Shares

Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF (formerly known as Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF) (the “Trust”) is a Delaware Statutory Trust that was formed on April 23, 2024, 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 Ethereum tokens (“Ether”), which are digital assets that are created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Ethereum Network, a decentralized network of computers that operates on cryptographic protocols.

As of December 31, 2025, the Trust holds approximately 0.6% of the Ether 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 Ethereum Network. As a decentralized digital asset network, the Ethereum Network consists of several stakeholders, including core developers of Ether, users, services, businesses, validators 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 Ether confers no such rights.

On January 5, 2026, the Trust changed its name from Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF to Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF and previously, on November 4, 2024, the Trust changed its name from Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust (ETH) to Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF, in each case by filing a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State. On July 18, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) approved an application under Rule 19b-4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) by NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) to list the Shares of the Trust, which began trading on NYSE Arca on July 23, 2024, following the effectiveness of the Trust’s registration statement on Form S-1, as amended (File No. 333-278878). The Shares are listed on NYSE Arca under the ticker symbol “ETH.” The Trust issues common units of fractional undivided beneficial interest (“Shares”), which represent ownership in the Trust, on a continuous basis pursuant to the registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) in exchange for deposits of Ether.

As a passive investment vehicle, the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on Ether per Share) to reflect the value of the Ether held by the Trust, including Ether earned as Staking Consideration, determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. Except for any Ether earned as Staking Consideration, the Trust does not seek to generate returns beyond tracking the price of Ether. There can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to achieve its investment objective. The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

Until December 31, 2024, Grayscale Investments, LLC was 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 consolidated 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”), The Bank of New York Mellon is the transfer agent (in such capacity, the “Transfer Agent”) and the administrator (in such capacity, the “Administrator”) of the Trust, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company is the co-transfer agent of the Trust (the “Co-Transfer Agent”), Coinbase, Inc. is the prime broker (the “Prime Broker”) of the Trust, Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC is the custodian of the Trust (the “Custodian”), and Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. (the “Additional Custodian”) is an available alternative custodian of the Trust.

The Trust issues Shares only in one or more blocks of 10,000 Shares (a block of 10,000 Shares is called a “Basket”) to certain authorized participants (“Authorized Participants”) from time to time.

The Trust creates Baskets of Shares only upon receipt of Ether and redeems Shares only by distributing Ether or proceeds from the disposition of Ether. At this time, Authorized Participants may only submit orders to create or redeem Shares through transactions that are referred to as “Cash Orders” in this Annual Report. The value of a Basket is based on the amount of Ether represented by the Basket, determined by reference to the Index Price. For a more detailed description of the Index and the Index Price, see “—The Index and the Index Price.” For a more detailed description of the creation and redemption procedures, see “—Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares.”

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 etfs.grayscale.com/eth, 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 Exchange Act, as amended, 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 Ether per Share) to reflect the value of Ether held by the Trust, including Ether earned as Staking Consideration, determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities.

In the event the Shares trade at a substantial premium, investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca will pay substantially more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. The value of the Shares may not reflect the value of the Trust’s Ether, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, for a variety of reasons, including any halting of creations or redemptions by the Trust, Ether 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-concurrent trading hours between NYSE Arca and the global trading platform market for trading Ether. As a result, the Shares may trade at a premium over, or a discount to, the value of the Trust’s Ether, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, and the Trust may be unable to meet its investment objective from time to time.

From July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares listed on NYSE Arca over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 1.6%, the average premium was 0.1%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares listed on NYSE Arca below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 0.7%, and the average discount was 0.1%. As of December 31, 2025, the Trust’s Shares were listed on NYSE Arca at a premium of 0.01% to the Trust’s NAV 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 Ether, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to Ether. A substantial direct investment in Ether may require expensive and sometimes complicated arrangements in connection with the acquisition, security and safekeeping of the Ether and may involve the payment of substantial fees to acquire such Ether from third-party facilitators through cash payments of U.S. dollars. Because the value of the Shares is correlated with the value of the Ether held by the Trust, it is important to understand the investment attributes of, and the market for, Ether.

The Trust’s Ether 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 Ether 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.” 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 Index 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 or other fiat currency), less the U.S. dollar value of the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, calculated in the manner set forth under “—Valuation of Ether 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.

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 Ether 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 Ether is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding Ether 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, as amended (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 Ether or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of Ether 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 December 31, 2025, each Share represented approximately 0.0094 of one Ether. The logistics of accepting, transferring and

safekeeping of Ether 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 Ether by using the Shares instead of directly purchasing and holding Ether, and for many investors, transaction costs related to the Shares will be lower than those associated with the direct purchase, storage and safekeeping of Ether.

•

Market-Traded and Transparent. The Shares are listed on NYSE Arca. The Sponsor believes the quotation of the Shares on NYSE Arca 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 etfs.grayscale.com/eth.

•

Minimal Credit Risk. The Shares represent an interest in actual Ether owned by the Trust. The Trust’s Ether 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 and Ether futures and 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether are kept in cold storage, which means that the Trust’s Ether are disconnected and/or deleted entirely from the internet. See “—Custody of the Trust’s Ether” 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 Ether 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 Vault Balance 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 Ether. 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 Ether.

•

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 Ether. The Trust directly owns actual Ether held through the Custodian. This may differ from other digital asset financial vehicles that provide Ether 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 Ether transferred to the Trust as consideration in connection with the creations, (ii) transferring or selling Ether as necessary to cover the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor’s Staking Fee and/or any Additional Trust Expenses, (iii) transferring Ether in exchange for Baskets surrendered for redemption, (iv) causing the Sponsor to sell Ether on the termination of the Trust, (v) making distributions of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency or cash from the sale

thereof (subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC), as described in “—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency” below, (vi) engaging in any form of Staking, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied with respect thereto, (vii) receiving Staking Consideration and, after payment of the Sponsor’s Staking Fee therefrom, making distributions of Staking Consideration received by the Trust (or cash from the sale thereof), and (viii) engaging in all administrative and security procedures necessary to accomplish such activities in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement, the Prime Broker Agreement, the Index License Agreement and the Participant Agreements.

The Trust may engage in any lawful activity necessary or desirable in order to facilitate shareholders’ access to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency (subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC), 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 Ether.

Staking

Staking on the Ethereum Network refers to using Ether, or permitting Ether to be used through an agent or otherwise, in the Ethereum Network’s proof-of-stake validation protocol, in exchange for the receipt of staking rewards paid in kind (“Staking”). The Trust Agreement provides that the Trust may engage in Staking, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied. On October 6, 2025, the Staking Condition was satisfied with respect to the form of Staking described in this Annual Report, and on that date the Trust commenced Staking pursuant to the Staking Arrangements described below. The Sponsor may from time-to-time modify the form of Staking in which the Trust engages, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied with respect to any such modified form of Staking, and subject to compliance with any additional requirements that may arise in connection with satisfaction of the Staking Condition with respect thereto.

Staking Arrangements and Provider-Facilitated Staking Model

The Sponsor has caused, and from time to time may cause, the Trust to enter into written arrangements (the “Staking Arrangements”) with the Custodian and one or more third party staking providers (each, a “Staking Provider”), which may be affiliates of the Custodian or other trusted institutional validators, to stake the Trust’s Ether to a Staking Provider operating validator software and associated hardware (“Provider-Facilitated Staking”). The Sponsor anticipates that the Trust’s Ether is and will be staked exclusively by means of Provider-Facilitated Staking.

Under the Staking Arrangements, the Trust is permitted to accept only Staking Consideration received in the form of Ether, and is not permitted to accept any Other Staking Consideration in the form of other digital assets. Neither the Trust, nor the Sponsor on behalf of the Trust, has the ability under the Staking Arrangements to take advantage of any variations in the market to improve the investments of shareholders, including with respect to variations based on the value of Ether or the amount of Staking Consideration received as staking rewards. As a whole, the Staking Arrangements permit the Trust to retain ownership of its Ether at all times for U.S. federal income tax purposes while simultaneously protecting and conserving the Trust Estate by mitigating the risk that another party or group could control a majority of the Ethereum Network and engage in transactions that could reduce the Trust Estate’s value.

A Staking Provider must meet certain requirements in order to be selected to participate in the Provider-Facilitated Staking model contemplated by the Staking Arrangements. For example, each Staking Provider is required to be unrelated to both the Trust and the Sponsor. Under the Staking Arrangements, the Staking Provider bears all of its own expenses (including those on account of its validation activities).

The Staking Provider is the node operator and is obligated to operate the validator through which the Trust’s Ether is staked to ensure that validation occurs. The Trust’s Ether is currently staked from the Trust’s wallets administered by the Custodian, and the Staking Provider performs any related validation activities. The Trust retains control of its staked Ether because the Ethereum Network does not permit the Staking Provider to transfer staked Ether to any wallet other than as designated by the Sponsor. Because the Trust’s staked Ether cannot, pursuant to the Ethereum Network's protocol, be transferred other than as directed by the Sponsor, the Trust’s Ether is not deemed commingled with the Ether of any other Ether holder in connection with Staking, such as the Staking Provider or others who stake to the Staking Provider even if the Staking Provider is in receipt of other Ether holders’ Ether for validation purposes. The Trust does not itself undertake any validation activities, and the Sponsor is not required to perform any services. Moreover, the Sponsor is not required to make any decisions or take any actions, other than (i) selecting the Staking Provider(s) and entering into the corresponding Staking Arrangement(s), and (ii) determining, from time to time, what portion of the Trust’s Ether to stake and un-stake, and informing the Staking Provider(s) of those determinations.

The Sponsor currently engages in and anticipates that it will continue to engage in staking with respect to all of the Trust’s Ether at all times, except (i) as necessary to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, (ii) as necessary to pay any additional Trust expenses, (iii) as necessary to satisfy existing and reasonably foreseen potential redemption requests as determined by the Sponsor, (iv) as necessary to reduce the

Ether obtained by the Trust as Staking Consideration to cash for distribution at regular intervals, (v) if the Sponsor determines that Staking raises significant governmental, policy or regulatory concerns or is subject or likely subject to a specialized regulatory regime, (vi) if the Sponsor determines there exists vulnerabilities in the source code or cryptography underlying the Ethereum Network and any associated software, (vii) if the Custodian or Staking Provider discontinues their arrangements with the Trust, (viii) if the Sponsor otherwise determines that continued Staking of such portion of the Trust’s assets would be inconsistent with the Trust’s purpose of protecting and preserving the value of the Trust Estate, (ix) to fund or replenish the Liquidity Sleeve (as defined herein) or (x) in accordance with any other exception that is expressly contemplated by an opinion, ruling or tax guidance that satisfies the Staking Condition. All Ether received by the Trust in connection with the creation of new Shares, or as Staking Consideration, would also be staked upon receipt by the Trust, unless one or more of the exceptions described in clauses (i)-(ix) above applies. Moreover, any staked Ether which must be un-staked in order to fulfill a distribution in connection with a redemption (to the extent such distribution cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust’s Ether that has not been staked, or through another mechanism to manage liquidity in connection with Redemption Orders contemplated by an opinion of a Tax Advisor, a Tax Ruling or Tax Guidance that satisfies the Staking Condition) will be un-staked only after the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction through the Custodian, and such transaction is processed by the Ethereum Network. The Staking Provider is not able to transfer unstaked Ether or Staking Consideration to another address on the Ethereum Network.

The Sponsor has satisfied the Staking Condition with respect to certain liquidity procedures, which it believes will ensure that it will satisfy existing and reasonably foreseen redemption requests. Specifically, the Sponsor intends to maintain a portion of unstaked Ether in the Trust (the “Liquidity Sleeve”). Because the Ether in the Liquidity Sleeve is freely transferable, there is no timing mismatch between settlement of Shares in primary market redemptions and the Ether transfer time. The percentage of the Trust’s Ether comprising the Liquidity Sleeve will be dynamic and subject to adjustment based on anticipated primary and secondary market activity of the Shares and the Ether unstaking process. The Sponsor generally seeks to stake as much of the Trust’s Ether as is practicable (i.e., up to 100%) at all times, with the remainder of the Trust’s Ether remaining unstaked in order to address the various exceptions and other considerations described herein. The approximate percentage of the Trust’s Ether that is staked each day is reported the following day at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on etfs.grayscale.com/eth. In the future and subject to the satisfaction of the Staking Condition thereto, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, may be able to enter into other financing arrangements or implement other mechanisms to manage Ether liquidity constraints, including entering into short-term financing arrangements with its Custodian to provide Ether to the Trust for settlement of trades with the Trust's Liquidity Provider(s), if necessary. These liquidity risk policies and procedures are intended to be consistent with NYSE Arca’s proposed generic listing standards.

Under the Staking Arrangements, any Staking Consideration earned accrues in accordance with the Ethereum Network’s rewards distribution mechanism to the Trust’s wallets administered by the Custodian. Periodically, the Trust may either (i) distribute Ether received as Staking Consideration to the Trust’s beneficiaries (likely using a liquidating agent), (ii) sell that Ether for cash and distribute the proceeds to the Trust’s beneficiaries, (iii) retain the Ether in the Trust, (iv) pay a portion of the Staking Consideration to the Sponsor (the “Sponsor’s Staking Fee”) as consideration for its facilitation of the Staking Arrangements or (v) a combination of the foregoing, in the Sponsor’s sole discretion. The Sponsor has implemented a staking policy with respect to the Trust, which describes the frequency of, and conditions under which the Trust will make such distributions, if any, to the Trust’s beneficiaries. The Sponsor has made such staking policy available to shareholders on the Sponsor’s website. Subject to any slashing risk, the Trust (through the Custodian) will maintain control and remain the record and beneficial owner of the staked tokens at all times, and the tokens will remain associated with the Trust’s wallet.

As of October 6, 2025, and pursuant to the Staking Arrangements, the Custodian and the Staking Provider became entitled to receive a portion of the gross Staking Consideration generated under the Staking Arrangements, reflecting the Custodian’s fee and the Staking Provider’s share of such Staking Consideration, with the remainder received by the Trust. The allocation of gross Staking Consideration between the Custodian and the Staking Provider reflects an arm’s length allocation that is independent of the expenses of both the Staking Provider and Custodian, and may be stated as a percentage of the gross Staking Consideration. In addition, pursuant to the Trust Agreement and as consideration for the Sponsor’s facilitation of Staking, the Sponsor is permitted to receive a fee equal to a portion of the Staking Consideration, payable in Ether, which accrues daily in U.S. dollars in an amount calculated as a per annum percentage of any Staking Consideration received by the Trust, as may be directed by the Sponsor in its sole discretion. The Sponsor’s Staking Fee is payable to the Sponsor daily in arrears. As of October 6, 2025, the Sponsor’s Staking Fee, the Custodian’s fee and the Staking Provider’s share of such Staking Consideration comprise an aggregate of 6% of the gross Staking Consideration generated under the Staking Arrangements. The Trust receives and retains the remainder of such gross Staking Consideration.

From time to time, the Trust may distribute Ether (or cash from the sale of Ether) received as Staking Consideration to the Trust’s shareholders. The Sponsor has implemented a staking policy with respect to the Trust, which describes the frequency of, and conditions under which the Trust will make such distributions, if any, to the Trust’s beneficiaries, which is available to shareholders on the Sponsor’s website.

The Staking Arrangements are based on market terms, consistent with those typically offered by leading digital asset firms that offer staking functionality. However, the Trust has and will continue to negotiate certain provisions as necessary or helpful to preserve

the Trust’s status as a grantor trust and the security of the Trust’s Ether, as well as to address governmental, policy or regulatory concerns. For example, unlike certain digital asset firms that offer staking functionality through which one’s Ether is pooled with that of others (including, potentially, the Staking Provider in its general staking offerings), the Staking Arrangements do not permit the Trust’s Ether to be pooled with that of other Ether holders, including the Staking Provider or others that stake to the Staking Provider, as described above. In addition, the portion of staking rewards to be received by the Staking Provider is an agreed percentage of block rewards and transaction fees generated by the validating activities, unlike certain alternative staking arrangements under which a staking provider may be compensated as an agreed percentage of Ether staked.

The Trust has no right to direct the Staking Provider in the conduct of validation activities, except to stake, un-stake and withdraw its staked Ether pursuant to instructions delivered to the Custodian, and does not and will not bear any expenses incurred by the Staking Provider in conducting those activities. In particular, the amount of any Staking Consideration that the Trust receives is not and will not be determined with reference to any expenses incurred by the Custodian or the Staking Provider. The Staking Arrangements do not include any obligation of the Trust to continue staking its Ether, or for the Custodian or the Staking Provider to continue the Staking Arrangements, other than to the extent the Trust’s Ether cannot immediately be un-staked due to requirements of the Ethereum protocol. There may also be instances where the Staking Provider may pause or terminate its validation activities due to its own independent assessment of the vulnerabilities of the Ethereum Network which would result in the Trust’s Ether not being staked for a period of time. The Sponsor anticipates that the Ethereum protocol and the Staking Arrangements will permit withdrawal of staked Ether at regular intervals. The Sponsor believes that market practice for Provider-Facilitated Staking arrangements has largely become standardized, with little variation in terms, and therefore, the Sponsor anticipates that the Staking Arrangements generally align with the current practice of Staking Providers’ arrangements with other similarly situated third parties, subject to the negotiation of certain bespoke terms outlined above. Accordingly, and because transitioning to a new Staking Provider would involve friction costs, the Sponsor does not expect the Trust to change Staking Providers frequently, if at all. In addition, while the Trust may enter into Staking Arrangements with multiple Staking Providers, the Sponsor anticipates that any such arrangements would be substantively identical in all material respects to the Staking Arrangements described herein, including, for the avoidance of doubt, the bespoke terms of the Staking Arrangements outlined above. Any material deviation from the Staking Arrangements as described herein would be disclosed in the Trust’s subsequent filings with the Commission.

The Staking Arrangements have not and will not involve a disposition of the Trust’s Ether unless the Staking Provider commits a slash-worthy offense. Slashing would only occur if the Staking Provider fails to act timely and accurately in validating new transactions or takes other proscribed actions, and the occurrence of such events is exceedingly rare. In light of the mechanical and standardized nature of validation activities, the Sponsor does not anticipate that the Staking Provider, which is expected to be an institution of recognized and trusted standing in the digital asset marketplace, with whom the Sponsor has had extensive prior interaction, will commit any slash-worthy offenses in the conduct of the Provider-Facilitated Staking activities. The Sponsor has the right to direct the Custodian to cease staking the Trust’s Ether with the Staking Provider at any time, subject to the extent the Trust’s Ether cannot immediately be un-staked due to technical considerations, and the Sponsor expects that notice of any slashing event will be timely and permit the Sponsor to halt the staking of the Trust’s Ether, thereby mitigating the risk of permanent loss of the Trust’s Ether without replacement.

Security and Controls

The Trust’s Custodian has multiple layers of security protocols intended to protect the Trust’s assets from unauthorized access or transfer, which remain in place when the Trust’s Ether is staked.

The Trust’s Ether is staked from the Trust’s wallets and is not transferred to any other wallet to be staked. The Ethereum protocol limits the activities of the Staking Provider to executing only those activities specified by the protocol, such as staking, un-staking and performing validation activities and does not enable the Staking Provider to unilaterally transfer staked assets to any wallet not specified by the Sponsor. Accordingly, the Staking Provider does not have any powers to move the Trust’s staked Ether other than to stake or un-stake Ether at the direction of the Sponsor. In particular, the Staking Provider is not authorized to leverage or rehypothecate the Trust’s Ether. The Staking Provider is also not able to change the designated wallet addresses on the Ethereum Network to which staked Ether is to be withdrawn or to which Staking Consideration shall be sent.

In addition, the Staking Arrangements do not alter the Trust’s custody environment or security procedures. The controls currently in place between the Sponsor and the Custodian also govern the activities related to staking and un-staking Ether, as outlined in the Staking Arrangements.

The foregoing description of the Staking Arrangements does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the staking addendum to the Prime Broker Agreement between the Trust and the Custodian, a copy of which is attached as an exhibit hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency

The Sponsor has notified the Prime Broker, the Custodian and Coinbase Credit, Inc. (“Coinbase Credit”), on behalf of the Trust (such notice, the “Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices”) that the Trust will abandon, irrevocably and for no direct or indirect consideration, effective immediately prior to each time at which the Trust creates or redeems Shares (each such time, a “Creation Time” or “Redemption Time”, respectively), all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time. An abandonment made pursuant to the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices is referred to herein as a “Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment.” Pursuant to the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices, a Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment would not apply to any Incidental Right 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 Right or IR Virtual Currency at any time prior to the relevant Creation Time or Redemption Time or (ii) such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency has been subject to a previous Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment. An “Affirmative Action” refers to a written notification from the Sponsor to the Prime Broker, the Custodian or Coinbase Credit of the Trust’s intention (i) to acquire and/or retain an Incidental Right and/or IR Virtual Currency or (ii) to abandon, with effect prior to the relevant Creation Time or Redemption Time, an Incidental Right and/or IR Virtual Currency.

As a result of the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices, the Trust generally has abandoned, prior to each relevant Creation Time or Redemption Time, any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency that it may have had 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/Redemption Abandonment Notices or Affirmative Actions. Furthermore, the Prime Broker, the Custodian and Coinbase Credit has/have no authority, pursuant to the Prime Broker 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 arrangement with the Prime Broker, the Custodian and Coinbase Credit. In addition, the Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust not to take any Affirmative Action to acquire any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency and, therefore, irrevocably abandon any Incidental Right and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future.

Because the Sponsor has committed to causing the Trust to irrevocably abandon all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust otherwise would become entitled in the future, and causing the Trust not to take any Affirmative Actions, the Trust will 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. In addition, in the event the Sponsor seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by NYSE Arca seeking approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency in kind to an agent of the shareholders for resale by such agent. However, there can be no assurance as to whether or when the Sponsor would make such a decision, or when NYSE Arca will seek or obtain this approval, if at all. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any forks or airdrops.”

The Sponsor has controls in place to monitor for material hard forks or airdrops. The Sponsor will notify investors of any material change to its policy with respect to Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency by filing a current report on Form 8-K.

Secondary Market Trading

While the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on Ether per Share) to reflect the value of Ether held by the Trust, including Ether earned as Staking Consideration, determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, the Shares may trade in the Secondary Market on NYSE Arca (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 NYSE Arca and larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms. While the Shares are listed and trade on NYSE Arca from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 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 Ethereum Industry and Market

Ether is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Ethereum Network, a decentralized network of computers that operates on cryptographic protocols. No single entity owns or operates the Ethereum Network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. The Ethereum Network allows people to exchange tokens of value, called Ether, which are recorded on a public transaction ledger known as a blockchain. Ether can be used to pay for goods and services, including computational power on the Ethereum Network, or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on Digital Asset Markets that trade Ether, or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system. Furthermore, the Ethereum Network also allows users to write and implement smart contracts—that is, general-purpose code that executes on every computer in the network and can instruct the transmission of information and value based on a sophisticated set of

logical conditions. Using smart contracts, users can create markets, store registries of debts or promises, represent the ownership of property, move funds in accordance with conditional instructions and create digital assets other than Ether on the Ethereum Network. Smart contract operations are executed on the Blockchain in exchange for payment of Ether. The Ethereum Network is one of a number of projects intended to expand blockchain use beyond just a peer-to-peer money system.

The Ethereum Network was originally described in a 2013 white paper by Vitalik Buterin, a programmer involved with Bitcoin, with the goal of creating a global platform for decentralized applications powered by smart contracts. The formal development of the Ethereum Network began through a Swiss firm called Ethereum Switzerland GmbH in conjunction with several other entities. Subsequently, the Ethereum Foundation, a Swiss non-profit organization, was set up to oversee the protocol’s development. The Ethereum Network went live on July 30, 2015. Unlike other digital assets, such as Bitcoin, which are solely created through a progressive mining process, 72.0 million Ether were created in connection with the launch of the Ethereum Network. For additional information on the initial distribution, see “—Creation of New Ether.” Coinciding with the network launch, it was decided that EthSuisse would be dissolved, designating the Ethereum Foundation as the sole organization dedicated to protocol development.

The Ethereum Network is decentralized in that it does not require governmental authorities or financial institution intermediaries to create, transmit or determine the value of Ether. Rather, following the initial distribution of Ether, Ether is created, burned and allocated by the Ethereum Network protocol through a process that is currently subject to an issuance and burn rate as further described under “—Limits on Ether Supply” below. The value of Ether is determined by the supply of and demand for Ether on the Digital Asset Markets or in private end-user-to-end-user transactions.

New Ether are created and rewarded to validators for participating in the Ethereum proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, including proposing blocks, attesting to blocks and performing other validator duties defined by the protocol. The Blockchain is effectively a decentralized database that includes all blocks that have been validated and it is updated to include new blocks as they are validated. Each Ether transaction is broadcast to the Ethereum Network and, when included in a block, recorded in the Blockchain. As each new block records outstanding Ether transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions of the Ethereum Network. For further details, see “—Creation of New Ether” below.

Among other things, Ether is used to pay for transaction fees and computational services (i.e., smart contracts) on the Ethereum Network; users of the Ethereum Network pay for the computational power of the machines executing the requested operations with Ether. Requiring payment in Ether on the Ethereum Network incentivizes developers to write quality applications and increases the efficiency of the Ethereum Network because wasteful code costs more. It also ensures that the Ethereum Network remains economically viable by compensating people for their contributed computational resources.

Smart Contracts and Development on the Ethereum Network

Smart contracts are programs that run on a blockchain that can execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Smart contracts facilitate the exchange of anything representative of value, such as money, information, property, or voting rights. Using smart contracts, users can send or receive digital assets, create markets, store registries of debts or promises, represent ownership of property or a company, move funds in accordance with conditional instructions and create new digital assets.

Development on the Ethereum Network involves building more complex tools on top of smart contracts, such as decentralized apps (DApps); organizations that are autonomous, known as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs); and entirely new decentralized networks. For example, a company that distributes charitable donations on behalf of users could hold donated funds in smart contracts that are paid to charities only if the charity satisfies certain pre-defined conditions.

Moreover, the Ethereum Network has also been used as a platform for creating new digital assets and conducting their associated initial coin offerings. Digital assets built on the Ethereum Network represent a significant amount of the total market value of all digital assets.

In the second half of 2020, the Ethereum Network began the first of several stages of an upgrade that was initially known as “Ethereum 2.0.” and eventually became known as the “Merge” to transition the Ethereum Network from a proof-of-work consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. The Merge was completed on September 15, 2022 and the Ethereum Network has operated on a proof-of-stake model since such time. In addition, the issuance of new Ether could be partially or completely offset by the burn mechanism introduced by the EIP-1559 modification, under which Ether are removed from supply at a rate that varies with

network usage. On occasion, the Ether supply has been deflationary over a 24-hour period as a result of the burn mechanism. The attributes of the new consensus algorithm are subject to change, but in sum, the new consensus algorithm and related modifications reduced total new Ether issuances and could turn the Ether supply deflationary over the long term.

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. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2025, between approximately $44 billion and $97 billion worth of digital assets were locked up as collateral on DeFi platforms on the Ethereum Network.

In addition, the Ethereum Network and other smart contract platforms have been used for creating non-fungible tokens, or NFTs. Unlike digital assets native to smart contract platforms which are fungible and enable the payment of fees for smart contract execution. Instead, NFTs allow for digital ownership of assets that convey certain rights to other digital or real world assets. This new paradigm allows users to own rights to other assets through NFTs, which enable users to trade them with others on the Ethereum Network. For example, an NFT may convey rights to a digital asset that exists in an online game or a DApp, and users can trade their NFT in the DApp or game, and carry them to other digital experiences, creating an entirely new free-market internet-native economy that can be monetized in the physical world.

The DAO and Ethereum Classic

In July 2016, the Ethereum Network experienced what is referred to as a permanent hard fork that resulted in two different versions of its blockchain: Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.

In April 2016, a blockchain solutions company known as Slock.it announced the launch of a decentralized autonomous organization, known as “The DAO” on the Ethereum Network. The DAO was designed as a decentralized crowdfunding model, in which anyone could contribute Ether tokens to The DAO in order to become a voting member and equity stakeholder in the organization. Members of The DAO could then make proposals about different projects to pursue and put them to a vote. By committing to profitable projects, members would be rewarded based on the terms of a smart contract and their proportional interest in The DAO. As of May 27, 2016, $150 million, or approximately 14% of all Ether outstanding, was contributed to, and invested in, The DAO.

On June 17, 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited The DAO smart contract code to syphon approximately $60 million, or 3.6 million Ether, into a segregated account. Upon the news of the breach, the price of Ether was quickly cut in half as investors liquidated their holdings and members of the Ethereum community worked to determine a solution.

In the days that followed, several attempts were made to retrieve the stolen funds and secure the Ethereum Network. However, it soon became apparent that direct interference with the protocol (i.e., a hard fork) would be necessary. The argument for the hard fork was that it would create an entirely new version of the Blockchain, erasing any record of the theft, and restoring the stolen funds to their original owners. The counterargument was that it would be antithetical to the core principle of immutability of the Blockchain.

The decision over whether or not to hard fork the Blockchain was put to a vote of Ethereum community members. A majority of votes were cast in favor of a hard fork. On July 15, 2016, a hard fork specification was implemented by the Ethereum Foundation. On July 20, 2016, the Ethereum Network completed the hard fork, and a new version of the blockchain, without recognition of the theft, was born.

Many believed that after the hard fork the original version of the Blockchain would dissipate entirely. However, a group of miners continued to mine the original Blockchain for philosophical and economic reasons. On July 20, 2016, the original Ethereum protocol was rebranded as Ethereum Classic, and its native token as Ether Classic (“ETC”), preserving the untampered transaction history (including The DAO theft). Following the hard fork of Ethereum, each holder of Ether automatically received an equivalent amount of ETC tokens.

Overview of the Ethereum Network’s Operations

In order to own, transfer or use Ether directly on the Ethereum Network, as opposed to through an intermediary, such as a custodian, a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Ethereum Network. Ether transactions may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary. To prevent the possibility of double-spending Ether, a user must notify the Ethereum Network of the transaction by broadcasting the transaction data to its network peers. The Ethereum Network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every transaction in the Blockchain, which is publicly accessible and transparent. This memorialization and verification against double-spending is accomplished through the Ethereum Network validation process, which adds “blocks” of data, including recent transaction information, to the Blockchain.

Summary of an Ether Transaction

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

Each Ethereum Network address, or wallet, is associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair. To receive Ether, the Ether 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 Ether. 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 Ether contained in the associated address. Likewise, Ether is irretrievably lost if the private key associated with them is deleted and no backup has been made. When sending Ether, a user’s Ethereum Network software program must validate the transaction with the associated private key. In addition, since every computation on the Ethereum Network requires processing power, there is a transaction fee involved with the transfer that is paid by the payor. The resulting digitally validated transaction is sent by the user’s Ethereum Network software program to the Ethereum Network validators to allow transaction confirmation.

As discussed in greater detail below in “—Creation of New Ether,” Ethereum Network validators record and confirm transactions when they validate and add blocks of information to the Blockchain. In proof-of-stake, validators compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions. When a validator is selected to validate a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) the verification of newly submitted and accepted transactions and (ii) a reference to the prior block in the Blockchain to which the new block is being added. The validator becomes aware of outstanding, unrecorded transactions through the data packet transmission and distribution discussed above.

Upon the addition of a block included in the Blockchain, the Ethereum Network software program of both the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction on the Blockchain and reflect an adjustment to the Ether balance in each party’s Ethereum Network public key, completing the Ether transaction. Once a transaction is confirmed on the Blockchain, it is irreversible.

Some Ether transactions are conducted “off-blockchain” and are therefore not recorded in the Blockchain. These “off-blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of control over, or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding Ether or the reallocation of ownership of certain Ether 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 Blockchain, information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. Therefore, off-blockchain transactions are not truly Ether transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Ethereum Network and do not reflect a movement of Ether between addresses recorded in the Blockchain. For these reasons, off-blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of Ether ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Ethereum Network or recorded in, and validated through, the blockchain mechanism.

Ether Markets

In addition to using Ether to engage in transactions, investors may purchase and sell Ether to speculate as to the value of Ether in the Ether market, or as a long-term investment to diversify their portfolio. The value of Ether within the market is determined, in part, by the supply of and demand for Ether in the global Ether market, market expectations for the adoption of Ether as a store of value, the number of merchants that accept Ether as a form of payment, and the volume of peer-to-peer transactions, among other factors.

Centralized spot Ether markets typically permit investors to open accounts with the trading platform and then purchase and sell Ether via websites or through mobile applications. Prices for trades on centralized spot Ether markets are typically reported publicly. An investor opening a trading account must deposit an accepted government-issued currency into their account with the spot market, or a previously acquired digital asset, before they can purchase or sell assets on the spot market. The process of establishing an account with a centralized Ether market and trading Ether is different from, and should not be confused with, the process of users sending Ether from one Ether address to another Ether address on the Blockchain or decentralized on-chain trading platforms. This latter process is an activity that occurs on the Ethereum Network, while the former is an activity that occurs entirely within the order book operated by the centralized spot market. The centralized spot market typically records the investor’s ownership of Ether in its internal books and records, rather than on the Blockchain. The centralized spot market ordinarily does not transfer Ether to the investor on the Blockchain unless

the investor makes a request to the Digital Asset Trading Platform to withdraw the Ether in their account to an off-exchange Ether wallet.

See “—Ether Value” below for a discussion of historical spot Ether prices on Digital Asset Trading Platforms and how such prices may differ from the Index Price.

Outside of the spot markets, Ether can be traded over-the-counter (“OTC”). The OTC market is largely institutional in nature, and OTC market participants generally consist of institutional entities, such as firms that offer two-sided liquidity for Ether, investment managers, proprietary trading firms, high-net-worth individuals that trade Ether on a proprietary basis, entities with sizable Ether holdings, and family offices. The OTC market provides a relatively flexible market in terms of quotes, price, quantity, and other factors, although it tends to involve large blocks of Ether. The OTC market has no formal structure and no open-outcry meeting place. Parties engaging in OTC transactions will agree upon a price—often via phone or email—and then one of the two parties will initiate the transaction. For example, a seller of Ether could initiate the transaction by sending the Ether to the buyer’s Ether address. The buyer would then wire U.S. dollars to the seller’s bank account. OTC trades are sometimes hedged and eventually settled with concomitant trades on Ether spot markets.

In addition, Ether futures and options trading occurs on exchanges in the U.S. regulated by the CFTC. The market for CFTC-regulated trading of Ether derivatives has developed substantially. Through the common membership of NYSE Arca and the CME Ethereum Futures market in the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), NYSE Arca may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and listed Ether derivatives from the CME Ethereum Futures market via the ISG and from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG. Such an arrangement with the ISG and the CME Ethereum Futures market allows for the surveillance of Ether futures market conditions and price movements on a real-time and ongoing basis in order to detect and prevent price distortions, including price distortions caused by manipulative efforts. The sharing of surveillance information between NYSE Arca and the CME Ethereum Futures market regarding market trading activity, clearing activity and customer identity assists in detecting, investigating and deterring fraudulent and manipulative misconduct, as well as violations of NYSE Arca’s rules and the applicable federal securities laws and rules. NYSE Arca has also implemented surveillance procedures to monitor the trading of the Shares on NYSE Arca during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of NYSE Arca rules and the applicable federal securities laws.

Creation of New Ether

Initial Creation of Ether

Unlike other digital assets such as Bitcoin, which are solely created through a progressive mining process, 72.0 million Ether were created in connection with the launch of the Ethereum Network. The initial 72.0 million Ether were distributed as follows:

Initial Distribution: 60.0 million Ether, or 83.33% of the supply, was sold to the public in a crowd sale conducted between July and August 2014 that raised approximately $18 million.

Ethereum Foundation: 6.0 million Ether, or 8.33% of the supply, was distributed to the Ethereum Foundation for operational costs.

Ethereum Developers: 3.0 million Ether, or 4.17% of the supply, was distributed to developers who contributed to the Ethereum Network.

Developer Purchase Program: 3.0 million Ether, or 4.17% of the supply, was distributed to members of the Ethereum Foundation to purchase at the initial crowd sale price.

Following the launch of the Ethereum Network, Ether supply initially increased through a progressive mining process. Following the introduction of EIP-1559, described below, Ether supply and issuance rate varies based on factors such as recent use of the network.

Proof-of-Work Mining Process

Prior to September 2022, Ethereum operated using a proof-of-work consensus mechanism. Under proof-of-work, in order to incentivize those who incurred the computational costs of securing the network by validating transactions, there was a reward given to the computer that was able to create the latest block on the chain. Prior to the Merge (as defined below), approximately every 14 seconds, on average, a new block was added to the Blockchain with the latest transactions processed by the network, and the computer that generated this block was awarded a variable amount of Ether, depending on use of the network at the time. In certain mining scenarios, Ether was sometimes sent to another miner if they were also able to find a solution, but their block was not included. This is referred to as an uncle/aunt reward. Due to the nature of the algorithm for block generation, this process (generating a “proof-of-work”) was guaranteed to be random. The process by which a digital asset was “mined” resulted in new blocks being added to such digital asset’s blockchain and new digital assets being issued to the miners. Prior to the Merge upgrade, described below, computers on the Ethereum

Network engaged in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Blockchain and thereby confirm Ether transactions included in that block’s data.

Proof-of-Stake Process

Unlike proof-of-work, in which miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, in proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of coins staked. Any malicious activity, such as validating multiple blocks, disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a portion of the staked coins. Proof-of-stake is viewed as more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work and is sometimes referred to as “virtual mining”. As of December 31, 2025, every 12 seconds, approximately, a new block is added to the Blockchain with the latest transactions processed by the network, and the validator that generated this block is awarded Ether.

Limits on Ether Supply

The rate at which new Ether are issued and put into circulation is expected to vary. In September 2022 the Ethereum Network converted from proof-of-work to a new proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. As of December 31, 2025, approximately 2,689 Ether are issued per day, though the issuance rate varies based on the number of validators on the network. In addition, the issuance of new Ether could be partially or completely offset by the burn mechanism introduced by the EIP-1559 modification, under which Ether are removed from supply at a rate that varies with network usage. See “—Modifications to the Ethereum Protocol.” On occasion, the Ether supply has been deflationary over a 24-hour period as a result of the burn mechanism. The attributes of the new consensus algorithm are subject to change, but in sum, the new consensus algorithm and related modifications reduced total new Ether issuances and could turn the Ether supply deflationary over the long term.

As of December 31, 2025, approximately 121 million Ether were outstanding.

Modifications to the Ethereum Protocol

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

For example, in 2019 the Ethereum Network completed a network upgrade called Metropolis that was designed to enhance the usability of the Ethereum Network and was introduced in two stages. The first stage, called Byzantium, was implemented in October 2017. The purpose of Byzantium was to increase the network’s privacy, security, and scalability and reduce the block reward from 5.0 Ether to 3.0 Ether. The second stage, called Constantinople, was implemented in February 2019, along with another upgrade, called St. Petersburg. Another network upgrade, called Istanbul, was implemented in December 2019. The purpose of Istanbul was to make the network more resistant to denial of service attacks, enable greater interoperability between the Ethereum Network and Zcash network, as well as other Equihash-based proof-of-work digital assets, and to increase the scalability and performance for solutions on zero-knowledge privacy technology like SNARKs and STARKs. The purpose of these upgrades was to prepare the Ethereum Network for the introduction of a proof-of-stake algorithm and reduce the block reward from 3.0 Ether to 2.0 Ether. In the second half of 2020, the Ethereum Network began the first of several stages of an upgrade culminating in the Merge. The Merge amended the Ethereum Network’s consensus mechanism to include proof-of-stake. In April 2023, the Ethereum Network completed a network upgrade called Shapella, which enabled users to unstake their previously-staked Ether and remove it from the relevant smart contract. In March 2024, the Ethereum Network completed a network upgrade called Dencun, which enabled “proto-danksharding.” The purpose of proto-danksharding is to increase scalability of the Ethereum Network by allowing easy synchronization with Layer 2 networks capable of processing many more transactions than the Layer 1 blockchain alone. The intended effect would be to increase the rate of transactions that can be processed by the Ethereum Network. Forthcoming planned upgrades include Pectra, which intends to, among other changes, increase the maximum amount of Ether that a validator can stake from 32 to 2,048.

In 2021, the Ethereum Network implemented the EIP-1559 upgrade. EIP-1559 changed the methodology used to calculate the fees paid to miners (now validators). This new methodology splits fees into two components: a base cost and priority fee. The base cost is now removed from circulation, or “burnt”, and the priority fee is paid to validators. EIP-1559 has reduced the total net issuance of Ether. The release of updates to the Ethereum Network’s source code does not guarantee that the updates will be automatically adopted. Users and validators must accept any changes made to the Ethereum source code by downloading the proposed modification of the Ethereum Network’s source code. A modification of the Ethereum Network’s source code is effective only with respect to the Ethereum users and validators that download it. If a modification is accepted by only a percentage of users and validators, a division in the Ethereum Network may occur such that one network will run the pre-modification source code and the other network will run the modified source code. Such a division is known as a “fork.” See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets—A temporary or permanent “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 Ethereum Network only if accepted by participants collectively having most of the validation power on the Ethereum Network.

Core development of the Ethereum source code has increasingly focused on modifications of the Ethereum protocol to increase speed and scalability and also allow for financial and non-financial next generation uses. The Trust’s activities will not directly relate to such projects, though such projects may utilize Ether as tokens for the facilitation of their non-financial uses, thereby potentially increasing demand for Ether and the utility of the Ethereum Network as a whole. Conversely, projects that operate and are built within the Blockchain may increase the data flow on the Ethereum Network and could either “bloat” the size of the Blockchain or slow confirmation times.

Forms of Attack Against the Ethereum Network

All networked systems are vulnerable to various kinds of attacks. As with any computer network, the Ethereum Network contains certain flaws. For example, the Ethereum Network is currently vulnerable to attacks where, if a validator or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than certain thresholds of staked Ether, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the network and the ability to manipulate the Blockchain. As of the date of this Annual Report, the top three largest staking pools controlled approximately 38% of the Ether staked on the Ethereum Network. Any future attacks on the Ethereum Network could negatively impact the perception of the Ethereum Network, the value of Ether, and the value of the Shares.

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 the transfer of digital assets, including Ether. Any similar attacks on the Ethereum Network that impact the ability to transfer Ether could have a material adverse effect on the price of Ether and the value of the Shares. This is not intended as an exhaustive list of all forms of attack against the Ethereum Network. For additional information, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets.”

Market Participants

Validators

In proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of coins staked. Any malicious activity, such as validating multiple blocks, disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a portion of the staked coins.

A validator is a node on a proof-of-stake blockchain that is responsible for securing the network, storing the history of transactions and confirming the validity of new transactions added to the next block in the chain. On the Ethereum Network, a validator must stake 32 Ether in order to participate in maintaining the network. When a validator participates in adding a block to the Blockchain, the validator receives a fee, sometimes referred to as a block reward. Validators range from Ethereum enthusiasts to professional operations that design and build dedicated machines and data centers. During the course of ordering transactions and validating blocks, validators may be able to prioritize certain transactions in return for increased transaction fees, an incentive system known as “Maximal Extractable Value” or MEV. For example, in blockchain networks that facilitate DeFi protocols in particular, such as the Ethereum Network, users may attempt to gain an advantage over other users by increasing offered transaction fees. Certain software solutions, such as Flashbots, have been developed which facilitate validators in capturing MEV produced by these increased fees. See “—Creation of New Ether” and “—Proof-of-Stake Process” above.

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 Ether transactions through the direct sending of Ether over the Ethereum Network. While the use of Bitcoin to purchase goods and services from commercial or service businesses is developing, Ether has not yet been accepted in the same manner because Ether has a slightly different purpose than Bitcoin. Ether’s primary purpose is its use as payment for transaction fees and computational services (i.e., smart contracts) on the Ethereum Network. In the year ended December 31, 2025, the Ethereum Network facilitated daily transaction values between approximately $1.8 billion and approximately $41.4 billion. For reference, the Bitcoin network facilitated daily transaction values between approximately $2.9 billion and $54.5 billion over the same period. If the Ethereum Network’s smart contract capabilities are not more widely utilized, it may struggle to compete with other digital assets.

Service Sector

This sector includes companies that provide a variety of services including the buying, selling, payment processing and storing of Ether. For example, Coinbase, Kraken, LMAX Digital and Crypto.com are some of the largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms by volume traded. For storing Ether, Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, the Custodian for the Trust, is a digital asset custodian that provides custodial accounts that store Ether for users. As the Ethereum 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 Ethereum 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 the Ethereum Network has enjoyed some success in its limited history, the aggregate value of outstanding Ether is smaller than that of Bitcoin and may be eclipsed by the more rapid development of other digital assets. In addition, while Ether was the first digital asset with a network that served as a smart contracts platform, a number of newer digital assets also function as smart contracts platforms, including Solana, Avalanche and Cardano.

Some industry groups have also created private, permissioned blockchains. For example, J.P. Morgan has developed a platform called Kinexys (formerly known as Onyx), which is described as a blockchain-based platform designed for use by the financial services industry.

Ether Value

Digital Asset Trading Platform Valuation

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

Digital Asset Trading Platform Public Market Data

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

As of December 31, 2025, the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index were Bitstamp by Robinhood, Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kraken and LMAX Digital. The Sponsor and the Trust reasonably believe each of these Digital Asset Trading Platforms are in material compliance with applicable licensing requirements based on the inclusion criteria and jurisdiction, as detailed below, and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-customer (“KYC”) regulations.

Bitstamp by Robinhood: A U.K.-based trading platform that has U.S. operations and entities registered as money service businesses (“MSBs”) with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), holds a BitLicense, and that is licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states.

Coinbase: A U.S.-based trading platform that has entities registered as MSBs with FinCEN, and that is licensed as a virtual currency business under the New York State Department of Financial Services’ (“NYDFS”) BitLicense, licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states, and chartered as a limited purpose trust company under New York Banking Law.

Crypto.com: A Singapore-based trading platform that has entities registered as MSBs with FinCEN, and that is licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states and chartered as a non-depository trust company by the New Hampshire Banking Department. Crypto.com does not hold a BitLicense.

Gemini: A U.S.-based trading platform that has entities registered as MSBs with FinCEN and that is licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states. Gemini is exempt from applying for a BitLicense under the framework established by NYDFS because of their trust charter under New York Banking Law.

Kraken: A U.S.-based trading platform that has entities registered as MSBs with FinCEN, and that is licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states and chartered as a Special Purpose Depository Institution by the Wyoming Division of Banking. Kraken does not hold a BitLicense.

LMAX Digital: A U.K.-based trading platform that has entities registered as a broker with the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, and that is licensed as an MSB with FinCEN and regulated by the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission.

Currently, there are several Digital Asset Trading Platforms operating worldwide, and online Digital Asset Trading Platforms represent a substantial percentage of Ether buying and selling activity and provide the most data with respect to prevailing valuations of Ether. These trading platforms include established trading platforms such as trading platforms included in the Index which provide a number of options for buying and selling Ether. The below table reflects the trading volume in Ether and market share of the Ether-U.S. dollar trading pair of each of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2025 (collectively, “Constituent Trading Platforms”), using data since the inception of the Trust:


Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2025	Volume (Ether)		Market Share(1)
Crypto.com		178,236,670		58.73	%
Coinbase		71,675,952		23.62	%
Kraken		12,768,772		4.21	%
LMAX Digital		9,440,102		3.11	%
Bitstamp by Robinhood		6,337,367		2.09	%
Gemini		5,410,422		1.78	%
Total Ether-U.S. Dollar trading pair		283,869,285		93.54	%

(1)

Market share is calculated using trading volume (in Ether) for certain Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, LMAX Digital, Crypto.com, and Bitstamp by Robinhood, as well as certain other large U.S.-dollar denominated Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were not included in the Index as of December 31, 2025, including Binance. US, (data included from February 18, 2025), Bitfinex, Bitflyer, Bullish, CEX.IO and itBit.

The domicile, regulation and legal compliance of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index 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 Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of Ether, third parties may be able to purchase and sell Ether on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Trading Platforms of the Index, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of Ether 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 Index Provider, on any given day during the year ended December 31, 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 Index and the Index Price was 0.69% 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 Index and the Index Price was 0.23%. 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 Index and the Index Price was 0.003%. All Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were included in the Index throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of Ether.

The Index and the Index Price

The Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of Ether. The Index is designed to (1) mitigate the effects of fraud, manipulation and other anomalous trading activity from impacting the Ether reference rate, (2) provide a real-time, volume-weighted fair value of Ether and (3) appropriately handle and adjust for non-market related events.

The Index Price is determined by the Index Provider through a process in which trade data is cleansed and compiled in such a manner as to algorithmically reduce the impact of anomalistic or manipulative trading. This is accomplished by adjusting the weight of each data input based on price deviation relative to the observable set, as well as recent and long-term trading volume at each venue relative to the observable set. The Index Price is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements.

All references to the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust in this report have been calculated using the Index Price unless indicated otherwise.

Constituent Trading Platform Selection

Digital Asset Trading Platforms are selected for inclusion in the Index based on a methodology developed by the Index Provider in alignment with the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) Principles for Financial Benchmarks. To qualify as a Constituent Trading Platform, a platform is evaluated across the following core criteria listed below (the “Inclusion Criteria”):

•

Market Quality: Overall liquidity, trading activity, price reliability, and market stability.

•

Security: Cybersecurity safeguards, custody practices, and operational risk controls.

•

Legal and Regulatory: Licensing status, regulatory compliance, and legal transparency.

•

KYC: Assessment of anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-customer (“KYC”) frameworks, transaction monitoring capabilities, and market oversight.

•

Data Provision: Quality, accessibility, and reliability of trading data and technical infrastructure.

•

Transparency: Financial and operational disclosures, including reserve and governance transparency.

•

Team: Assessment of executive leadership, relevant experience, organizational structure, and service offerings across institutional and retail markets.

•

Negative Events: The Index Provider may apply a downward adjustment for material adverse events, including data breaches, regulatory penalties, withdrawal freezes, or other significant incidents.

Trading platforms that meet these Inclusion Criteria are also required to be licensed and able to serve customers in one or more of the following jurisdictions:

•

United States (FinCEN, state regulatory authorities)

•

United Kingdom (FCA)

•

European Union (MiCA passport)

•

Hong Kong (SFC)

•

Singapore (MAS)

•

United Arab Emirates, including the emirates of Dubai and Abu Dhabi (VARA, ADGM)

•

Gibraltar (GFSC)

A Digital Asset Trading Platform is removed from the Constituent Trading Platforms when it no longer satisfies the Inclusion Criteria. The Index Provider may also exclude certain exchanges that require additional support from contributing exchanges at its discretion. The Index 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. Ether derivative markets are also not currently included. While the Index Provider has no plans to include data from over-the-counter markets or derivative platforms at this time, the Index Provider will consider IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks, the management of trading venues of Ether derivatives and the aforementioned Inclusion Criteria when considering whether to include over-the-counter or derivative platform data in the future.

The Index Provider and the Sponsor have entered into the index license agreement, dated as of February 1, 2022 (as amended, the “Index License Agreement”), governing the Sponsor’s use of the Index Price. Pursuant to the terms of the Index License Agreement, the Index Provider may adjust the calculation methodology for the Index Price without notice to, or consent of, the Trust or its shareholders. The Index Provider may decide to change the calculation methodology to maintain the integrity of the Index Price calculation should it identify or become aware of previously unknown variables or issues with the existing methodology that it believes could materially impact its performance and/or reliability. The Index Provider has sole discretion over the determination of the Index Price and may change the methodologies for determining the Index Price from time to time. Shareholders will be notified of any material changes to the calculation methodology or the Index Price in the Trust’s current reports and will be notified of all other changes that the Sponsor considers significant in the Trust’s periodic or current reports. The Sponsor will determine the materiality of any changes to the Index Price on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with external counsel.

The Index Provider may change the trading venues that are used to calculate the Index or otherwise change the way in which the Index is calculated at any time. For example, the Index Provider has scheduled quarterly reviews in which it may add or remove Constituent Trading Platforms that satisfy or fail the Inclusion Criteria as well as other requirements detailed in the Index Methodology. The Index 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 Index 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 certain 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 provide updates of such changes in the Trust’s quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Although the Index 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 Index Provider would issue a public announcement through its website, API and other established communication channels with its clients.

Determination of the Index Price

The Index applies an algorithm to the price of Ether on the Constituent Trading Platforms calculated on a per second basis over a 24-hour period. The Index’s algorithm is expected to reflect a four-pronged methodology to calculate the Index Price from the Constituent Trading Platforms:

•

Volume Weighting: Constituent Trading Platforms with greater liquidity receive a higher weighting in the Index, increasing the ability to execute against (i.e., replicate) the Index in the underlying spot markets.

•

Price-Variance Weighting: The Index Price reflects data points that are discretely weighted in proportion to their variance from the rest of the Constituent Trading Platforms. As the price at a particular trading platform diverges from the prices at the rest of the Constituent Trading Platforms, its weight in the Index Price consequently decreases.

•

Inactivity Adjustment: The Index Price algorithm penalizes stale activity from any given Constituent Trading Platform. When a Constituent Trading Platform does not have recent trading data, its weighting in the Index Price is gradually reduced until it is de-weighted entirely. Similarly, once trading activity at a Constituent Trading Platform resumes, the corresponding weighting for that Constituent Trading Platform is gradually increased until it reaches the appropriate level.

•

Manipulation Resistance: In order to mitigate the effects of wash-trading and order book spoofing, the Index only includes executed trades in its calculation. Additionally, the Index only includes Constituent Trading Platforms that charge trading fees to its users in order to attach a real, quantifiable cost to any manipulation attempts.

The Index Provider re-evaluates the weighting algorithm on a periodic basis, but maintains discretion to change the way in which an Index Price is calculated based on its periodic review or in extreme circumstances. The exact methodology to calculate the Index Price is not publicly available. Still, the Index is designed to limit exposure to trading or price distortion of any individual Digital Asset Trading Platform that experiences periods of unusual activity or limited liquidity by discounting, in real-time, anomalous price movements at individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms.

The Sponsor believes the Index Provider’s selection process for Constituent Trading Platforms as well as the methodology of the Index Price’s algorithm provides a more accurate picture of Ether price movements than a simple average of Digital Asset Trading Platform spot prices, and that the weighting of Ether prices on the Constituent Trading Platforms limits the inclusion of data that is influenced by temporary price dislocations that may result from technical problems, limited liquidity or fraudulent activity elsewhere in the Ether spot market. By referencing multiple trading venues and weighting them based on trade activity, the Sponsor believes that the impact of any potential fraud, manipulation or anomalous trading activity occurring on any single venue is reduced.

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

The Trust values its Ether for operational purposes by reference to the Index Price. The Index Price is the value of an Ether as represented by the Index, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day.

Illustrative Example

For the purposes of illustration, outlined below are examples of how the attributes that impact weighting and adjustments in the aforementioned methodology may be utilized to generate the Index Price for a digital asset. For example, the Constituent Trading Platforms used to calculate the Index Price of the digital asset may include trading platforms such as Coinbase, Kraken, LMAX Digital and Crypto.com.

•

Volume Weighting: Each Constituent Trading Platform will be weighted to appropriately reflect the trading volume share of the Constituent Trading Platform relative to all the Constituent Trading Platforms during this same period. For example, for each calculation of the Index Price, the initial weight of each Constituent Trading Platform used to calculate the Index Price will be based on its share of the volume over the past 24-hour period as a percentage of the aggregate 24-hour volume for all Constituent Trading Platforms. The initial weight may be adjusted based on inactivity and price variance as described below.

•

Inactivity Adjustment: Assume that a Constituent Trading Platform represented a 14% weighting on the Index Price of the digital asset, which is based on the per-second calculations of its trading volume and price-variance relative to the cohort of Constituent Trading Platforms included in such Index, and then went offline for approximately two hours. The index algorithm would automatically recognize inactivity and start de-weighting the Constituent Trading Platform after a specified period and continue to do so until its influence was effectively zero. As soon as trading activity resumed at the Constituent Trading Platform, the index algorithm would re-weight it to the appropriate weighting factoring in the period of inactivity.

•

Price-Variance Weighting: The price-variance weighting adjustment is a relative measure of each trading platform versus the cohort of trading platforms. The further the price at a Constituent Trading Platform is from the mean price of the cohort, the less influence that trading platform’s price will have on the algorithm that produces the Index Price, as the trading platform data is discretely weighted in proportion to their variance from the rest of the trading platforms on a per-second basis.

Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable

The Sponsor uses the following cascading set of rules to calculate the Index 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:

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

Index Price = The price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate (the “Secondary Index”) as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date (the “Secondary Index Price”). The Secondary Index Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc. (the “Secondary Index Provider”). The Secondary Index 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 Index 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 Index and the Secondary Index Price from the Secondary Index Provider. If the Secondary Index becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Secondary Index does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Secondary Index Provider to obtain the Secondary Index Price directly from the Secondary Index Provider. If after such contact the Secondary Index remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Secondary Index does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Index Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment and it will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion.

Index 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 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 Index Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment and it will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion.

Index Price = The Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Index 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 Index Provider may calculate the Index 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 index provider or calculate the Index Price itself using its best judgment.

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, select a different index provider, select a different index price provided by the Index Provider, calculate the Index 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 and, if the Sponsor makes such a change other than on an ad hoc or temporary basis, will file a proposed rule change with the SEC.

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 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. 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 enforcement actions, criminal investigations, 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 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.

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 Ether, validating activity or the operation of the Ethereum Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares,” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares—A determination that Ether or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of Ether and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.”

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 applied as of December 2024.

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 Ether by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the Ethereum ecosystem in the United States and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of Ether held by the Trust. The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or the Ether 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.

The CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the Ether futures markets because the CFTC believes that Ether is a non-security “commodity” under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended (the “CEA”) and the rules thereunder, such that it takes the position that it has jurisdiction to prosecute fraud and manipulation in the cash, or spot, market for Ether. Beyond instances of fraud or manipulation, the CFTC generally does not oversee cash or spot market exchanges, spot Digital Asset Trading Platforms or retail transactions involving spot Ether that do not utilize collateral, leverage, or financing. The National Futures Association (“NFA”) is the self-regulatory agency for the U.S. futures industry, and as such has jurisdiction over Ether futures. However, the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority for the cash or spot market for Ether trading or transactions.

In February 2021, certain designated contract markets (“DCMs”) registered with the CFTC, including the CME, launched new contracts for Ether futures products. DCMs are boards of trades (commonly referred to as exchanges) that operate under the regulatory oversight of the CFTC, pursuant to Section 5 of the CEA. To obtain and maintain designation as a DCM, an exchange must comply on

an initial and ongoing basis with twenty-three Core Principles established under Section 5(d) of the CEA. Among other things, DCMs are required to establish self-regulatory programs designed to enforce the DCM’s rules, prevent market manipulation and customer and market abuses, and ensure the recording and safe storage of trade information. The CFTC engaged in a “heightened review” of the self-certification of Ether futures, which required DCMs to enter direct or indirect information sharing agreements with spot market platforms to allow access to trade and trader data; monitor data from cash markets with respect to price settlements and other Ether prices more broadly, and identify anomalies and disproportionate moves in the cash markets compared to the futures markets; engage in inquiries, including at the trade settlement level when necessary; and agree to regular coordination with CFTC surveillance staff on trade activities, including providing the CFTC surveillance team with trade settlement data upon request. In December 2025, the CFTC announced that spot digital assets could begin being traded on CFTC-registered futures exchanges. Soon after, spot digital assets began trading on Bitnomial, a CFTC-registered futures exchange and member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group, a global body of exchanges sharing surveillance information with member exchanges.

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 Ether, validating activity or the operation of the Ethereum 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 April 23, 2024 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 November 4, 2024, the Trust changed its name from Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust (ETH) to Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF 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. Thereafter, on January 5, 2026, the Trust changed its name from Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF to Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF 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 Ether are held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust’s Ether will be transferred out of the Vault Balance only in the following circumstances: (i) transferred to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor’s Staking 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 Ether by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expenses will be a taxable event for shareholders. See “—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 Ether derivatives, including Ether futures contracts, on any futures exchange. The Trust is authorized solely to take immediate delivery of actual Ether. 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 Ether derivatives, including Ether 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 Ether futures contracts on regulated futures exchanges.

The Trust creates and redeems Shares from time to time but only in Baskets. A Basket equals a block of 10,000 Shares. See “—Description of Creation and Redemption of 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, etfs.grayscale.com/eth, as soon as practicable after the Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share have been determined by the Sponsor. See “—Valuation of Ether and Determination of NAV.”

The Trust’s assets consist solely of Ether, cash proceeds from the sale of Ether and any rights of the Trust pursuant to any agreements, other than the Trust Agreement, to which the Trust is a party. The Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust not to take any Affirmative Action to acquire any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, thereby irrevocably abandoning any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future. As a result, the Trust does not expect to hold any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency or to take any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency into account for the purposes of determining the NAV or the NAV per Share.

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 Ether by reference to the Index 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 Ether. In addition, because the Shares reflect the estimated accrued but unpaid expenses of the Trust, the amount of Ether represented by a Share will gradually decrease over time as the Trust’s Ether are used to pay the Trust’s expenses.

Ether pricing information is available on a 24-hour basis from various financial information service providers or Ethereum 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 December 31, 2025, the Constituent Trading Platforms of the Index were Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, LMAX Digital, Crypto.com, and Bitstamp by Robinhood. The Index Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Index 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

As of the date of this Annual Report, the Trust’s Sponsor is Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC. Until December 31, 2024, the Trust’s Sponsor was Grayscale Investments, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formed on May 29, 2013 and a consolidated subsidiary of DCG. See “—Overview of the Trust and the Shares” for more information regarding the Reorganization on January 1, 2025. 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 indirect parent company of the Sponsor, is not responsible for the debts, obligations and liabilities of the Sponsor solely by reason of being the indirect parent company 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, following their uplisting on July 23, 2024, listing of the Shares on NYSE Arca. 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 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 Ether, as needed to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses, (vi) upon dissolution of the Trust, distributing the Trust’s remaining Ether 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 Ethereum Network after which there is a dispute as to which network resulting from the fork is the Ethereum Network, the Sponsor has the authority to select the network that it believes in good faith is the Ethereum 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 Ether but instead has entered into the Prime Broker Agreement with the Custodian to facilitate the security of the Trust’s Ether.

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 Ether.”

Market—Ether Value—The Index and the Index Price—Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable” above, or change the cascading set of rules set forth above at any time.

Marketing Agent Agreement

The Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, is party to a marketing agent agreement dated May 23, 2024 (the “Marketing Agent Agreement”) with Foreside Fund Services, LLC (the “Marketing Agent” or “Foreside”). Under the Marketing Agent Agreement, the Marketing Agent will provide the following services to the Sponsor: (i) assist the Sponsor in facilitating Participant Agreements between and among Authorized Participants, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, and the Transfer Agent; (ii) provide prospectuses to Authorized Participants; (iii) work with the Transfer Agent to review and approve orders placed by the Authorized Participants and transmitted to the Transfer Agent; (iv) review and file applicable marketing materials with FINRA and (v) maintain, reproduce and store applicable books and records related to the services provided under the Marketing Agent Agreement. The Sponsor will pay the Marketing Agent an annual fee, as well as certain out-of-pocket fees and expenses of the Marketing Agent incurred in connection with its assistance in the marketing of the Trust and its Shares.

Index License Agreement

The Sponsor has entered into the Index License Agreement with CoinDesk Indices, Inc., the Index Provider, governing the Sponsor’s use of the Index for calculation of the Index Price. The Index Provider may adjust the calculation methodology for the Index without notice to, or consent of, the Trust or its shareholders. Under the Index License Agreement, the Sponsor pays a monthly fee and a fee based on the NAV of the Trust to the Index Provider in consideration of its license to the Sponsor of Index-related intellectual property. The initial term of the Index 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 Index License Agreement. On June 20, 2023, the Sponsor and the Index Provider, entered into an amendment to the Index License Agreement to extend the initial term of the Index License Agreement from February 29, 2024, to February 28, 2025. On February 5, 2025, the Sponsor and the Index Provider, entered into an amendment to the Index License Agreement to extend the term of the Index License Agreement from February 28, 2025, to February 29, 2028. Thereafter, the Index License Agreement will automatically renew on an annual basis, unless a notice of non-renewal is provided. The Index 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 Index 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 Index License Agreement.

COINDESK® and COINDESK ETHER PRICE INDEX (the “Index”) are trade or service marks of CoinDesk Indices, Inc. (with its affiliates, including CC Data Limited, “CDI”) and/or its licensors. CDI or CDI’s licensors own all proprietary rights in the Data.

CDI is not the issuer or producer of the Trust and has no responsibilities, obligations, or duties to investors in or holders of the Trust. The Index is licensed for use by the Sponsor as the sponsor of the Trust. The only relationship that CDI has with the Sponsor in respect of the Trust is the licensing of the Index, which is administered and published by CDI, or any successor thereto, without regard to the Sponsor or the owners or holders of Shares of the Trust.

Investors or holders acquire shares of the Trust offered by the Sponsor and investors and holders neither acquire any interest in the Index nor enter into any relationship of any kind whatsoever with CDI upon making an investment in or acquisition of the Trust. The Trust is not sponsored, endorsed, sold, or promoted by CDI. CDI makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding the advisability of investing in or otherwise acquiring the Trust or the advisability of investing in securities or digital assets generally or the ability of the Index to track corresponding or relative market performance. CDI has not passed on the legality or suitability of the Trust with respect to any person or entity. CDI is not responsible for, nor has participated in, the determination of the timing of, prices at, or quantities of the Trust to be issued. CDI has no obligation to take the needs of the Sponsor or the owners or holders of the Trust or any other third party into consideration in administering, composing, calculating, or publishing the Index. CDI has no obligation or liability in connection with administration, marketing, or trading of the Trust.

The licensing agreement between the Sponsor and CDI is solely for the benefit of the Sponsor and CDI and not for the benefit of the owners or holders of Shares of the Trust or any other third parties.

CDI shall have no liability to the Sponsor, the Trust, investors, holders or other third parties for the quality, accuracy and/or completeness of the index or any data included therein or for interruptions in the delivery of the data. CDI hereby expressly disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to the Index or any other data included therein. CDI reserves the right to change the methods of calculation or publication, or to cease the calculation or publication of the Index and shall not be liable for any miscalculation of or any incorrect, delayed, or interrupted publication with respect to the Index. CDI shall not be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, any special, indirect or consequential damages, or any lost profits, even if advised of the possibility of such, resulting from the use of the Index or any other data included therein or with respect to the Trust.

Administration and Accounting Agreement

The Sponsor has entered into a Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement with BNY Mellon Asset Servicing, a division of The Bank of New York Mellon (the “Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement”), to provide administration and accounting services to the Trust. Pursuant to the terms of the Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement and under the supervision and direction of the Sponsor and the Trust, BNY Mellon Asset Servicing keeps the operational records of the Trust and prepares and files certain regulatory filings on behalf of the Trust. BNY Mellon Asset Servicing may also perform other services for the Trust pursuant to the Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement as mutually agreed upon by the Sponsor, the Trust and BNY Mellon Asset Servicing from time to time. The Administrator’s fees are paid on behalf of the Trust by the Sponsor.

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, Prime Broker, 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 Ether 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 and the Co-Transfer Agent

The Bank of New York Mellon serves as the Transfer Agent of the Trust pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement (the “Transfer Agency and Service Agreement”). The Transfer Agent: (1) facilitates the issuance and redemption of Shares of the Trust; (2) responds to correspondence by Trust shareholders and others relating to its duties; (3) maintains shareholder accounts; and (4) makes periodic reports to the Trust. The Transfer Agent has its principal office at 240 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10286. A copy of the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein.

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

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

Administrator

BNY Mellon Asset Servicing, a division of The Bank of New York Mellon. BNY Mellon Asset Servicing also serves as the administrator for the Trust. The Administrator’s fees are paid on behalf of the Trust by the Sponsor.

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 and redeem Baskets. The Participant Agreement sets forth the procedures for the creation and redemption of Baskets and for the delivery of Ether 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 (i) is a registered broker-dealer and (ii) has entered into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor and the Transfer Agent and (iii) in the case of any creation or redemption pursuant to In-Kind Orders (as defined below), must own, or their designee in connection with In-Kind Orders (“AP Designee”), must own, an Ether wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant or its AP Designee and maintain an account with the Custodian.

The Trust issues Shares to, and redeems Shares from, Authorized Participants on an ongoing basis, but only in one or more Baskets (with a “Basket” being a block of 10,000 Shares). See “—Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares.”

As of the date of this filing, NYSE Arca has received regulatory approval permitting the Trust to conduct creations and
redemptions of Shares via in-kind transactions with Authorized Participants or AP Designees in exchange for Ether. The Trust is also
able to accept Cash Orders (as defined herein). Accordingly, the Trust is permitted to conduct creations and redemptions of Shares
pursuant to In-Kind Orders and Cash Orders (each as described herein). See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the
Trust and the Shares—The limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions of Shares could have adverse consequences
for the Trust” for more information.

As of the date of this Annual Report, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, and the Transfer Agent entered into Participant Agreements with Jane Street Capital, LLC, Virtu Americas LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., ABN AMRO Clearing USA LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, pursuant to which such entities have agreed to act as Authorized Participants. The Sponsor may engage additional Authorized Participants who 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.

Liquidity Providers

Liquidity Providers facilitate the purchase and sale of Ether in connection with Cash Orders for creations or redemptions of Baskets. The Liquidity Providers with which Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (in such capacity, the “Liquidity Engager”), will engage in Ether transactions are third parties that are not affiliated with the Sponsor or the Trust and are not acting as agents of the Trust, the Sponsor, or any Authorized Participant. Except for the contractual relationships between each Liquidity Provider and Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC in its capacity as the Liquidity Engager, there is no contractual relationship between each Liquidity Provider and the Trust, the Sponsor, or any Authorized Participant.

As of the date of this Annual Report, the Liquidity Engager has engaged JSCT, LLC, Virtu Financial Singapore Pte. Ltd., Flow Traders B.V., Flowdesk, Cumberland DRW LLC, and Galaxy Digital Trading Cayman LLC as Liquidity Providers. The Liquidity Engager may engage additional Liquidity Providers who are unaffiliated with the Trust in the future.

Jane Street Capital, LLC, one of the Authorized Participants, is an affiliate of JSCT, LLC, one of the Liquidity Providers. Virtu Americas LLC, one of the Authorized Participants, is an affiliate of Virtu Financial Singapore Pte., Ltd, one of the Liquidity Providers.

The Custodian and Prime Broker

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 Prime Broker Agreement. The Custodian has its principal office at 200 Park Avenue South, Suite 1208, New York, NY 10003. A copy of the Prime Broker Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein.

Under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Custodian controls and secures the Trust’s “Vault Balance,” a segregated custody account to store private keys, which allow for the transfer of ownership or control of the Trust’s Ether, on the Trust’s behalf. The Custodian’s services (i) allow Ether to be deposited from a public blockchain address to the Trust’s Vault Balance and (ii) allow the Trust or Sponsor to withdraw Ether from the Trust’s Vault Balance to a public blockchain address the Trust or Sponsor controls (the “Custodial and Prime Broker Services”). Pursuant to the addendum to the Coinbase Custody Custodial Services Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Coinbase Prime Broker Agreement, the Sponsor has caused, and from time to time may cause, the Trust to enter into Staking Arrangements with the Custodian and one or more Staking Providers, which may be affiliates of the Custodian or other trusted

institutional validators, to stake the Trust’s Ether via Provider-Facilitated Staking. The Sponsor anticipates that the Trust’s Ether is and will be staked exclusively by means of Provider-Facilitated Staking.

The Vault Balance 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.

The Custodian will withdraw from the Trust’s Vault Balance the amount of Ether necessary to pay the Trust’s expenses.

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

Under the Prime Broker 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 Prime Broker Agreement, inaccuracy in any of the Custodian’s or the Trust’s, as the case may be, representations or warranties in the Prime Broker 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 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.

The Custodian and its affiliates may from time to time purchase or sell Ether for their own accounts and as agent for their customers or Shares for their own accounts. The foregoing notwithstanding, Ether in the Vault Balance 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 Ether in the Vault Balance 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 Prime Broker 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 Ether 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.

The Additional Custodian

In addition, Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. (“Anchorage Digital” or the “Additional Custodian”), a national trust bank chartered by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, provides services related to custody and safekeeping of the Trust’s Ether holdings, pursuant to a Master Custody Services Agreement, dated as of August 8, 2025 (the “Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement”).

The Sponsor currently utilizes Anchorage Digital’s services to custody a portion of the Trust’s Ether. The Trust’s existing custody arrangement with Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC is unaffected by the Trust’s entry into the Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement, and Coinbase remains the Trust’s primary custodian. The Sponsor shall, in its sole discretion, determine the amounts held at either custodian as permitted by the Trust Agreement. At the current time, the Sponsor has not determined the total amount of the Trust’s Ether it will move to Anchorage Digital. The addition of Anchorage Digital reflects the Sponsor’s ongoing risk management approach as part of the Trust’s growing size. References to the “Custodian” in this Annual Report refer to Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, Anchorage Digital and/or other custodians, collectively or in their individual capacities, as the context may require.

Under the Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement, Anchorage Digital is required to keep all of the private keys associated with the Trust’s Ether held at Anchorage Digital in cold storage.

In the event of a fork of the Blockchain, the Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement provides that Anchorage Digital may temporarily suspend services, and may, in its sole discretion, determine whether or not to support (or cease supporting) either branch of the forked protocol entirely, provided that Anchorage shall use commercially reasonable efforts to avoid ceasing to support both branches of such forked protocol.

The Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement requires the Trust to indemnify Anchorage Digital, its affiliates and their respective officers, directors, agents, employees and representatives against certain losses arising from or related to the Trust’s material breach of

the Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement, among other things, except where a claim was caused by certain acts of Anchorage Digital. The Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement also requires Anchorage Digital to maintain insurance policies and coverage.

The foregoing description of the Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement filed as an exhibit to the Trust’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 8, 2025, which is incorporated by reference herein.

Custody of the Trust’s Ether

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 by the Prime Broker and the Custodian (together, the “Custodial Entities”) 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 and the Prime Broker for security purposes.

The Vault Balance primarily uses “cold” storage mechanisms to secure a substantial portion of the Trust’s private keys. A substantial portion of the Trust’s Ether holdings are held in cold storage at all times, with a portion of the Settlement Balance held temporarily in hot storage from time to time, for purposes of facilitating the receipt and distribution of Ether in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets. Any Ether credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance is stored in omnibus accounts, either on the Prime Broker’s systems or at Coinbase Connected Venues, using a combination of cold and hot storage mechanisms to secure the private keys representing the assets credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance.

Cold storage is a safeguarding method with multiple layers of protections and protocols, by which the private keys corresponding to the Trust’s Ether are generated and stored in an offline manner. 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. While private keys held in hot storage are more accessible and therefore enable more efficient transfers, such assets are more vulnerable to theft, loss or damage.

Security Procedures

The Custodian and the Prime Broker hold the Trust’s private keys in custody in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Prime Broker Agreement. Transfers to and from the Vault Balance and, where held in cold storage, the Trust’s Settlement Balance, 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 applicable Custodial Entity or Entities 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 by the Custodial Entities 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 assets.

Transfers of Ether to the Vault Balance from the Settlement Balance will be available to the Trust once processed on the Blockchain, subject to the availability of the Prime Broker’s online platform. When Ether is credited to the Settlement Balance, certain movements to allocate the balance among (i) omnibus cold storage wallets and omnibus hot storage wallets on the Prime Broker’s platform; or (ii) omnibus accounts at Coinbase Connected Venues may not be viewable by the Trust via the Prime Broker’s online portal. In addition, on a monthly basis the Custodial Entities will provide the Sponsor with an account statement identifying the amount of cash and Ether in the Trust’s Accounts at the end of the period and listing all account activity during that period.

The process of accessing and withdrawing Ether from the Trust to redeem a Basket by an Authorized Participant follows the same general procedure as transferring Ether to the Trust to create a Basket by an Authorized Participant, only in reverse. See “—Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares.”

The Marketing Agent

Foreside Fund Services, LLC (“Foreside”) is the marketing agent of the Shares. Foreside Fund Services, LLC is a registered broker-dealer with the SEC and is a member of FINRA.

In its capacity as marketing agent, Foreside provides the following services to the Sponsor: (i) assist the Sponsor in facilitating Participant Agreements between and among Authorized Participants, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, and the Transfer Agent; (ii) provide prospectuses to Authorized Participants; (iii) work with the Transfer Agent to review and approve orders placed by the Authorized Participants and transmitted to the Transfer Agent; (iv) review and file applicable marketing materials with FINRA and (v) maintain, reproduce and store applicable books and records related to the services provided under the Marketing Agent Agreement.

The Sponsor has entered into a Marketing Agent Agreement with Foreside. The Sponsor may engage additional or successor marketing agents 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 10,000 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. The Shares are listed on NYSE Arca under the ticker symbol “ETH”.

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. The Sponsor is also permitted to make certain restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that would materially adversely affect the interests of the shareholders as determined by the Sponsor in its sole discretion with a 20-day notice to shareholders. Additionally, the Sponsor is permitted to make certain restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that could adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, but only if certain conditions set forth in the amendments relating to the qualification of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes are satisfied. Furthermore, subject to certain limitations, the Sponsor may make any other amendments to the Trust Agreement which do not materially adversely affect the interests of the shareholders in its sole discretion without shareholder consent.

Distributions

Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust is able to make distributions, if any, on the Shares in cash.

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

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.

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 10,000 Shares. See “—Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares.” The creation of a Basket requires the delivery to the Trust of the amount of Ether (or cash to acquire the amount of Ether) represented by one Share immediately prior to such creation multiplied by 10,000. 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

Shares are redeemable only in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement and the relevant Participant Agreement. Through its redemption program, the Trust redeems Shares from Authorized Participants on an ongoing basis. Although the Trust redeems Baskets by distributing Ether or proceeds from the disposition of Ether, an Authorized Participant may submit either In-Kind Orders or Cash Orders. In a Cash Order, the Authorized Participant will accept cash from the Cash Account (as defined herein) in connection with the redemption of Baskets. In an In-Kind Order, the Authorized Participant or its AP Designee will receive Ether directly from the Trust in connection with the redemption of Baskets.

Cash Orders are facilitated by the Transfer Agent and Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, which acts on behalf of the Trust in its capacity as Liquidity Engager and will engage one or more Liquidity Providers that is not an agent of, or otherwise acting on behalf of, any Authorized Participant receiving Ether in connection with such orders. See “Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares.”

The Sponsor may suspend the Trust’s redemption program in its sole discretion, or the redemption program may otherwise become unavailable, which could cause the Shares to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions of Shares could have adverse consequences for the Trust.”

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 or debit, as applicable the number of Baskets to the applicable Authorized Participant. The Transfer Agent will issue or cancel Baskets, as applicable. 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 and Redemption of Shares

General

The Trust issues Shares to and redeems Shares from Authorized Participants on an ongoing basis, but only in one or more Baskets (with a “Basket” being a block of 10,000 Shares). The Trust will not issue fractions of a Basket. The Sponsor believes that the creation and redemption order size of 10,000 Shares will enable Authorized Participants to manage inventory and facilitate an effective arbitrage mechanism for the Trust. However, the Sponsor may in the future adjust the creation and redemption order size in order to improve the effectiveness of the activities of Authorized Participants in the secondary market for the Shares if the Sponsor determines it to be necessary or advisable. As such, the Sponsor does not expect that the size of the Baskets will have an impact on the arbitrage mechanism.

The creation and redemption of Baskets will be made only upon the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution or other disposition by the Trust, of the amount of whole and fractional Ether represented by each Basket being created or redeemed, which is determined by dividing (x) the amount of Ether owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date of a creation or redemption order, after deducting the amount of Ether representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the Index 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 Ether (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 10,000 (the “Basket Amount”). The U.S. dollar value of a Basket is calculated by multiplying the Basket Amount by the Index Price as of the trade date (the “Basket NAV”). The Basket NAV multiplied by the number of Baskets being created or redeemed

is referred to as the “Total Basket NAV.” 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. One or more major market data vendors may provide an intra-day indicative value (“IIV”) per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by NYSE Arca or a third-party financial data provider during NYSE Arca’s Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., New York time). Such IIV will be calculated using the same methodology as the NAV per Share of the Trust, specifically by using the prior day’s closing NAV per Share as a base and updating that value during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session to reflect changes in the value of the Trust’s NAV during the trading day. The IIV on a per Share basis disseminated during the Core Trading Session should not be viewed as a real-time update of the NAV, which is calculated once a day. The amount of Ether represented by a Share will gradually decrease over time as the Trust’s Ether are used to pay the Trust’s expenses.

Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Baskets. Each Authorized Participant must (i) be a registered broker-dealer and (ii) enter into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor and the Transfer Agent and (iii) in the case of any creation or redemption pursuant to In-Kind Orders, own an Ether wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant and maintain an account with the Custodian (or if the Authorized Participant does not itself trade in Ether, a designee of such Authorized Participant (each, an “AP Designee”) must own an Ether wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to such AP Designee and maintain an account with the Custodian.

An Authorized Participant may act for its own account or as agent for broker-dealers, custodians and other securities market participants that wish to create or redeem Baskets. Shareholders who are not Authorized Participants will only be able to create or redeem their Shares through an Authorized Participant.

The creation of Baskets requires the delivery to the Trust of the Total Basket Amount (or cash to acquire the Total Basket Amount) and the redemption of Baskets requires the distribution or other disposition by the Trust of the Total Basket Amount. Although the Trust creates Baskets only upon the receipt of Ether, and redeems Baskets only by distributing Ether or proceeds from the disposition of Ether, at this time an Authorized Participant can only submit Cash Orders, pursuant to which the Authorized Participant will deposit cash into, or accept cash from, a segregated account maintained by the Transfer Agent in the name of the Trust for purposes of receiving and distributing cash in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets (such account, the “Cash Account”).

Cash Orders will be facilitated by the Transfer Agent and Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC. On an order-by-order basis, Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, acting in its capacity as Liquidity Engager will engage one or more Liquidity Providers to obtain or receive Ether in exchange for cash in connection with such order, as described in more detail below. Each Liquidity Provider must enter into a Liquidity Provider Agreement with the Liquidity Engager and the Sponsor (on behalf of the Trust), which will obligate it to obtain or receive Ether in connection with creations and redemptions pursuant to Cash Orders.

Unless the Sponsor requires that a Cash Order be effected at actual execution prices (an “Actual Execution Cash Order”), each Authorized Participant that submits a Cash Order to create or redeem Baskets will pay a fee (the “Variable Fee”) based on the Total Basket NAV (a “Variable Fee Cash Order”), and any price differential between (x) the Total Basket NAV on the trade date and (y) the price realized in acquiring or disposing of the corresponding Total Basket Amount, as the case may be, will be borne solely by the Liquidity Provider until such Ether have been received or liquidated by the Trust. The Variable Fee is intended to cover all of a Liquidity Provider’s expenses in connection with the creation or redemption order, including any exchange fees that the Liquidity Provider incurs in connection with buying or selling Ether. The amount may be changed by the Sponsor in its sole discretion at any time, and Liquidity Providers will communicate to the Sponsor in advance the Variable Fee they would be willing to accept in connection with a Variable Fee Cash Order, based on market conditions and other factors existing at the time of such Variable Fee Cash Order.

Alternatively, the Sponsor may require that a Cash Order be effected as an Actual Execution Cash Order, in its sole discretion based on market conditions and other factors existing at the time of such Cash Order, and under such circumstances, any price differential between (x) the Total Basket NAV on the trade date and (y) the price realized in acquiring or disposing of the corresponding Total Basket Amount, as the case may be, will be borne solely by such Authorized Participant until such Ether have been received or liquidated by the Trust. See “—Creation Procedures—Actual Execution Cash Orders” and “—Redemption Procedures—Actual Execution Cash Orders.”

In the case of creations pursuant to Cash Orders, to transfer the Total Basket Amount to the Trust’s Vault Balance, the Liquidity Provider will transfer Ether to one of the public key addresses associated with the Vault Balance and as provided by the Sponsor. In the case of redemptions pursuant to Cash Orders, the same procedure is conducted, but in reverse, using the public key addresses associated with the wallet of the Liquidity Provider, and as provided by such party. All such transactions will be conducted on the Blockchain and parties acknowledge and agree that such transfers may be irreversible if done incorrectly. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—Ether transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred Ether may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed Ether transactions could adversely affect the value of the Shares.”

The Trust may also create and redeem Baskets via In-Kind Orders, pursuant to which an Authorized Participant or its AP Designee will deposit Ether directly with the Trust or receive Ether directly from the Trust.

Authorized Participants do not pay a transaction fee to the Trust in connection with the creation or redemption of Baskets, but there may be transaction fees associated with the validation of the transfer of Ether by the Ethereum Network, which will be paid by the Custodian in the case of redemptions and an Authorized Participant, its AP Designee or the Liquidity Provider in the case of creations. Service providers may charge Authorized Participants or AP Designees administrative fees for order placement and other services related to the creation or redemption of Baskets. As discussed above, Authorized Participants will also pay the Variable Fee in connection with Variable Fee Cash Orders. As discussed in further detail below under “—Creation Procedures—Actual Execution Cash Orders” and “—Redemption Procedures—Actual Execution Cash Orders”, under certain circumstances Authorized Participants may also be required to deposit additional cash in the Cash Account, or be entitled to receive excess cash from the Cash Account, in connection with creations and redemptions pursuant to Actual Execution Cash Orders. Authorized Participants 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 Participant Agreements and the related procedures attached thereto may be amended by the Sponsor and the relevant Authorized Participant. Under the Participant Agreements, the Sponsor has agreed to indemnify each Authorized Participant against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act.

The following description of the procedures for the creation and redemption 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.

Creation Procedures

On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent to create one or more Baskets. Orders for creations may be either In-Kind Orders or Cash Orders. In-Kind Orders for creation must be placed with the Transfer Agent no later than 3:59:59 p.m., New York time, and Cash Orders for creation must be placed with the Transfer Agent no later than 1:59:59 p.m., New York time (the “Order Cutoff Time”).

The Sponsor may in its sole discretion limit the number of Shares created pursuant to Cash Orders on any specified day without notice to the Authorized Participants and may direct the Marketing Agent to reject any Cash Orders in excess of such capped amount. In exercising its discretion to limit the number of Shares created pursuant to Cash Orders, the Sponsor expects to take into consideration a number of factors, including (i) the availability of Liquidity Providers to facilitate Cash Orders and (ii) the cost of processing Cash Orders relative to the cost of processing In-Kind Orders. If the Sponsor decides to limit Cash Orders and there are not otherwise a sufficient amount of In-Kind Orders to allow the arbitrage mechanism to function, or if the Trust is otherwise unable to satisfy creation orders made in cash, the Trust’s ability to create new Shares could be negatively impacted, which could impact the Shares’ liquidity and/or cause the Shares to trade at premiums to the NAV per Share, and otherwise have a negative impact on the value of the Shares. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions of Shares could have adverse consequences for the Trust.”

In-Kind Orders

Creations pursuant to In-Kind Orders will take place as follows, where “T” is the trade date and each day in the sequence must be a business day.

      
Trade Date (T)

     Settlement Date 
(T+1, or T+2, as established at the time of order placement)

     •The Authorized Participant places a creation order with the Transfer Agent.
•The Marketing Agent accepts (or rejects) the creation order, which is communicated to the Authorized Participant by the Transfer Agent.

     •The Authorized Participant or AP Designee transfers the Total Basket Amount to the Trust’s Vault Balance.
•The Trust issues the aggregate number of Shares corresponding to the Baskets ordered by the Authorized Participant and the Transfer Agent delivers such Shares by crediting the number of Baskets created to the Authorized Participant’s DTC account.

Cash Orders

Creations pursuant to Cash Orders will take place as follows, where “T” is the trade date and each day in the sequence must be a business day. Before a creation order is placed, the Sponsor determines if such creation pursuant to a Cash Order will be a Variable Fee Cash Order or an Actual Execution Cash Order, which determination is communicated to the Authorized Participant.

     Trade Date (T)

     Settlement Date 
(T+1, or T+2, as established at the time of order placement)

     •The Authorized Participant places a creation order with the Transfer Agent.
•The Marketing Agent accepts (or rejects) the creation order, which is communicated to the Authorized Participant by the Transfer Agent. 
•The Sponsor notifies the Liquidity Provider of the creation order. 
•The Sponsor determines the Total Basket NAV and any Variable Fee and Additional Creation Cash as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., New York time.

      

     •The Authorized Participant delivers to the Cash Account: 
(x) in the case of a Variable Fee Cash Order, the Total Basket NAV, plus any Variable Fee; or  
(y) in the case of an Actual Execution Cash Order, the Total Basket NAV, plus any Additional Creation Cash, less any Excess Creation Cash, if applicable (such amount, as applicable, the “Required Creation Cash”).  
•The Liquidity Provider transfers the Total Basket Amount to the Trust’s Vault Balance. 
•Once the Trust is in simultaneous possession of (x) the Total Basket Amount and (y) the Required Creation Cash, the Trust issues the aggregate number of Shares corresponding to the Baskets ordered by the Authorized Participant, which the Transfer Agent holds for the benefit of the Authorized Participant. 
•Cash equal to the Required Creation Cash is delivered to the Liquidity Provider from the Cash Account.
•The Transfer Agent delivers Shares to the Authorized Participant by crediting the number of Baskets created to the Authorized Participant’s DTC account.

    

Variable Fee Cash Orders

Unless the Sponsor determines otherwise in its sole discretion based on market conditions and other factors existing at the time of such Cash Order, all creations pursuant to Cash Orders are expected to be executed as Variable Fee Cash Orders, and any price differential between (x) the Total Basket NAV on the trade date and (y) the price realized in acquiring the corresponding Total Basket Amount will be borne solely by the Liquidity Provider until such Ether have been received by the Trust.

The Sponsor anticipates that the Trust’s cost to acquire the Total Basket Amount in connection with a Variable Fee Cash Order will equal the sum of the corresponding Total Basket NAV and Variable Fee to be delivered by the Authorized Participant to the Trust. In the event that, by 12:00 p.m., New York time on the settlement date of a creation pursuant to a Variable Fee Cash Order, either (x) the Trust’s Vault Balance has not been credited with Ether in an amount equal to the Total Basket Amount or (y) the Cash Account has not been credited with the Total Basket NAV, plus any Variable Fee, such Cash Order will be deemed a failed trade, with any

consideration that has been delivered by the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider in respect of such Cash Order being returned by the Trust.

The Transfer Agent shall under no circumstances cause the Trust to issue Shares in respect of a Variable Fee Cash Order until such time as each of (x) the Total Basket Amount and (y) the Total Basket NAV, plus any Variable Fee, has been delivered to the Trust, and the Trust is in simultaneous possession of both.

Actual Execution Cash Orders

With respect to a creation pursuant to an Actual Execution Cash Order, as between the Trust and an Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the Ether price utilized in calculating Total Basket NAV on the trade date and the price at which the Trust acquires the Ether on the settlement date. If the price realized in acquiring the corresponding Total Basket Amount is higher than the Total Basket NAV, the Authorized Participant will bear the dollar cost of such difference by delivering cash in the amount of such difference (the “Additional Creation Cash”) to the Cash Account. If the price realized in acquiring the corresponding Total Basket Amount is lower than the Total Basket NAV, the Authorized Participant will benefit from such difference, with the Trust promptly returning cash in the amount of such excess (the “Excess Creation Cash”) to the Authorized Participant.

In the event that, by 12:00 p.m., New York time on the settlement date of a creation pursuant to an Actual Execution Cash Order, either (x) the Trust’s Vault Balance has not been credited with Ether in an amount equal to the Total Basket Amount or (y) the Cash Account has not been credited with the Total Basket NAV (net of any Additional Creation Cash or Excess Creation Cash, if applicable), such Cash Order will be deemed a failed trade, with any consideration that has been delivered by the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider in respect of such Cash Order being returned by the Trust.

The Transfer Agent shall under no circumstances cause the Trust to issue Shares in respect of a Cash Order until such time as each of (x) the Total Basket Amount and (y) the Total Basket NAV (net of any Additional Creation Cash or Excess Creation Cash, if applicable) has been delivered to the Trust, and the Trust is in simultaneous possession of both.

Redemption Procedures

The procedures by which an Authorized Participant can redeem one or more Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Baskets. On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place a redemption order specifying the number of Baskets to be redeemed. Redemption orders may be placed as either In-Kind Orders or Cash Orders, as described below. Orders for redemptions may be either In-Kind Orders or Cash Orders. In-Kind Orders for redemption must be placed with the Transfer Agent no later than 3:59:59 p.m., New York time, and Cash Orders for redemption must be placed with the Transfer Agent no later than 1:59:59 p.m., New York time.

The redemption of Shares pursuant to Cash Orders will only take place if approved by the Sponsor in writing, in its sole discretion and on a case-by-case basis. In exercising its discretion to approve the redemption of Shares pursuant to Cash Orders, the Sponsor expects to take into consideration a number of factors, including (i) the availability of Liquidity Providers to facilitate Cash Orders and (ii) the cost of processing Cash Orders relative to the cost of processing In-Kind Orders. If the Sponsor decides to limit Cash Orders and there are not otherwise In-Kind Orders sufficient to allow the arbitrage mechanism to function, or if the Trust is unable to satisfy redemption orders made in cash, the Trust’s ability to redeem new Shares could be negatively impacted, which could impact the Shares’ liquidity and/or cause the Shares to trade at discounts, and could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions of Shares could have adverse consequences for the Trust” for more information.

The Authorized Participants may only redeem Baskets and cannot redeem any Shares in an amount less than a Basket.

In-Kind Orders

Redemptions pursuant to In-Kind Orders will take place as follows, where “T” is the trade date and each day in the sequence must be a business day.

      
Trade Date (T)

     Settlement Date 
(T+1 (or T+2 as established at the time of order placement))

     •The Authorized Participant places a redemption order with the Transfer Agent.
•The Marketing Agent accepts (or rejects) the redemption order, which is communicated to the Authorized Participant by the Transfer Agent.

     •The Authorized Participant delivers Baskets to be redeemed from its DTC account to the Transfer Agent.
•The Custodian transfers the Total Basket Amount to the Authorized Participant or AP Designee, and the Transfer Agent cancels the Shares.

Cash Orders

Redemptions pursuant to Cash Orders will take place as follows, where “T” is the trade date and each day in the sequence must be a business day. Before a redemption pursuant to a Cash Order is placed, the Sponsor determines if such redemption order will be a Variable Fee Cash Order or an Actual Execution Cash Order, which determination is communicated to the Authorized Participant.

     Trade Date (T)

     Settlement Date 
(T+1 (or T+2 as established at the time of order placement))

     •The Authorized Participant places a redemption order with the Transfer Agent.
•The Marketing Agent accepts (or rejects) the redemption order, which is communicated to the Authorized Participant by the Transfer Agent.
•The Sponsor notifies the Liquidity Provider of the redemption order.
•The Sponsor determines the Total Basket NAV and, in the case of a Variable Fee Cash Order, any Variable Fee, as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., New York time.

      

     •The Authorized Participant delivers Baskets to be redeemed from its DTC account to the Transfer Agent.
•The Liquidity Provider delivers to the Cash Account:
(x) in the case of a Variable Fee Cash Order, the Total Basket NAV less any Variable Fee; or 
(y) in the case of an Actual Execution Cash Order, the actual proceeds to the Trust from the liquidation of the Total Basket Amount (such amount, as applicable, the “Required Redemption Cash”). 
•Once the Trust is in simultaneous possession of (x) the Total Basket Amount and (y) the Required Redemption Cash, the Transfer Agent cancels the Shares comprising the number of Baskets redeemed by the Authorized Participant.
•The Custodian sends the Liquidity Provider the Total Basket Amount, and cash equal to the Required Redemption Cash is delivered to the Authorized Participant from the Cash Account.

    

Variable Fee Cash Orders

Unless the Sponsor determines otherwise in its sole discretion based on market conditions and other factors existing at the time of such Cash Order, all redemptions pursuant to Cash Orders are expected to be executed as Variable Fee Cash Orders, and any price differential between (x) the Total Basket NAV on the trade date and (y) the price realized in disposing of the corresponding Total Basket Amount will be borne solely by the Liquidity Provider.

The Sponsor anticipates that the Trust’s proceeds from liquidating the Total Basket Amount in connection with a Variable Fee Cash Order will equal the corresponding Total Basket NAV less the Variable Fee to be delivered by the Liquidity Provider to the Trust. In the event that, by 12:00 p.m. (New York time) on the settlement date of a redemption pursuant to a Variable Fee Cash Order, either (x) the Transfer Agent’s account at DTC has not been credited with the total number of Shares corresponding to the total number of Baskets to be redeemed or (y) the Cash Account has not been credited with the Total Basket NAV, less any Variable Fee, such Cash Order will be deemed a failed trade, with any consideration that has been delivered by the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider in respect of such Cash Order being returned by the Trust.

The Transfer Agent shall under no circumstances deliver the Required Redemption Cash to the Authorized Participant in respect of a Variable Fee Cash Order until such time as (x) the Baskets to be redeemed have been delivered to the Transfer Agent and (y) the Total Basket NAV, less any Variable Fee, has been delivered to the Cash Account, and the Trust and/or the Transfer Agent is in simultaneous possession of both.

Actual Execution Cash Orders

With respect to a redemption pursuant to an Actual Execution Cash Order, as between the Trust and an Authorized Participant, the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of the difference between the Ether price utilized in calculating Total Basket NAV on the trade date and the price at which the Trust disposes of the Ether on the settlement date. If the price realized in disposing the corresponding Total Basket Amount on the settlement date is lower than the Total Basket NAV on the trade date, the Authorized Participant will bear the dollar cost of such difference (the “Redemption Cash Shortfall”), with the amount of cash to be delivered to the Authorized Participant being reduced by the amount of such Redemption Cash Shortfall. If the price realized in disposing the

corresponding Total Basket Amount on the settlement date is higher than the Total Basket NAV on the trade date, the Trust will deliver cash in the amount of such excess (the “Additional Redemption Cash”) to the Authorized Participant.

In the event that, by 12:00 p.m. (New York time) on the settlement date of a redemption pursuant to an Actual Execution Cash Order, either (x) the Transfer Agent’s account at DTC has not been credited with the total number of Shares corresponding to the total number of Baskets to be redeemed or (y) the Cash Account has not been credited with the Total Basket NAV (plus any Additional Redemption Cash or net of any Redemption Cash Shortfall), such Cash Order will be deemed a failed trade, with any consideration that has been delivered by the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider in respect of such Cash Order being returned by the Trust.

The Transfer Agent shall under no circumstances deliver the Required Redemption Cash to the Authorized Participant in respect of a Cash Order until such time as (x) the Total Basket Amount has been delivered to the Transfer Agent and (y) the Total Basket NAV (plus any Additional Redemption Cash or net of any Redemption Cash Shortfall, if applicable) has been delivered to the Trust, and the Trust and/or the Transfer Agent is in simultaneous possession of both.

Suspension or Rejection of Orders and Total Basket Amount

The creation or redemption of Shares may be suspended generally, or refused with respect to particular requested creations or redemptions, 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 creation orders or redemption orders or for any other reason at any time or from time to time. The Marketing Agent may reject an order or, after accepting an order, may cancel such order, if: (i) such order is not presented in proper form as described in the Participant Agreement, (ii) in the case of In-Kind Orders, the transfer of the Total Basket Amount comes from an account other than an Ether wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant or its AP Designee 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 redemption order.

The Sponsor will notify investors of any suspension of creations or redemptions of Shares by filing a current report on Form 8-K. Suspension of the creation or redemption of Shares could negatively impact the Shares’ liquidity and/or cause the Shares to trade at premiums and discounts, and otherwise have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

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 and redemption of Baskets, regardless of whether such tax or charge is imposed directly on the Authorized Participants, 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 Ether and Determination of NAV

The Sponsor will evaluate the Ether 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 Ether and the NAV calculations, which is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements.

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 Ether held by the Trust and calculate and publish the NAV of the Trust. To calculate the NAV, the Sponsor will:

Determine the Index Price as of such business day.

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

Add the U.S. dollar value of Ether, calculated using the Index 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 Index Price.

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

Subtract the U.S. dollar value of the Ether, calculated using the Index Price, which are either (i) 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 Index Price, or (ii) to be distributed to shareholders pursuant to a binding obligation of the Trust following the declaration of an in-kind dividend (including through interests in any

liquidating trust or other vehicle formed to hold such Ether) (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 Index Price is not an appropriate basis for valuation of the Trust’s Ether, the Sponsor will utilize the cascading set of rules as described in “—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Ether Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

The Sponsor will publish the Index 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 Ether other than the Index Price for such Evaluation Time, the publication on the Trust’s website will note the valuation methodology used and the price per Ether resulting from such calculation.

In the event of a hard fork of the Ethereum 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 Ethereum Network, is generally accepted as the network for Ether 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 Ether, users, services, businesses, validators and other constituencies and (ii) the actual continued acceptance of, validating power on, and community engagement with the Ethereum 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 Ether

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 0.15% 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 Ether by reference to the same Index Price used to determine such accrual. The Sponsor’s Fee is payable in Ether to the Sponsor daily in arrears.

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. Effective July 23, 2024, the Sponsor determined to waive a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee for the first six months of the Trust’s operation, so that the fee was 0% of the NAV of the Trust for the first $2.0 billion of the Trust’s assets. If the Trust’s assets exceeded $2.0 billion prior to the end of the six-month period, the Sponsor’s Fee charged on assets over $2.0 billion would have become 0.15%. Following the expiration date of the six-month waiver period on January 23, 2025 (the “Sponsor’s Fee Waiver Expiration Date”), the Sponsor’s Fee is 0.15%. For the period from the Sponsor’s Fee Waiver Expiration Date through December 31, 2025, the Trust incurred Sponsor’s Fees of $2,659,142. As of December 31, 2025, there were no accrued or unpaid Sponsor’s Fees. In addition, the Sponsor may pay Additional Trust Expenses on behalf of the Trust, which are reimbursable by the Trust to the Sponsor. For the year ended December 31, 2025, the Sponsor did not pay any Additional Trust Expenses on behalf of the Trust.

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 is under no

obligation to waive any portion of its fees and any such waiver shall create no obligation to waive any such fees during any period not covered by the waiver.

The Sponsor’s Fee will generally be paid in Ether.

After the Trust’s payment of the Sponsor’s Fee to the Sponsor, the Sponsor may elect to convert the Ether received as payment of the Sponsor’s Fee into U.S. dollars. The rate at which the Sponsor converts such Ether 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 Ether 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; 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 Ether. Generally, the Sponsor will cover such expenses on behalf of the Trust and the Trust will reimburse the Sponsor by delivering to the Sponsor Ether in an amount equal to such expenses. When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, sell or deliver, as applicable, Ether, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized Participants, 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 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 Ether

To cause the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor will instruct the Custodian to (i) withdraw from the Vault Balance the amount of Ether, determined as described above in “—Expenses; Sales of Ether,” equal to the accrued but unpaid Sponsor’s Fee and (ii) transfer such Ether 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 Vault Balance Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether. 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 Ether. Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the transfer or sale of Ether to pay the Trust’s expenses will be a taxable event for shareholders. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders.”

Because the amount of Ether held by the Trust will decrease as a consequence of the payment of the Sponsor’s Fee in Ether or the sale of Ether to pay Additional Trust Expenses (and the Trust will incur additional fees associated with converting Ether into U.S. dollars), the amount of Ether represented by a Share will decline at such time and the Trust’s NAV may also decrease. Accordingly, the shareholders will bear the cost of the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses. New Ether deposited into the Vault Balance 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 Ether 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 Ether.

The quantity of Ether 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 Ether held by the Trust. See “—Expenses; Sales of Ether.” Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery or sale of Ether by the Trust for the payment of expenses will be a taxable event to shareholders. See “—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders.”

Discretion of the Index Provider

The Index Provider has sole discretion over the determination of the Index Price and may change the methodologies for determining the Index 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 Ether. 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, Section 7.4 of 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. 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 of Shares owned by such shareholders by the total number of Shares outstanding.

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 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. Because the Trust is a grantor trust, it may only issue one class of securities, the Shares.

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.

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 Statutory Trust Act. 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 Ether 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.

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 the Sponsor 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 the Sponsor 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, the Sponsor 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 the Sponsor 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. The Sponsor is also permitted to make certain restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that would materially adversely affect the interests of the shareholders as determined by the Sponsor in its sole discretion with a 20-day notice to shareholders. Additionally, the Sponsor is permitted to make certain restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that could adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, but only if certain conditions set forth in the amendments relating to the qualification of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes are satisfied. Furthermore, subject to certain limitations, the Sponsor may make any other amendments to the Trust Agreement which do not materially adversely affect the interests of the shareholders in its sole discretion without shareholder consent.

Termination 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 Ether at the sole discretion of the Sponsor, after the Sponsor has sold the Trust’s Ether, 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 Ether 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 Prime Broker Agreement

The Prime Broker Agreement establishes the rights and responsibilities of the Custodian, the Prime Broker, the Sponsor and the Trust with respect to the Trust’s Ether which is held in accounts maintained and operated by the Custodian, as a fiduciary with respect to the Trust’s assets, and the Prime Broker (together with the Custodian, the “Custodial Entities”) on behalf of the Trust. For a general description of the Custodian’s obligations, see “—Service Providers of the Trust—The Custodian and Prime Broker.”

Account; Location of Ether

All of the Trust’s Ether, other than that which is credited to a settlement balance maintained with the Prime Broker (the “Settlement Balance”), is held in custody accounts maintained on the books of the Custodian, as to which the Custodian controls the private keys which allow for the transfer of ownership or control of the Trust’s Ether on the Trust’s behalf (the “Vault Balance”). The Prime Broker Agreement provides that the Trust’s Vault Balance will be held by the Custodian in segregated wallets or accounts. The Custodian will keep all of the private keys associated with the Trust’s Ether held in the Vault Balance in an offline manner. The term “cold storage” refers to a safeguarding method where the storage of private keys may involve keeping such keys’ materials on a non-networked computer or electronic device or storing the private keys on a storage device. Cold storage is a safeguarding method with multiple layers of protections and protocols, by which the private keys corresponding to the Trust’s Ether are generated and stored in an offline manner. The term “hot storage” refers to the safeguarding method by which the private keys are held online, where they are more accessible, leading to more efficient transfers, though they are potentially more vulnerable to theft, loss or damage.

Additionally, at the Sponsor’s discretion, a portion of the Trust’s Ether holdings may be credited to the Settlement Balance, which will be reflected in a ledger maintained on the books of the Prime Broker. The Prime Broker Agreement provides that any Ether credited

to the Trust’s Settlement Balance will be held (i) in omnibus cold storage wallets; (ii) in omnibus hot storage wallets; or (iii) in omnibus accounts with one of the third-party venues to which Coinbase has established connections (each, a “Coinbase Connected Venue”). The Settlement Balance shall be separate from the Vault Balance and any other account(s) the Trust or the Sponsor maintain with the Custodian. From time to time, the Prime Broker may temporarily keep a portion of the private keys associated with the Ether credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance in hot storage for purposes of facilitating the receipt and distribution of Ether in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets.

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

The Prime Broker Agreement states that the Custodian serves as a fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf with respect to the Trust’s Ether held in the Vault Balance and the Ether in the Vault Balance 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 Prime Broker Agreement, the Custodian represents and warrants that it has no right, interest, or title in the Ether in the Trust’s Vault Balance, 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 assets 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. With respect to the Trust’s Ether credited to the Settlement Balance, the Prime Broker maintains an internal ledger that specifies the Ether credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance. The Prime Broker Agreement states that the Prime Broker treats such Ether as custodial assets held for the benefit of the Trust, and shall not be considered the property of the Prime Broker. Additionally, under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Prime Broker represents and warrants that it will not, directly or indirectly, sell, transfer, loan, rehypothecate or otherwise alienate the Trust’s Ether credited to the Settlement Balance.

The Prime Broker Agreement also contains an agreement by the parties to treat the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Vault Balance and Settlement Balance as “financial assets” under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”) and to treat the Vault Balance and Settlement Balance as “securities accounts” with respect to which the Trust is the “entitlement holder” within the meaning of Article 8. The Custodial Entities’ ultimate parent, Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Coinbase Global”), 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 challenges to the safekeeping of the Trust’s Ether and to the operations of the Trust.”

Safekeeping of Ether

The Custodian will use commercially reasonable efforts to keep in safe custody on behalf of the Trust all Ether received by the Custodian. All Ether credited to the Vault Balance will (i) be held in the Vault Balance at all times, and the Vault Balance will be controlled by the Custodian; (ii) be labeled or otherwise appropriately identified as being held for the Trust; (iii) be held 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; and (v) not without the prior written consent of the Trust be deposited or held with any third-party depositary, custodian, clearance system or wallet. Additionally, the Custodian will use commercially reasonable efforts to keep the private key or keys for the Vault Balance 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 commercially reasonable 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 Ether “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.

Ether credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance may be held in omnibus wallets maintained by the Prime Broker and/or at Coinbase Connected Venues. While the Ether credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance could be commingled with other assets, the Ether in the Trust’s Settlement Balance will represent entitlement to a pro-rata share of the Ether held in such omnibus wallets and/or at Coinbase Connected Venues. In all circumstances the Prime Broker will keep an internal ledger that specifies the assets credited to the Settlement Balance such that the Trust, its auditors and regulators can identify the Trust’s pro-rata share of the Ether held in omnibus wallets and/or at Coinbase Connected Venues. Neither the Trust nor the Sponsor have a contractual relationship with the Coinbase Connected Venues utilized by the Custodial Entities.

Insurance

Pursuant to the terms of the Prime Broker Agreement, the Custodian is required to maintain insurance in such types and amounts as are commercially reasonable for the custodial services it provides. The Custodian has advised the Sponsor that it has insurance coverage pursuant to policies held by Coinbase Global, 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 Ether, 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. Although the Prime Broker is not required to maintain insurance under the terms of the Prime Broker Agreement, the Custodial Entities have also advised the Sponsor that they maintain insurance coverage pursuant to such policies held by Coinbase Global.

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

The Custodian and the Prime Broker provide for: (i) holding of the Trust’s Ether in the Vault Balance and the Settlement Balance; (ii) transfer of the Trust’s Ether between the relevant Vault Balance and the Settlement Balance; (iii) the deposit of Ether from a public blockchain address into the respective account or accounts in which the Vault Balance or the Settlement Balance are maintained; and (iv) the withdrawal of Ether from the Vault Balance to a public blockchain address the Trust controls (each such transaction is a “Custody Transaction”) (collectively, the “Custodial and Prime Broker Services”).

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 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 Custodial Entities may suspend, restrict, or terminate the Trust’s and the Sponsor’s access to the Custodial and Prime Broker Services, and/or suspend, restrict, or close the accounts associated with the Trust’s Vault Balance and Settlement Balance (the “Accounts”) if the Trust or Sponsor has taken certain actions, including any prohibited use or prohibited business as set forth in the Prime Broker Agreement, or if either or both of the Custodial Entities are 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 Ether from the Vault Balance, the Custodian will have a limited amount of time 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.

Transactions relating to Ether held in the Settlement Balance occur on the Blockchain.

The Custodial Entities make no other representations or warranties with respect to the availability and/or accessibility of Ether or the availability and/or accessibility of the Vault Balance, the Settlement Balance or the Custodial and Prime Broker Services.

Security of the Accounts

The Custodial Entities securely store all digital asset private keys held by the Custodian on secure servers or offline, in cold storage. Under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Custodian must use commercially reasonable efforts to keep the private key or keys to the Vault Balance secure, and may not disclose such private keys to the Sponsor, Trust or any other individual or entity.

The Custodial Entities have implemented and will maintain reasonable information security programs that include policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to safeguard the Custodial Entities’ 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 in the Prime Broker Agreement), the Custodial Entities will promptly (subject to any legal or regulatory requirements) notify the Trust and the Sponsor.

Record Keeping; Inspection and Auditing

The Custodian will keep timely and accurate records as to the deposit, disbursement, investment and reinvestment of the Ether in the Vault Balance, and such records must be retained by the Custodian for no less than seven years. The Prime Broker Agreement also provides that each Custodial Entity will permit, to the extent it may legally do so, the Trust’s third-party representatives, upon thirty days’ 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 may reasonably request. The Prime Broker is obligated to notify the Trust 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 Prime Broker 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 Ether.”

Once each calendar year, the Trust and the Sponsor are entitled to request that the Custodial Entities provide a copy of the SOC 1 report and SOC 2 report once per calendar year. Such reports are required to be dated within one year prior to such request. The Custodial Entities reserve the right to combine the SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports into a comprehensive report. In the event that the Custodial Entities do not deliver a SOC 1 Report or SOC 2 Report, as applicable, the Sponsor and the Trust will be entitled to terminate the Prime Broker Agreement. In addition to the review of 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 report.

Standard of Care; Limitations of Liability

The Custodian will use commercially reasonable efforts to keep in safe custody on behalf of the Trust all Ether received by the Custodian. The Custodial Entities are liable to the Sponsor and the Trust for the loss of any Ether to the extent such loss resulted from the negligence, fraud or willful misconduct of the Custodial Entities. To the extent any loss is caused by a Custodial Entity’s negligence, fraud or willful misconduct, the Custodial Entities are required to return to the Trust a quantity of Ether equal to the quantity of any such lost Ether.

The Custodial Entities’ or Trust’s total liability under the Prime Broker Agreement will not exceed the greater of: (i) the value of the Ether or cash involved in the event, including but not limited to transaction(s) or deliveries(s), giving rise to such liability at the time of the event giving rise to such liability; (ii) the aggregate amount of fees paid by the Trust to the Custodial Entities in respect of the Custodial and Prime Broker Services in the 12-month period prior to the event giving rise to such liability; or (iii) five million U.S. dollars. The Custodian’s total liability under the Prime Broker Agreement will not exceed the greater of: (i) the aggregate amount of fees paid by the Trust to the Custodian in respect of the custodial services in the 12-month period prior to the event giving rise to such liability; or (ii) the value of the Ether on deposit in the Vault Balance at the time of the events giving rise to the liability occurred, the value of which will be determined in accordance with the Prime Broker Agreement. In addition, the Custodian’s maximum liability in respect of each cold storage address that holds Ether shall be limited to $100 million (the “Cold Storage Threshold”). The Sponsor monitors the value of Ether deposited in cold storage addresses for whether the Cold Storage Threshold has been met by determining the U.S. dollar value of Ether deposited in each cold storage address on business days. Although the Cold Storage Threshold has to date not been met for a given cold storage address, to the extent it is met 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 Custodial Entities and the Trust are not liable to each other for any special, incidental, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages, whether or not the other party had been advised of such losses or knew or should have known of the possibility of such damages. In addition, the Custodial Entities are not liable to the Trust for circumstances resulting from certain force majeure events.

Indemnity

The Trust and the Custodial Entities have agreed to indemnify one another from and against certain claims or losses, subject to customary exceptions and limitations.

Fees and Expenses

The Sponsor will pay an annualized fee to the Coinbase Entities, covering the Trust’s use of the Custodial and Prime Broker Services, that is accrued on a monthly basis as a percentage of the Trust’s monthly assets under custody. The Sponsor will also pay a monthly fee to the Prime Broker, covering withdrawals and deposits to or from the Settlement Balance in connection with the creation and redemption of Shares.

Term; Termination and Suspension

The Prime Broker Agreement will remain in effect until either party terminates the Prime Broker Agreement; provided, however, that the Coinbase Entities shall not restrict, suspend, or modify any Prime Broker Services following termination of the Prime Broker Agreement by a Custodial Entity without Cause (as defined in the Prime Broker Agreement) or by the Trust until the end of the applicable notice period and neither party’s termination of the Prime Broker Agreement will be effective until the Trust and/or the Custodial Entities, as the case may be, have fully satisfied their obligations thereunder.

The Trust may terminate the Prime Broker Agreement in whole or in part upon thirty days’ prior written notice to the applicable Custodial Entity; and (ii) for Custodian Cause (as defined in the Prime Broker Agreement) at any time by written notice to the Prime Broker, effective immediately, or on such later date as may be specified in such notice. The Trust will also be entitled to terminate the Prime Broker Agreement in the event that the Custodial Entities do not deliver a SOC 1 Report or SOC 2 Report, as applicable. See “—Record Keeping; Inspection and Auditing.”

The Custodial Entities may terminate the Prime Broker Agreement (i) upon one hundred eighty days’ prior written notice to the Trust; and (ii) for Cause at any time by written notice to the Trust, effective immediately, or on such later date as may be specified in the notice.

In the event that either the Trust or the Custodial Entities terminate the Prime Broker Agreement without Cause, the Custodial Entities shall use reasonable efforts to assist the Trust with transferring any digital assets, fiat currency or funds associated with the Trust’s Accounts to another custodial services provider within ninety days of receipt of the applicable termination notice.

Governing Law

The Prime Broker Agreement is governed by New York law.

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

Although not free from doubt due to the lack of authority directly addressing certain aspects of the Trust’s affairs, in the opinion of Davis Polk the Trust should be classified as a “grantor trust” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, there can be no complete assurance that the Trust will be treated as a grantor trust for those purposes. An opinion of counsel is not binding on the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or any court, and there are significant uncertainties regarding the application of existing authorities to certain aspects of Ether and the Trust.

In particular, the Staking Condition has been satisfied as to the particular form of Staking described herein, and the Sponsor intends to continue to take the position that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes and that any Staking activity undertaken by the Trust in compliance with the opinion, ruling or other guidance relied upon to satisfy the Staking Condition will not prevent the Trust from continuing to qualify as a grantor trust for such purposes. The IRS recently issued a revenue procedure providing a staking safe harbor for certain grantor trust vehicles whose beneficial interests are listed and traded on a national securities exchange (the “2025 Revenue Procedure”). However, certain aspects of the 2025 Revenue Procedure are unclear, and therefore the Trust may not currently satisfy all conditions of the safe harbor. Accordingly, due to the uncertainty regarding the ability of a grantor trust to engage in Staking activities, there can be no assurance that the IRS or any court would agree with this position (or with any opinion of counsel delivered to the Sponsor in support thereof). Therefore, the Trust might cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

The Trust has taken certain positions with respect to the tax consequences of Incidental Rights and its receipt of IR Virtual Currency. If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge, any of these positions the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices (as defined herein) provide that the Trust will irrevocably abandon, effective immediately prior to each Creation Time or Redemption Time, all Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such time. The Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future. 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 Ether as of any date on which it creates or redeems Shares, it might cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

In addition, at this time the Trust is permitted to create or redeem Shares pursuant to In-Kind Orders and Cash Orders. In general, investment vehicles intended to be treated as grantor trusts for U.S. federal income tax purposes historically have created additional trust interests only in kind, and there is no authority directly addressing whether a grantor trust may create or redeem trust interests under procedures similar to those that govern Cash Orders. Accordingly, there can be no complete assurance that the creation or redemption of Shares under the procedures governing Cash Orders will not cause the Trust to fail to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Moreover, 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 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. Moreover, it is possible, in that case, that a portion of the Trust’s income would be considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States and, accordingly, a non-U.S. person owning Shares could be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a net income basis with respect to that “effectively connected” income and be required to file a U.S. tax return. If none of the Trust’s Staking income were considered to be “effectively connected” income, a non-U.S. person owning Shares would be subject to withholding on its pro rata portion of U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” (“FDAP”) income as described below. Tax-exempt shareholders may also recognize “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”) from the Trust’s Staking activities if the Trust is not treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

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 Ether (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 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” that has been updated from time to time since (the “Ruling & FAQs”). The Ruling & FAQs 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. Moreover, in 2023, the IRS released a revenue ruling that provided guidance on digital

asset staking, including guidance to the effect that staking rewards will, under certain circumstances, be treated as giving rise to taxable income (the “2023 Staking Guidance”). Further, the IRS recently issued the 2025 Revenue Procedure, which provides a staking safe harbor for certain grantor trust vehicles. However, the Notice, the Ruling & FAQs, the 2023 Staking Guidance and the 2025 Revenue Procedure do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets. For example, for a non-U.S. Holder, there currently is no guidance directly addressing whether or in what circumstances engaging in certain activities to generate yield on digital assets, including Staking, could give rise to income that is effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. Similarly, for a U.S. tax-exempt shareholder, there currently is no guidance directly addressing whether or in what circumstances such activities could give rise to UBTI. 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. 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, the Ruling & FAQs, the 2023 Staking Guidance and the 2025 Revenue Procedure. 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 Ether 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, the Trust could hold certain types of digital assets that are not within the scope of the Notice, in the event the Sponsor seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC.

The remainder of this discussion assumes that Ether, 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 UBTI as a consequence of Staking or the occurrence of a fork, airdrop or similar event.

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 solely for cash or solely for Ether that were originally acquired by the U.S. Holder for cash on the same date.

As discussed in the section entitled “Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares,” a U.S. Holder may be able to acquire Shares of the Trust by contributing Ether 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 Ether held in the Trust and will be treated as directly realizing its pro rata share of the Trust’s income, gains, losses and deductions (including any Staking income). 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 Ether 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 Ether will begin on the date of such purchase. When a U.S. Holder acquires Shares in exchange for Ether, (i) the U.S. Holder’s initial tax basis in its pro rata share of the Ether held in the Trust will be equal to the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in the Ether 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 Ether generally will include the period during which the U.S. Holder held the Ether 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 Ether contributes a portion of its Ether to the Trust in exchange for Shares, the U.S. Holder could designate the lot(s) from which such contribution will be made, provided that the U.S. Holder is able to identify specifically which Ether it is contributing and to substantiate its tax basis in that Ether. 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 Ether or (iii) in exchange for a contribution of Ether with different tax bases, the U.S. Holder’s share of the Trust’s Ether will consist of separate lots with separate tax bases. In addition, in this situation, the U.S. Holder’s holding period for the separate lots may be different. In addition, any Ether received as Staking Consideration that the Trust acquires will constitute a separate lot with a separate tax basis and holding period.

Gains or losses from the sale of Ether to fund cash redemptions are expected to be treated as incurred only by the shareholder that is being redeemed. However, when the Trust transfers Ether to the Sponsor as payment of the Sponsor’s Fee or the Sponsor’s Staking Fee or sells Ether to fund payment of any cash distributions or of any Additional Trust Expenses, each U.S. Holder will be treated as having sold its pro rata share of that Ether for their fair market value at that time (which, in the case of Ether 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 Ether transferred and (ii) the U.S. Holder’s tax basis for its pro rata share of the Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether is more than one year. A U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its pro rata share of any Ether 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 Ether held in the Trust immediately prior to the transfer by a fraction the numerator of which is the amount of Ether transferred and the denominator of which is the total amount of Ether 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 Ether remaining in the Trust will be equal to the tax basis of its pro rata share of the Ether held in the Trust immediately prior to the transfer, less the portion of that tax basis allocable to its pro rata share of the Ether transferred. A U.S. Holder’s receipt of distributions of cash proceeds from the sale of Ether (other than in connection with a redemption) should not, itself, be a taxable event to a U.S. Holder.

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. As described above, the Sponsor has committed to causing the Trust to abandon all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust otherwise might become entitled. If, however, the Trust were to receive and retain IR Virtual Currency in the future, a U.S. Holder would have a basis in that IR Virtual Currency 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 would begin as of the time it recognizes such income. Similarly, although the IRS has not issued similar guidance with respect to staking, if the Trust receives any Staking Consideration in connection with Staking, it is likely that a U.S. Holder will have a basis in any Ether received as part of such Staking Consideration equal to the amount of income that the U.S. Holder recognizes and the U.S. Holder’s holding period for such Staking Consideration 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, a non-corporate U.S. Holder’s share of these expenses will not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

On a sale or other disposition of Shares, a U.S. Holder will be treated as having sold the Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether underlying such Shares is more than one year. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to significant limitations.

If the Trust redeems all or a portion of a U.S. Holder’s Shares in exchange for the underlying Ether represented by the redeemed Shares, such redemption generally will not be a taxable event to the U.S. Holder. The U.S. Holder’s tax basis in the Ether received in the redemption generally will be the same as the U.S. Holder’s tax basis for the portion of its pro rata share of the Ether held in the Trust immediately prior to the redemption that was attributable to the Shares redeemed, determined as described above, and the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its remaining pro rata portion, if any, of the Ether held in the Trust after the redemption will be equal to the tax basis of its pro rata share of the total amount of the Ether held in the Trust immediately prior to the redemption, less the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in

the Ether received in the redemption. The U.S. Holder’s holding period with respect to the Ether received will generally include the period during which the U.S. Holder held the Shares so redeemed. A subsequent sale of the Ether received in such redemption will generally be a taxable event.

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 Ether held in the Trust immediately after the disposition will equal the tax basis in its pro rata share of the total amount of the Ether 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 (or, in the case of a redemption pursuant to an In-Kind Order, the portion of tax basis that is treated as the basis of the Ether received by the U.S. Holder in the redemption).

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.

If the Trust receives Staking Consideration, that Staking Consideration would be reportable to shareholders as taxable income under current IRS guidance.

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 Staking, or the occurrence of a hard fork, airdrop or similar event, 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.

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 Ether in payment of the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor’s Staking Fee or any Additional Trust Expense or on the Trust’s sale or other disposition of Ether. In addition, assuming that the Trust holds no asset other than Ether, 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 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 the Sponsor has committed to causing the Trust to abandon all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future, and although there is no guidance on point, if the Trust were to receive and retain IR Virtual Currency arising from a future fork, airdrop or similar occurrence, it is likely that any ordinary income recognized by a non-U.S. Holder as a result would constitute FDAP income. It is also possible that the receipt of any Staking Consideration by the Trust 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. Based on the current manner in which the Trust’s Staking activities are undertaken and certain assurances from the Trust’s Staking Providers regarding their connections to the United States, the Trust believes that its income from staking rewards should not be treated as U.S.-source FDAP income. However, that conclusion is not free from doubt under current law due to the lack of direct governing authority, and no assurance can be given that a withholding agent (including a broker through which Shares are held) will not take a contrary position. In addition, changes in law or changes to the Trust’s Staking Arrangements could cause all or a portion of the Trust’s staking rewards to be treated as U.S.-source FDAP income in the future.

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 U.S.-source FDAP income, but only if the non-U.S. Holder’s home country treats the Trust as “fiscally transparent,” as defined in applicable Treasury Regulations.

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 or Staking 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 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. Department of the Treasury (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.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

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.

The risk factors below 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.

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

The trading prices of many digital assets, including Ether, have experienced extreme volatility and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including declines in the trading prices of Ether, 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 Ether, have experienced extreme volatility throughout their existence and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including Ether, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022. This volatility became extreme in November 2022, when FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), 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 Ether, have continued to fluctuate widely through the date of this Annual Report.

Extreme volatility in the future, including declines in the trading prices of Ether, 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 Ether 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 Ether. For additional information that quantifies the volatility of Ether 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 Ether Prices.”

Furthermore, changes in U.S. political leadership and economic policies may create uncertainty that materially affects the price of Ether 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 U.S. Department of the 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 U.S. Department of the 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 Bitcoin in the expectation of the U.S. government acquiring such assets to fund such reserve, and the market price of Bitcoin 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 Ether or other digital assets may negatively and significantly impact the price of Ether and the Trust’s Shares.

Digital assets such as Ether 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 recency of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and 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 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 Ethereum Network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including Ether, and, consequently, their value.

•

The acceptance of software patches or upgrades to a digital asset network by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and validators in a digital asset network, such as the Ethereum Network, could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate blockchain networks.

•

Digital asset validating 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 validating operations. Additionally, validators may be forced to cease operations during an electricity shortage or power outage.

•

Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges and are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective.

•

The open-source structure of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Ethereum Network, means that developers and other contributors are generally not 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 Ethereum 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 the Ethereum Network 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. Quantum computing technology is an emerging phenomenon which, because it is still developing, makes it difficult to predict its ultimate effect on the future value of Ether and other digital assets. However, if quantum computing technology is able to advance and significantly increase its capacity relative to the capacity of today’s leading quantum computers, it could potentially undermine the viability of many of the cryptographic algorithms used across the world’s information technology infrastructure, including the cryptographic algorithms used for digital assets like Ether. If quantum computing is able to advance in that way, there is a risk that quantum computing could materially reduce the security assumptions underlying the Ethereum Network and result in the cryptography underlying the Ethereum Network becoming ineffective. If such is realized, it could compromise the security of the Ethereum Network or allow a malicious actor to compromise the wallets holding Ether owned by the Trust or others on the Ethereum Network, which would result in losses to shareholders. For example, if sufficiently powerful quantum computers are developed, they could use known quantum algorithms to derive private keys from publicly available public keys, potentially allowing malicious actors to forge transaction signatures and misappropriate Ether. There is no guarantee that new quantum-proof architectures will be built and appropriate transitions will be implemented across the network at scale in a timely manner; any such changes could require the achievement of broad consensus within the Ethereum Network community and may result in a fork (or multiple forks), and there can be no assurance that such consensus would be achieved or the changes implemented successfully. In such a scenario, the Ethereum Network may not be able to transition to quantum-resistant cryptography in a timely or effective manner. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to take the Trust’s Ether, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Ethereum Network may be negatively affected by such an exploit such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for Ether. Even if another digital asset other than Ether 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.

•

The Ethereum Network is in the process of implementing a series of software upgrades and other changes to its protocol, which were previously referred to collectively as Ethereum 2.0 and some of which were implemented during 2022, such as the Merge. These upgrades will result in new iterations of the Ethereum Network. Many of the contemplated upgrades the Ethereum Network will include updates to material aspects of its source code. Although some of these upgrades have been successfully implemented, such as the Merge, previously successful upgrades do not guarantee that future upgrades will be successful, and any failure to properly implement future changes could have a material adverse effect on the value of Ether

and the value of the Shares. In March 2024, the Ethereum Network completed a network upgrade called Dencun, which enabled “proto-danksharding.” The purpose of proto-danksharding is to increase scalability of the Ethereum Network by allowing easy synchronization with Layer 2 networks capable of processing many more transactions than the Layer 1 blockchain alone. The intended effect would be to increase the rate of transactions that can be processed by the Ethereum Network. As a result, it is possible that the amount of Ether required to sync Layer 2 networks with the Blockchain would be reduced and therefore the demand for Ether could be reduced, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of Ether and the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Modifications to the Ethereum Protocol” for additional information. In addition, the acceptance of software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and validators in a digital asset network could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks. See “—A temporary or permanent “fork” or a “clone” could adversely affect the value of the Shares” for additional information.

•

The Ethereum Network is still in the process of developing and making significant decisions that will affect policies that govern the supply and issuance of Ether as well as other Ethereum Network protocols. For example, the Ethereum Network has on three separate occasions reduced the quantity of Ether rewarded per block prior to its transition to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, which itself fundamentally altered the structure of block rewards, and may make additional changes in the future, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Creation of New Ether” for additional information. If the Ethereum Network does not successfully develop its policies on supply and issuance, or does so in a manner that is not attractive to network participants, there may not be sufficient network level support for such network, which could lead to a decline in the support and price of Ether.

Moreover, because digital assets, including Ether, 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 relatively new and rapidly evolving industry, and the value of the Shares depends on the acceptance of Ether.

The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. Ether was launched in 2015 and, along with Bitcoin, was one of the first cryptographic digital assets to gain global adoption and critical mass. In general, digital asset networks, including the Ethereum Network and related protocols represent a relatively 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:

•

Ether is only selectively accepted as a means of payment by retail and commercial outlets, and use of Ether by consumers remains limited. Banks and other established financial institutions, whether voluntarily or in response to regulatory feedback, may refuse to process funds for Ether transactions; process wire transfers to or from Digital Asset Trading Platforms, Ether-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in Ether. As a result, the prices of Ether are largely determined by speculators and validators, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept Ether 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, Ether has not yet been accepted in the same manner because it 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 Ether, 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 validators 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. If any such features are introduced to the Ethereum Network, any trading platforms or businesses that facilitate transactions in Ether may be at an increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks.

•

Users, developers and validators may switch to or adopt certain digital asset networks or protocols at the expense of their engagement with other digital asset networks and protocols, which may negatively impact those networks and protocols, including the Ethereum Network.

Smart contracts are a new technology and ongoing development may magnify initial problems, cause volatility on the networks that use smart contracts and reduce interest in them, which could have an adverse impact on the value of Ether.

Smart contracts are programs that run on a blockchain that execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Since smart contracts typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in their programming can have damaging effects. For example, in June 2016, a vulnerability in the smart contracts 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. In the aftermath of the theft, certain developers and core contributors pursued a “hard fork” of the Ethereum Network in order to erase any record of the theft. Despite these efforts, the price of Ether dropped approximately 35% in the aftermath of the attack and subsequent hard fork. In addition, in July 2017, a vulnerability in a smart contract for a multi-signature wallet software developed by Parity led to a $30 million theft of Ether, and in November 2017, a new vulnerability in Parity’s wallet software led to roughly $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 development, design and deployment of smart contracts may have an adverse effect on the value of Ether, which could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

Layer 2 solutions on the Ethereum Network were only recently conceived and may not properly function as intended, which could have an adverse impact on the value of Ether and an investment in the Shares.

So-called “Layer 2” solutions are protocols built on top of an underlying smart contract platform blockchain intended to provide scalability to the underlying blockchain by increasing transaction efficiency. For example, Arbitrum is a smart contract platform protocol built on top of the Blockchain; it is intended to provide scalability to Ethereum by allowing users to transact on a second blockchain deployed on the Ethereum Network. Under this model, Ethereum functions as the base layer, or “Layer 1” blockchain. Such solutions are intended to improve upon the transaction speed, cost and efficiency of transactions on their respective Layer 1. Layer 2 solutions therefore rely, to various degrees, on the functionality of the underlying Layer 1 blockchain.

The details of how this is done vary significantly between different Layer 2 technologies and implementations. For example, “rollups” perform transaction execution outside the Layer 1 blockchain and then post the data, typically in batches, back to the Layer 1 blockchain where consensus is reached. “Zero knowledge rollups” are generally designed to run the computation needed to validate the transactions off-chain, on the Layer 2 protocol, and submit a proof of validity of a batch of transactions (not the entire transactions themselves). By contrast, “optimistic rollups” assume transactions are valid by default and only run computation, via a fraud proof, in the event of a challenge. Other proposed Layer 2 scaling solutions include, among others, “state channels”, which are designed to allow participants to run a large number of transactions on the Layer 2 side channel protocol and only submit two transactions to the main Layer 1 blockchain (the transaction opening the state channel, and the transaction closing the channel), “side chains”, in which an entire Layer 2 blockchain network with similar capabilities to the existing Layer 1 blockchain runs in parallel with the existing Layer 1 blockchain and allows smart contracts and DApps to run on the Layer 2 side chain without burdening the main Layer 1 network, and others. To date, the Ethereum Network community has not coalesced overwhelmingly around any particular Layer 2 solution, though this could change. There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the speed and throughput of settlement of Ethereum Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could cause the Ethereum Network to not adequately resolve scaling challenges and adversely impact the adoption of Ether and the Ethereum Network and the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any potential scaling solution, whether a change to the Layer 1 blockchain or the introduction of a Layer 2 solution like rollups, state channels or side chains, will achieve widespread adoption. It is possible that proposed changes to the Layer 1 Ethereum Network could divide the community, potentially even causing a hard fork, or that the decentralized governance of the Ethereum Network causes network participants to fail to coalesce overwhelmingly around any particular solution, causing the Ethereum Network to suffer reduced adoption or causing users or validators to migrate to other blockchain networks. It is also possible that scaling solutions could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects or flaws, security risks, or other problems that could cause them to suffer operational disruptions. For example, in multiple instances throughout 2022 and 2023, the Arbitrum network experienced outages due to failures in its primary node responsible for submitting transactions to Ethereum.

Further, smart contracts deployed on one Layer 2 solution may not be interoperable with smart contracts deployed on other Layer 2 solutions. In particular, the advent of Layer 2 solutions presents the possibility of fracturing liquidity of DeFi DApps on a smart contract platform’s mainchain by splitting such liquidity among multiple, non-interoperable Layer 2 solutions, which could limit their use case or reduce efficiency. As Layer 2 solutions grow in popularity and total value locked, these types of difficulties may lead to transactional congestion or forfeiture of value held on the Ethereum Network, which in turn could have an adverse impact on the value of Ether.

Changes in the governance of a digital asset network or protocol may not receive sufficient support from users and validators, which may negatively affect that digital asset network’s or protocol’s ability to grow and respond to challenges.

The governance of some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Ethereum Network, is generally by voluntary consensus and open competition. For such networks and protocols, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on that network’s or protocol’s governance, which may stymie such network’s or protocol’s utility, adaptability and ability to grow and face challenges.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the underlying software for some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Ethereum 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 a significant majority of users and validators were to adopt amendments to a decentralized network based on the proposals of such core developers, such network would be subject to new source code that may adversely affect the value of the relevant digital asset.

As a result of the foregoing, it may be difficult to find solutions or marshal sufficient effort to overcome any future problems, especially long-term problems, on digital asset networks.

Digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges and efforts to increase the volume and speed of transactions may not be successful.

Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges due to the fact that public, 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.

As of December 31, 2025, the Ethereum Network handled approximately 25 transactions per second. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital asset networks are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. For example, in March 2024, the Ethereum Network completed a network upgrade called Dencun, which enabled “proto-danksharding.” See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Creation of New Ether” and “—Modifications to the Ethereum Protocol” for additional information.

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 Ethereum Network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2023, Ether average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.13 per transaction, on December 27, 2025, to as high as $29.46 per transaction, on March 5, 2024. As of December 31, 2025, Ether average daily transaction fees stood at $0.15 per transaction. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for Ether (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, Ether, 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 Ethereum Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Digital 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 Ethereum Network, such as Vitalik Buterin, is perceived as no longer contributing to the Ethereum Network due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of Ether, 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.

As of December 31, 2025, the largest 100 Ether wallets held approximately 18.8% of the Ether in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of Ether, 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. Further, holders with substantial Ether positions may directly or indirectly exert influence over other ecosystem participants such as validators, developers, or major wallet and infrastructure providers. For example, these large holders may signal large potential sales or otherwise affect the stability of the market price of Ether, which could influence protocol development, governance dynamics, or market conditions. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of Ether.

Validators may suffer losses due to Staking, or Staking may prove unattractive to validators, which could adversely affect the Ethereum Network.

Validation on the Ethereum Network requires Ether to be transferred into smart contracts on the underlying blockchain network. If the Ethereum Network source code or protocol were to fail to behave as expected, suffer cybersecurity attacks or hacks, experience security issues, or encounter other problems, such staked Ether may be irretrievably lost. In addition, the Ethereum Network’s underlying protocol dictates requirements for participation in validation activity, and may impose penalties, if the relevant activities are not performed correctly. The Ethereum Network imposes three types of sanctions for validator misbehavior or inactivity, which would result in a portion of staked Ether being destroyed or “burned”: penalties, slashing and inactivity leaks.

A validator may face penalties if it fails to take certain actions, such as providing a timely attestation to a block proposed by another validator. Under this scenario, a small portion of a validator’s Ether reward could be reduced.

Staked Ether may also be burned through a process known as an “inactivity leak,” which is triggered if the Ethereum protocol has gone too long without finalizing a new block. For a new block to be successfully added to the blockchain, validators that account for at least two-thirds of all staked Ether must agree on the validity of a proposed block. This means that if validators representing more than one-third of the total staked Ether are offline, no new blocks can be finalized. To prevent this, an inactivity leak causes the Ether staked by the inactive validators to gradually “bleed away” until these inactive validators represent less than one-third of the total stake, thereby allowing the remaining active validators to finalize proposed blocks. This provides a further incentive for validators to remain online and continue performing validation activities.

As well as sanctions, as part of the “activating” and “exiting” processes of Staking, staked Ether will be inaccessible for a variable period of time determined by a range of factors, including network congestion, resulting in potential inaccessibility during those periods. “Activation” is the funding of a validator to be included in the active set of validators, thereby allowing the validator to participate in the Ethereum Network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. “Exit” is the request to exit from the active set of validators and no longer participate in the Ethereum Network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. As part of these “activating” and “exiting” processes of Staking on the Ethereum Network, any staked Ether will be inaccessible for a period of time and will not earn any income during this period. However, depending on demand, un-staking can take between hours, days or weeks to complete.

If validators’ staked Ether are slashed or otherwise subject to sanctions by the Ethereum Network, their assets may be confiscated, withdrawn, or burnt by the network, resulting in losses to the validator, or the users who provided the Ether to the validator to stake on their behalf. Any cybersecurity attacks, security issues, hacks, penalties, slashing events, or other problems could damage validators’ willingness to participate in validation, discourage existing and future validators from serving as such, and adversely impact the Ethereum Network’s adoption or the price of Ether. Any disruption of validation on the Ethereum Network could interfere with network operations and cause the Ethereum Network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of Ether to decrease. In addition, the limited liquidity during the “activation” or “exiting” processes could dissuade potential validators from participating, which could interfere with network operations or security and cause

the Ethereum Network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of Ether to decrease.

There can be no guarantee that penalties, slashing or inactivity leaks and resulting losses will not deter validators from Staking. Any such deterrence would affect the Ethereum Network’s ability to process transactions, thus making the Ethereum Network less attractive to potential users thereof and negatively affecting the value of the Shares.

Liquid staking applications pose centralization concerns, and a single liquid staking application has reportedly controlled around or in excess of 33% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network.

Validators must deposit 32 Ether to activate a unique validator key pair that is used to sign block proposals and attestations on behalf of its stake (i.e., participate in the proof-of-stake consensus mechanism). For every 32 Ether deposit that is staked, a unique validator key pair is generated. This validator key pair is only used in validation processes (block proposal and attestation, and the staking associated therewith), and is separate from the public-private key pair generated in respect of the blockchain address on the Ethereum Network which is used to hold the Ether. An application built on the Ethereum Network, or a single node operator, can manage many validator key pairs. For example, Lido, an application that provides a so-called “liquid staking” solution that permits holders of Ether to deposit them with Lido, which stakes the Ether while issuing the holder a transferrable token, is reported by some sources to have or have had up to 275,000 validator key pairs (each representing 32 staked Ether) divided across over 30 node operators. At times, Lido has reportedly controlled around or in excess of 33% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network. While it is widely believed that Lido has little incentive to attempt to interfere with transaction finality or block confirmations using its reported 33% stake, since doing so would likely cause its entire stake to be slashed and thus lost (assuming good actors unaffiliated with Lido controlled the remainder), and also because Lido is believed to not control most of the third-party node operators where its Ether is staked, and finally because the occurrence of such manipulation of the Ethereum Network’s consensus process by Lido or any other actor would likely cause Ether to lose substantial value (which would hurt Lido economically), it nevertheless poses centralization concerns. If Lido, or a bad actor with a similar sized stake, were to attempt to interfere with transaction finality or block confirmations, it could negatively affect the use and adoption of the Ethereum Network, the value of Ether, and thus the value of the Shares.

If the digital asset reward or transaction fees for recording transactions on the Ethereum Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize validators, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate validating activities, validators may cease expanding validating power or demand high transaction fees, which could negatively impact the value of Ether and the value of the Shares.

In 2021, the Ethereum Network implemented the EIP-1559 upgrade. EIP-1559 changed the methodology used to calculate transaction fees paid to Ether validators (then called “miners”) in such a manner that reduced the total net issuance of Ether. If the digital asset awards or transaction fees for recording transactions on the Ethereum Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize validators, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate validating activities, validators may cease expending validating power to validate blocks and confirmations of transactions on the Blockchain could be slowed. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

•

Over the past several years, digital asset validating operations have evolved from individual users validating with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit machines to “professionalized” validating operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of digital asset validating operations are not sufficiently high, digital asset validators are more likely to immediately sell digital assets earned by validating, 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 digital assets staked by validators on the Ethereum Network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet obtaining control. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 33% of the validating power on the Ethereum Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Ethereum 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.”

•

Validators have historically accepted relatively low transaction confirmation fees on most digital asset networks. If validators demand higher transaction fees for recording transactions in the Blockchain or a software upgrade automatically charges fees for all transactions on the Ethereum Network, the cost of using Ether may increase and the marketplace may be reluctant to accept Ether as a means of payment. Alternatively, validators could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Ethereum Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Ethereum Network. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting through collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Ethereum Network, the value of Ether and the value of the Shares.

•

To the extent that any validators cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in validated blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Blockchain until a block is validated by a validator 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.

•

During the course of ordering transactions and validating blocks, validators may be able to prioritize certain transactions in return for increased transaction fees, an incentive system known as “Maximal Extractable Value” or MEV. For example, in blockchain networks that facilitate DeFi protocols in particular, such as the Ethereum Network, users may attempt to gain an advantage over other users by increasing offered transaction fees. Certain software solutions, such as Flashbots, have been developed which facilitate validators in capturing MEV produced by these increased fees. The MEV incentive system may lead to an increase in transaction fees on the Ethereum Network, which may diminish its use. Users or other stakeholders on the Ethereum Network could also view the existence of MEV as unfair manipulation of decentralized digital asset networks, and refrain from using DeFi protocols or the Ethereum Network generally. In addition, it’s possible regulators or legislators could enact rules which restrict the use of MEV, which could diminish the popularity of the Ethereum Network among users and validators. Any of these or other outcomes related to MEV may adversely affect the value of Ether and the value of the Shares.

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 33% of the validating power on the Ethereum Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Ethereum 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.

All networked systems are vulnerable to various types of attacks. As with any computer network, the Ethereum Network could be attacked. For example, following the Merge and the switch to proof-of-stake validation, the Ethereum Network is currently vulnerable to several types of attacks, including:

•

“>33% attack” where, if a malicious actor, validator, botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 33% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network, a malicious actor could temporarily impede or delay block confirmation or even cause a temporary fork in the blockchain. This is designed to be a temporary risk, as the Ethereum Network’s inactivity leak would be expected to eventually penalize the attacker enough for the chain to finalize again (i.e., the honest majority would be expected to reclaim 2/3rd stake as the attacker’s stake is penalized). Moreover, it is not believed that a 33% attack would allow a malicious actor to engage in double-spending or fraudulent block propagation. Even without 33% control, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the Ethereum Network.

•

“>50% attack” where, if a malicious actor, validator, botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 50% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network, a malicious actor would be able to manipulate transactions on the blockchain, including censoring transactions, double-spending and fraudulent block propagation, potentially for an extended period or even permanently. In theory, the minority non-attackers might reach social consensus to reject blocks proposed by the malicious majority attacker, reducing the attacker’s ability to engage in malicious activity, but there can be no assurance this would happen or that non-attackers would be able to coordinate effectively. To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the validating power on the Ethereum Network or the Ethereum community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the Blockchain may not be possible.

•

“>66% attack” where, if a malicious actor, validator, botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 66% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network, a malicious actor could permanently and irreversibly manipulate the blockchain, including censorship, double-spending and fraudulent block propagation. Although the malicious actor or botnet may not be able to generate new tokens or transactions using such control, it could “double-spend” its own tokens (i.e., spend the same tokens in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control (over 50%). The attacker could finalize their preferred chain without any consideration for the votes of other stakers and could also revert finalized blocks.

Although there are no known reports of malicious control of the Ethereum Network, if groups of coordinating or connected Ether holders that together have more than 33% of staked Ether, they could exert authority over the validation of Ether transactions. This risk is heightened if a substantial amount of the validating power on the network falls within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority and is significantly heightened if over 66% falls within such a jurisdiction. If network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of validating pools, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of Ethereum Network validators, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the validating power on the Ethereum Network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

A malicious actor may also obtain control over the Ethereum Network through its influence over core developers by gaining direct control over a core developer or an otherwise influential programmer. The less that the Ethereum ecosystem grows, the greater the possibility that a malicious actor may be able to maliciously influence the Ethereum Network in this manner. Moreover, it is possible that a group of Ether holders that together control more than a substantial amount of outstanding Ether are in fact part of the initial or current core developer group, or are otherwise influential members of the Ethereum community. To the extent that the initial or current

core developer groups also control higher than a threshold of staked Ether necessary for an attack, as some believe, the risk of this particular group of users causing the Ethereum Network to adopt updates to the core protocol that this particular group wants to be implemented will be even greater, and should this materialize, it may adversely affect the value of the Shares. Further, the Ethereum Network may also be adversely affected if core developers become aligned with, or culturally or organizationally captured by, particular companies, foundations, interest groups, or other coordinated constituencies whose priorities diverge from those of the broader community, as such influence may shape protocol development, governance outcomes, or upgrade decisions in ways that negatively affect the network or the market price of the related digital asset. In an example from the Bitcoin Network, historically, perceptions—whether accurate or not—that certain core developers were aligned with or influenced by specific organizations, such as concerns voiced by some regarding Blockstream’s relationship with core developers during the Bitcoin scaling debates, contributed to community division, reduced consensus around protocol direction, and ultimately played a role in the network split that resulted in Bitcoin Cash. Similar perceptions in the future could impede protocol development, fragment the community, or otherwise negatively affect the growth, utility, or market price of Ether, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

The Ethereum Network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and validators of Ether adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and validators’ consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and validators’ 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 Ethereum 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 Ethereum running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in September 2022, the Ethereum Network transitioned to a proof-of-stake model, in an upgrade referred to as the “Merge.” Following the Merge, a hard fork of the Ethereum Network occurred, as certain Ethereum miners and network participants planned to maintain the proof-of-work consensus mechanism that was removed as part of the Merge. This version of the network was rebranded as “Ethereum Proof-of-Work.”

Forks may also occur as a digital asset network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum “forked” into Ethereum and a new digital asset, Ethereum Classic, as a result of the Ethereum Network community’s response to a significant security breach. In 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 validators abandoning the digital asset with the flawed software. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and validators 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.

Furthermore, a hard fork can lead to new security concerns. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum trading platforms through at least October 2016. An Ethereum trading platform announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of validating power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual validator or validating pool’s validating power to exceed 33% of the validating power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less validating power, thereby making digital asset networks that rely on proof-of-stake more susceptible to attack.

Digital asset networks and 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” is 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 and, in contrast to forks, holders of tokens of the existing network that was cloned do not receive any tokens of the new network. 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.

A hard fork may adversely affect the price of Ether 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 Ethereum 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. For example, following the DAO hack in July 2016, holders of Ethereum voted on-chain to reverse the hack, effectively causing a hard fork. For the days following the vote, the price of Ethereum rose from $11.65 on July 15, 2016 to $14.66 on July 21, 2016, the day after the first Ethereum Classic block was mined. A clone may also adversely affect the price of Ether 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 Ether at the time of announcement or adoption.

A future fork in or clone of the Ethereum Network could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

In the event of a hard fork of the Ethereum 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 Ethereum 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 Ethereum Network, is generally accepted as the Ethereum 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 Ether, users, services, businesses, validators and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, validating power on, and community engagement with, the Ethereum 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 Index Provider on what is generally accepted as Ether and should therefore be considered “Ether” 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 Ether may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of Ether 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 the Ethereum Network or Ether. 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 Ether and the value of the Shares.

If the Ethereum Network is used to facilitate illicit activities, businesses that facilitate transactions in Ether could be at increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having services cut off, which could negatively affect the price of Ether and the value of the Shares.

Digital asset networks have in the past been, and may continue to be, used to facilitate illicit activities. If the Ethereum Network is used to facilitate illicit activities, businesses that facilitate transactions in Ether 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 certain smart contracts on the Ethereum Network could interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering activities and economic sanctions checks. There is also a risk that Digital Asset Trading Platforms may remove Ether from their platforms as a result of these concerns. Other service providers of such businesses may also cut off services if there is a concern that the Ethereum Network is being used to facilitate crime. Any of the aforementioned occurrences could increase regulatory scrutiny of the Ethereum Network and/or adversely affect the price of Ether, the attractiveness of the Ethereum Network and an investment in the Shares of the Trust.

When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, sell or deliver, as applicable, Ether or, subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC, 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 a Liquidity Provider sources Ether in connection with the creation of the Shares or facilitates transactions in Ether at the direction of the Trust or the Sponsor, it directly faces its counterparty and, in all instances, the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider, as applicable, 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 accordance with its regulatory obligations, the Authorized Participant, or the 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

In the past and through to the date of this Annual Report, digital asset prices have experienced significant fluctuations, leading 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.

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.

On January 17, 2025, DCG agreed to entry of a cease-and-desist order and payment of a $38 million civil money penalty arising out of the SEC’s allegations that (i) DCG negligently engaged in conduct that misled investors about the impact of the default on Genesis Capital’s financial condition and (ii) DCG’s failure to exercise reasonable care in connection with certain statements concerning Genesis Capital’s financial condition created a materially false impression to the public regarding Genesis Capital’s financial health.

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 significant negative publicity around digital asset market participants including DCG, Genesis and DCG’s other affiliated entities. This publicity could negatively impact the reputation of the Sponsor and have an adverse effect on the trading price and/or the value of the Shares. Moreover, sales of a significant number of Shares of the Trust as a result of these events could have a negative impact on the trading price of the Shares.

These events have also led to a substantial increase in regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of the industry as a whole and of Digital Asset Trading Platforms in particular, including from the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase (the “Coinbase Complaint”), alleging that they solicited U.S. investors to buy, sell, and trade “crypto asset securities” through their 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 brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint have led, and may in the future 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 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.

In January 2025, the SEC launched a crypto task force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for digital assets led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Subsequently, Commissioner Peirce announced a list of specific priorities to further that initiative, which included pursuing final rules related to a digital asset’s security status, a revised path to registered offerings and listings for digital asset-based investment vehicles, and clarity regarding digital asset custody, lending and staking.

Digital 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 Ether, 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 Ether, 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 Ether, 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 Ether held by the Trust and fluctuations in the price of Ether could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The market price of Ether may be highly volatile, and subject to a number of factors, including:

•

an increase in the global Ether supply that is publicly available for trading;

•

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

•

the adoption of Ether 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 Ethereum Network;

•

forks in the Ethereum Network;

•

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

•

consumer preferences and perceptions of Ether specifically and digital assets generally;

•

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

•

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

•

investment and trading activities of large investors that invest directly or indirectly in Ether, including trading activity related to so-called digital asset treasury companies or similar vehicles that are intended to provide investors with indirect exposure to Ether;

•

a “short squeeze” resulting from speculation on the price of Ether, if aggregate short exposure exceeds the number of Shares available for purchase;

•

an active derivatives market for Ether or for digital assets generally;

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

fees associated with processing an Ether transaction and the speed at which Ether transactions are settled on the Ethereum Network;

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

The value of an Ether as represented by the Index Price or by the Trust’s principal market may also be subject to momentum pricing due to speculation regarding future appreciation in value, leading to greater volatility that could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Momentum pricing typically is associated with growth stocks and other assets whose valuation, as determined by the investing public, accounts for future appreciation in value, if any. The Sponsor believes that momentum pricing of Ether has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of Ether, inflating and making the Index Price more volatile. As a result, Ether may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the Index Price and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Due to the 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether and/or negatively affect the market perception of Ether, 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 Ether present in the Digital Asset Markets or cause distortions in the price of Ether, 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 Ether 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 malware. For example, in February 2025, hackers reportedly compromised a transaction from Bybit’s multisignature cold wallets, enabling the hackers to steal over $1.5 billion of Ether from Bybit. Shortcomings or ultimate failures of larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms are more likely to have contagion effects on the digital asset ecosystem, including on the price of Ether, and therefore may also be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, 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 Ethereum Network and result in greater volatility in the prices of Ether. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a Digital Asset Trading Platform used in calculating the Index 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 Ether and/or negatively affect the market perception of Ether.

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

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

The Index has a limited history and the Index Price is a composite reference rate calculated using trading price data from various Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider have also changed over time. The Index Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Index in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Digital Asset Trading Platforms in the Index, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Ether Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

Although the Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of Ether, third parties may be able to purchase and sell Ether on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Trading Platforms of the Index, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of Ether 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 Index Provider, on any given day during the year ended December 31, 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 Index and the Index Price was 0.69% 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 Index and the Index Price was 0.23%. 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 Index and the Index Price was 0.003%. All Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were included in the Index throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of Ether, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

The price of Ether on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms has a very limited history, and during this history, Ether 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 Index is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms, the Index Price, and the price of Ether 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 July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) through December 31, 2025, the Index Price ranged from $1,465.07 to $4,832.59, with the straight average being $3,013.36 through December 31, 2025. In addition, during the twelve months ended December 31, 2025, the Index Price ranged from $1,465.07 to $4,832.59. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the Constituent Trading Platforms individually or as a group. The price of Ether more generally has experienced volatility similar to the Index Price during these periods. For additional information on movement of the Index Price and the price of Ether, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical NAV and Ether Prices.”

Furthermore, because the number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms is limited, the Index 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 Index Provider would have limited ability to remove such Digital Asset Trading Platform from the Index, which could skew the price of Ether as represented by the Index. Trading on a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms may result in less favorable prices and decreased liquidity of Ether and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

Purchasing activity associated with acquiring Ether required for the creation of Baskets may increase the market price of Ether on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Alternatively, selling activity associated with sales of Ether withdrawn from the Trust in connection with the redemption of Baskets may decrease the market price of Ether on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in lower prices for the Shares. Increases or decreases in the market price of Ether may also occur as a result of the purchasing or selling activity of other market participants. Other market participants may attempt to benefit from an increase or decrease in the market price of Ether that may result from increased purchasing or selling activity of Ether connected with the creation or redemption of Baskets. Consequently, the market price of Ether may decline immediately after Baskets are created. Decreases in the market price of Ether may also occur as a result of sales in Secondary Markets by other market participants. If the Index Price declines, the value of the Shares will generally also decline.

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

As of December 31, 2025, Ether was the second largest digital asset by market capitalization, as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of December 31, 2025, the alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com had a total market capitalization of approximately $2,678.0 billion (including the approximately $358 billion market cap of Ether), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding tokens pegged to other assets. In addition, many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned smart contracts platforms rather than open platforms like the Ethereum Network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Solana, Avalanche or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, Ether and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, the growth of tokenized assets and other on-chain financial products that offer yield, stability, or regulatory clarity may also divert capital and user engagement away from the Ethereum Network, which could negatively impact Ether’s market demand and the value of the Shares.

In addition, some digital asset networks, including the Ethereum Network, may be the target of ill will from users of other digital asset networks. For example, in July 2016, the Ethereum Network underwent a contentious hard fork that resulted in the creation of a new digital asset network called Ethereum Classic. As a result, some users of the Ethereum Classic network may harbor ill will toward the Ethereum Network, and vice versa. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the Ethereum Network. For additional information on the hard fork that resulted in the creation of Ethereum Classic, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Introduction to Ether and the Ethereum Network—The DAO and Ethereum Classic.”

Investors may also invest in Ether through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in Ether and other financial vehicles, including securities backed by or linked to Ether and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust.

The Trust and the Sponsor face competition with respect to the creation of competing exchange-traded spot Ether products, among other digital asset vehicles. Whether the Trust is successful in maintaining its scale and achieving its intended competitive position may be impacted by a range of factors, including its fee structure relative to those competing products. The Trust’s competitors may also charge a substantially lower fee than the Sponsor’s Fee in an effort to achieve initial market acceptance and scale, which could cause investors to favor such competing products over the Trust.

If the Trust fails to continue to maintain or grow sufficient scale due to competition, the Sponsor may have difficulty raising sufficient revenue to cover the costs associated with maintaining the Trust and such shortfalls could impact the Sponsor’s ability to properly invest in robust ongoing operations and controls of the Trust to minimize the risk of operating events, errors, or other forms of losses to the shareholders. Furthermore, the Trust may fail to continue to attract adequate liquidity in the secondary market due to such competition, resulting in a small number of Authorized Participants willing to make a market in the Shares, which in turn could result in the Shares trading at a significant premium or discount for extended periods. Likewise, market and financial conditions, among other conditions outside the Trust’s control, may cause investors to find it more attractive to gain exposure to Ether through other vehicles, rather than the Trust.

In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of Ether come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for Ether, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding Ether, could negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Accordingly, there 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 performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Congestion or delay on the Ethereum Network may delay purchases or sales of Ether by the Trust.

Increased transaction volume could result in delays in the recording of transactions on the Ethereum Network. Moreover, unforeseen system failures, disruptions in operations, or poor connectivity may also result in delays in the recording of transactions on the Blockchain. Any delay in the Blockchain could affect an Authorized Participant’s ability to buy or sell Ether at an advantageous price resulting in decreased confidence in the Blockchain. Over the longer term, delays in confirming transactions could reduce the

attractiveness to merchants and other commercial parties as a means of payment. As a result, the Ethereum Network and the value of the Trust would be adversely affected.

The SEC has approved generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares and may approve other applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list competing digital assets as exchange-traded products, which could reduce demand for, and the price of, Ether and adversely impact the value of the Shares.

To date, the SEC has approved applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products which hold Bitcoin and Ether, as well as generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares holding digital assets. To the extent competing digital assets exchange-traded products, other than those which hold Ether, come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for digital assets generally, demand for, and the price of, Ether could be reduced. Such reduced demand could in turn negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Accordingly, there 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 performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Competition from central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) and emerging payments initiatives involving financial institutions could adversely affect the price of Ether and other digital assets.

Central banks in various countries have introduced digital forms of legal tender (“CBDCs”). China’s CBDC project, known as Digital Currency Electronic Payment, has reportedly been tested in a live pilot program conducted in multiple cities in China. Central banks representing at least 130 countries have published retail or wholesale CBDC work ranging from research to pilot projects. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could have an advantage in competing with, or replace, Ether and other cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange or store of value. Central banks and other governmental entities have also announced cooperative initiatives and consortia with private sector entities, with the goal of leveraging blockchain and other technology to reduce friction in cross-border and interbank payments and settlement, and commercial banks and other financial institutions have also recently announced a number of initiatives of their own to incorporate new technologies, including blockchain and similar technologies, into their payments and settlement activities, which could compete with, or reduce the demand for, Ether. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the price of Ether could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Prices of Ether may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and USDC), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment.

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 Ether 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.

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 Ether 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. Department of the 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.

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 Ether. 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 that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins and could impact the price of Ether, and in turn, an investment in the Shares.

Further, because a significant portion of transaction activity and gas usage on the Ethereum Network is associated with stablecoin transfers and stablecoin-based decentralized finance applications, disruptions or failures affecting major stablecoins could diminish network activity and adversely affect the price of Ether. Moreover, stablecoin issuers may also exert significant or disproportionate influence in the event of a fork of the Ethereum Network because stablecoins are widely used as collateral and settlement assets in DeFi and other on-chain transactions. If a stablecoin issuer supports only one forked network, the stablecoins on the unsupported network may become worthless or illiquid, which could materially affect the viability of that fork and negatively impact the price of Ether and the value of the Shares. In addition, recent federal legislation establishing a regulatory framework for fully reserved payment stablecoins, such as the GENIUS Act, may increase the adoption of regulated stablecoins as digital payment instruments. While this could increase overall transactional activity on the Ethereum Network, greater reliance on stablecoins for payments may reduce the use of Ether itself as a medium of exchange and for certain on-chain transactions, which could adversely affect demand for Ether and therefore the value of the Shares.

Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares

The Trust relies on the Custodial Entities, the Authorized Participants and other third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to managing the affairs of the Trust. In addition, Liquidity Providers are relied upon to facilitate the purchase and sale of Ether in connection with creations and redemptions of Shares in cash (“Cash Orders”), and the Transfer Agent and Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (in such capacity, the “Liquidity Engager”), are relied upon to facilitate such Cash Orders. Any disruptions to a service provider’s 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 or the Liquidity Engager, as the case may be, to replace such service provider. Moreover, the Sponsor could decide to replace a service provider to the Trust, or the Liquidity Engager may decide to replace a Liquidity Provider, for other reasons.

If the Sponsor decides, or is required, to replace Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC as the custodian of the Trust’s Ether, Anchorage Digital Bank N.A., as the additional custodian of the Trust’s Ether, or Coinbase, Inc. as the prime broker controlling and securing the Trust’s Settlement Balance, transfer of the respective maintenance responsibilities of the Vault Balance or the Settlement Balance to another party or parties will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s Ether 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 Custodial Entities, in insolvency proceedings are currently uncertain. The Prime Broker Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Vault Balance and Settlement Balance as financial assets under Article 8 in addition to stating that the Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf with respect to the Trust’s Ether held in the Vault Balance, and that any Ether credited to the Settlement Balance will be treated as custodial assets.

The Custodial Entities’ parent, Coinbase Global, has also stated in its most recent public securities filings that in light of the inclusion of provisions relating to Article 8 in its custody and prime broker client agreements, it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate in the event the Custodial Entities 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. Moreover, the Custodian and the Prime Broker are potentially subject to different insolvency regimes and there is no assurance that the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance would be treated similarly to those credited to the Trust’s Vault Balance in an insolvency, notwithstanding the rights and obligations conferred under the Prime Broker Agreement or Coinbase Global’s views regarding the treatment of such assets under Article 8. In the event that the Custodian or the Prime Broker and/or Coinbase Global became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied digital assets were part of the Custodian’s, the Prime Broker’s and/or Coinbase Global’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in such insolvency proceedings and the Trust would be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets.

In addition, 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 Ether in trust on the Trust’s behalf. However,

the SEC previously released proposed amendments in February 2023 to 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 would remain a qualified custodian under the proposed SEC rule, if enacted as proposed. In June 2025, however, the SEC formally withdrew that proposed rulemaking and stated that it does not intend to issue final rules based on the proposal. However, there can be no assurance that the Custodian would continue to qualify as a “qualified custodian” under a final rule that may be proposed or adopted by the SEC in the future.

To the extent that the Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as custodian, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s Ether. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party and must enter into a modified or separate custody 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 Ether may be adversely affected, which may in turn adversely affect the value of the Shares. Likewise, if the Sponsor 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 an Authorized Participant and/or if the Liquidity Engager decides, or is required, to replace a Liquidity Provider, 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.

In the event that one or more Authorized Participants having substantial interests in Shares or otherwise responsible for a significant portion of the Shares’ daily trading volume on NYSE Arca terminates its Participant Agreement, the liquidity of the Shares would likely decrease, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares. In addition, if the Liquidity Engager is unable to engage one or more Liquidity Providers to obtain or receive Ether in connection with Cash Orders, the Trust may have difficulty maintaining the participation of certain Authorized Participants or engaging additional Authorized Participants. Under such circumstances, the liquidity of the Shares would likely decrease, which could adversely affect the value of 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-concurrent trading hours between NYSE Arca and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market.

The Trust’s NAV per Share will fluctuate with changes in the market value of Ether, 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 NYSE Arca at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share for a variety of reasons. For example, NYSE Arca 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 NYSE Arca is closed but Digital Asset Trading Platforms are open, significant changes in the price of Ether on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market could result in a difference in performance between the value of Ether as measured by the Index and the most recent NAV per Share or closing trading price. For example, if the price of Ether on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and the value of Ether as measured by the Index, move significantly in a negative direction after the close of NYSE Arca, the trading price of the Shares may “gap” down to the full extent of such negative price shift when NYSE Arca reopens. If the price of Ether on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market drops significantly during hours NYSE Arca 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 negative market. Even during periods when NYSE Arca 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.

Any suspension or other unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program may cause the Shares to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share.

Although the Sponsor has commenced the Trust’s redemption program in conjunction with the listing of the Shares on NYSE Arca, as a result of which Authorized Participants have been able to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities when the market value of the Shares deviated from the NAV per Share to reduce premiums or discounts to NAV per Share, there can be no assurance that the Trust’s redemption program will not be suspended or become unavailable in the future. In addition, if the Sponsor decides to limit Cash Orders at a time when the Shares are trading at a premium or a discount to the NAV per Share, and In-Kind Orders are not broadly available or are not being utilized by a sufficient number of Authorized Participants, the arbitrage mechanism may fail to effectively function, which could impact the Shares’ liquidity and/or cause the Shares to trade at premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, and otherwise have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

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

If the Shares trade on NYSE Arca in the future at a premium, investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. In contrast, if the Shares trade on NYSE Arca in the future at a discount, investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca. From July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares listed on NYSE Arca over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 1.6%, the average premium was 0.1%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares listed on NYSE Arca below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 0.7%, and the average discount was 0.1%. As of December 31, 2025, the Trust’s Shares were listed on NYSE Arca at a premium of 0.01% to the Trust’s NAV per Share. As a result, shareholders who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca at a premium 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 NYSE Arca. 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 Ether. See “Item 1. Business—Valuation of Ether and Determination of NAV—Disposition of Ether.” As a result, the amount of Trust’s assets represented by each Share declines as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee (or sells Ether 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 Ether.

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of Ether and the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index that may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. These factors include the following factors:

•

Unanticipated problems or issues with respect to the mechanics of the Trust’s operations and the trading of the Shares may arise, in particular due to the fact that the mechanisms and procedures governing the creation and offering of the Shares and storage of Ether 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 Vault Balance, 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 Ethereum Network does not have any privacy enhancing features at this time, if any such features are introduced to the Ethereum Network in the future, service providers may decide to terminate their relationships with the Trust due to concerns that the introduction of privacy enhancing features to the Ethereum Network may increase the potential for Ether 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.

The Shares are trading on NYSE Arca, 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 on NYSE Arca. In addition, NYSE Arca can halt the trading of the Shares for a variety of reasons. To the extent that NYSE Arca 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.

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 Trust’s Vault Balance or Settlement Balance could result in the halting of Trust operations, including the creation and redemption of Baskets, 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 Ether held in the Vault Balance, as well as the Trust’s Ether held temporarily in the Settlement Balance, will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s Ether and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. To the extent that the Trust, the Sponsor or the Custodial Entities are unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats or otherwise adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, the Trust’s Ether 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”, for a substantial portion of the Trust’s Ether, multiple encrypted private key “shards”, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification, are reasonably designed to safeguard the Trust’s Ether. 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. Additionally, because a portion of the Trust’s Ether from time to time will be held in hot storage, such Ether will be more vulnerable to a potential hack or other cyberattack that could lead to a loss of Trust assets.

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, a Custodial Entity, or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to an Account, the relevant private keys (and therefore Ether) or other data of the Trust. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor or a Custodial Entity 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 Custodial Entities may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. Moreover, the Custodial Entities will not be liable for any claims or losses arising out of or relating to the acts and/or omissions of any unauthorized third parties, except to the extent such losses are caused by a Custodial Entity’s negligence, fraud or willful misconduct.

An actual or perceived breach of the accounts associated with the Trust’s Vault Balance and Settlement Balance (the “Accounts”) 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.

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

Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether will regularly be made to or from the Vault Balance, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s Ether could be transferred from the Trust’s Vault Balance 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 Ether through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred Ether. The Trust will also be unable to convert or recover its Ether 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 Custodial Entities expose the Trust and its shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s Ether for which no person or entity is liable.

The Trust is not a banking institution or otherwise a member of the FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, deposits held with or assets held by the Trust are not subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors with FDIC or SIPC member institutions. In addition, neither the Trust nor the Sponsor insure the Trust’s Ether.

While the Custodian is required under the Prime Broker Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that is commercially reasonable for the custodial services it provides, and the Custodial Entities have advised the Sponsor that they maintain insurance coverage at commercially reasonable amounts for the digital assets custodied on behalf of clients, including the Trust’s Ether, resulting from theft, shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian or the Prime Broker will maintain adequate insurance or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s Ether. 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 Custodial Entities 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, the Custodial Entities’ aggregate maximum liability with respect to breach of their obligations under the Prime Broker Agreement will not exceed the greater of: (i) the value of the Ether or cash involved in the event, including but not limited to transaction(s) or deliveries(s), giving rise to such liability at the time of the event giving rise to such liability; (ii) the aggregate amount of fees paid by the Trust to the Custodial Entities in respect of the Custodial and Prime Broker Services in the 12-month period prior to the event giving rise to such liability; or (iii) five million U.S. dollars. The Custodian’s total liability under the Prime Broker Agreement will not exceed the greater of: (i) the aggregate amount of fees paid by the Trust to the Custodian in respect of the custodial services in the 12-month period prior to the event giving rise to such liability; or (ii) the value of the Ether on deposit in the Vault Balance at the time of the events giving rise to the liability occurred, the value of which will be determined in accordance with the Prime Broker Agreement.

In addition, the Custodian’s maximum liability in respect of each cold storage address that holds Ether is limited to the “Cold Storage Threshold” of $100 million. The Sponsor monitors the value of Ether deposited in cold storage addresses for whether the Cold Storage Threshold has been met by determining the U.S. dollar value of Ether deposited in each cold storage address on business days. Although the Cold Storage Threshold has never been met for a given cold storage address, to the extent it is met 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 Custodial Entities and the Trust are not liable to each other for any special, incidental, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages, whether or not the other party had been advised of such losses or knew or should have known of the possibility of such damages.

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 Ether, is limited. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s Ether 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 Ether is lower than the Index Price was at the time when shareholders purchased their Shares. In such a case, when the Trust’s Ether 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 Index Price, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such day. If the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate Ether price, then the Sponsor will employ an alternative method to determine the Index Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Ether Value—The Index and the Index

Price—Determination of the Index Price When Index 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 Ether 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 Index Price does not reflect an accurate Ether price, the Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Index 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 Index Price in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of Ether. To the extent that the NAV, NAV per Share or the Index Price are incorrectly calculated, the Sponsor may not be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the Index Price used to calculate the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust. Any such change in the Index Price could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust.

Extraordinary expenses resulting from unanticipated events may become payable by the Trust, adversely affecting the value of the Shares.

In consideration for the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor has contractually assumed all ordinary-course operational and periodic expenses of the Trust. See “Item 1. Business Expenses; Sales of Ether.” 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; 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 Ether held by the Trust or (ii) deliver Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether. Consequently, if the Trust incurs expenses in U.S. dollars, the Trust’s Ether 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 Ether to the Sponsor or sell Ether. 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 Ether 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—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

The Trust’s delivery or sale of Ether 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 Ether by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses and each sale of Ether 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—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 Ether. 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 Ether. 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 Ether. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property rights claim could prevent the Trust from operating and force the Sponsor to terminate the Trust and liquidate its Ether. 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 Ether, 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 Ether 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.

The limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions of Shares could have adverse consequences for the Trust.

Authorized Participants must be registered broker-dealers. Registered broker-dealers are subject to various requirements of the federal securities laws and rules, including financial responsibility rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements. Although the SEC recently approved orders to permit in-kind creations and redemptions by authorized participants for certain spot digital asset ETP shares, there has yet to be definitive regulatory guidance on the specific details of how registered broker-dealers, can comply with SEC rules with respect to transacting in or holding spot Ether. In particular, registered broker-dealers participating in the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares for Ether will need to ensure that they can demonstrate compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules. While compliance with such requirements would be the broker-dealer’s responsibility, a national securities exchange is required to enforce compliance by its member broker-dealers with applicable federal securities law and rules. Only certain Authorized Participants, at present, have the ability to also, through their affiliates, support in-kind creation and redemption activity pursuant to the terms of their participant agreements with the Trust. As of the date of the filing of this Annual Report, Jane Street Capital, LLC and Virtu Americas LLC have executed an agreement providing them with the ability to conduct creations and redemptions in-kind for Ether in addition to conducting creations and redemptions for cash. The Sponsor may engage additional Authorized Participants who are unaffiliated with the Trust in the future, and such Authorized Participants may be able to conduct creations and redemptions in-kind, in cash, or both.

Even with the approval of in-kind creations and redemptions, the Trust’s limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions could result in the exchange-traded product arbitrage mechanism failing to function as efficiently as it otherwise would, leading to the potential for the Shares to trade at premiums or discounts to the NAV per Share, and such premiums or discounts could be substantial. Furthermore, if Cash Orders are unavailable, either due to the Sponsor’s decision to reject or suspend such orders or otherwise, Authorized Participants may be limited in their ability to redeem or create Shares, in which case the arbitrage mechanism may not function as efficiently. This could result in impaired liquidity for the Shares, wider bid/ask spreads in secondary trading of the Shares and greater costs to investors and other market participants. In addition, the Trust’s limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions, and resulting reliance on cash creations and redemptions, could cause the Sponsor to halt or suspend the creation of redemption of Shares during times of market volatility or turmoil, among other consequences.

Further, there can be no assurance that additional broker-dealers would be willing to serve as Authorized Participants with respect to the in-kind creation and redemption of Shares. Any of these factors could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any forks or airdrops.

software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Ethereum 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 Ethereum running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. 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 holders of another digital asset that such holders will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset, generally for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. We refer to the right to receive any benefits arising from a fork, airdrop or similar event as an “Incidental Right” and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.”

With respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency associated with such event. As such, shareholders will not receive the benefits of any forks, and the Trust is not able to participate in any airdrop.

In the event the Sponsor seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by NYSE Arca seeking approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency in kind to an agent of the shareholders for resale by such agent. However, there can be no assurance as to whether or when the Sponsor would make such a decision, or when NYSE Arca will seek or obtain this approval, if at all.

Even if such regulatory approval is sought and obtained, 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. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Although the Trust is permitted to engage in Staking, the Trust will not be permitted to engage in any different form of Staking unless (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition is satisfied in addition to the Trust satisfying any additional requirements that may arise in connection with the satisfaction of the Staking Condition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.

Although the Trust is permitted to engage in Staking as of the date hereof, the Trust is only permitted to engage in Staking to the extent that the Staking Condition is satisfied with respect thereto. There can be no assurance that the Trust will be permitted to engage in any different form of Staking in the future. The Trust Agreement provides that the Trust may engage in Staking, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied.

Subject to the Staking Condition being satisfied and subject to compliance with certain related requirements, in the future the Sponsor may modify the form of Staking in which the Trust engages, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied with respect to any such modified form of Staking, and subject to compliance with any additional requirements that may arise in connection with satisfaction of the Staking Condition with respect thereto. However, as long as the Staking Condition and any related requirements have not been satisfied with respect to any modified form of Staking, the Trust will not engage in such modified form of Staking, which could place the Shares at a comparative disadvantage relative to an investment in Ether directly or through a vehicle that is not subject to such a prohibition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.

Coinbase Global serves as the Ether custodian and prime execution agent for several competing exchange-traded Ether products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and ultimately the value of the Shares.

The Prime Broker and Custodian are both affiliates of Coinbase Global. As of the date hereof, Coinbase Global is the largest publicly traded digital asset company in the world by market capitalization and is also the largest digital asset custodian in the world by assets under custody. By virtue of its leading market position and capabilities, and the relatively limited number of institutionally-capable providers of digital asset brokerage and custody services, Coinbase Global serves as the Ether custodian and prime execution agent for several competing exchange-traded Ether products. Therefore, Coinbase Global plays a critical role in supporting the U.S. spot Ether exchange-traded product ecosystem, and its size and market share create the risk that Coinbase Global may fail to properly resource its operations to adequately support all such products that use its services, which could harm the Trust, the shareholders and the value of the Shares. If Coinbase Global were to favor the interests of certain products over others, it could result in inadequate attention or comparatively unfavorable commercial terms to less favored products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and ultimately the value of the Shares.

Certain of the Authorized Participants engaged by the Trust may serve in a similar capacity for competing exchange-traded Ether products, which could adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism, the Trust’s operations, the performance of the Trust and ultimately the value of the Shares.

Certain of the Authorized Participants engaged by the Trust may serve in a similar capacity for competing exchange-traded Ether products. As a result, the Authorized Participants may be unable to adequately support all of the exchange-traded Ether products that use their respective services. This risk may also be exacerbated as a consequence of the price and volatility of Ether, as well as the amount of Ether that is required to create or redeem Shares of the Trust. Moreover, the Authorized Participants may choose to facilitate creations and redemptions for competing products rather than for the Trust, including as a result of, among other things, how effectively

the arbitrage mechanism of the Trust functions, the liquidity for the Shares, the bid/ask spreads in secondary trading of the Shares and the costs associated with creating and redeeming Shares of the Trust, in each case relative to competing products. In addition, given the relatively limited number of market participants that could serve as Authorized Participants of the Trust, the Trust may not be able to engage other providers to serve as Authorized Participants. If any or all of the Authorized Participants were to cease to act in their capacity as Authorized Participants of the Trust, or if any of the Authorized Participants were to favor creating and redeeming shares of competing products over those of the Trust, the Trust may receive inadequate attention or be subject to comparatively unfavorable commercial terms, which could adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism, the Trust’s operations, the performance of the Trust and ultimately the value of the Shares. See also “—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of Ether and adversely affect the value of the Shares.”

Shareholders that are not Authorized Participants may only purchase or sell their Shares in secondary trading markets, and the conditions associated with trading in secondary markets may adversely affect investors’ investment in the Shares.

Only Authorized Participants may purchase or redeem Baskets. All other investors that desire to purchase or sell Shares must do so through NYSE Arca or in other markets, if any, in which the Shares may be traded. Shares may trade at a premium or discount to the NAV per Share.

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

The SEC, at least under the prior administration, has stated that certain digital assets may be considered “securities” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. A number of SEC and SEC staff actions with respect to a variety of digital assets demonstrate this difficulty. For example, public though non-binding, statements by senior officials at the SEC have indicated that the SEC did not consider Bitcoin or Ether to be securities, and does not currently consider Bitcoin to be a security. In addition, the SEC, 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. Moreover, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has published statements that it does not consider, under certain circumstances, “meme coins” or some stablecoins to be securities. However, such statements may be withdrawn at any time without notice and comment by the Division of Corporation Finance at the SEC or the SEC itself. In addition, the SEC 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. The SEC also under 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 such 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, 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 arguments advanced in some cases may suggest that the SEC no longer believes the status of a digital asset can change over time.

These developments demonstrate the difficulty in applying the federal securities laws to digital assets generally. In January 2025, the SEC launched a crypto task force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for digital assets led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Subsequently, Commissioner Peirce announced a list of specific priorities to further that initiative, which included pursuing final rules related to a digital asset’s security status, a revised path to registered offerings and listings for digital assets-based investment vehicles, and clarity regarding digital asset custody, lending, and staking. On July 31, 2025, Chairman Atkins announced “Project Crypto,” a Commission-wide initiative to modernize securities rules for digital assets, reshore innovation in the United States, and implement the recommendations of the working group report. Chairman Atkins had directed the SEC’s policy divisions to work with the Crypto Task Force to draft “clear and simple rules of the road for crypto asset distributions, custody, and trading,” and the Commission and SEC staff will also consider using interpretive, exemptive, and other authorities with respect to digital asset markets. However, the efforts of the crypto task force and Project Crypto have only just begun, and how or whether the SEC regulates digital asset activity in the future remains to be seen.

As part of determining whether Ether is a security or a transaction in Ether 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 Ether and the Sponsor’s transactions in Ether with external counsel, and has received a memorandum regarding the status of Ether and the Sponsor’s transactions in Ether under the federal securities laws from external counsel. The Sponsor has discussed, for example, the security status of Ether with external counsel both before and after the Merge and determined that the Merge has not caused Ether to have become a security for a variety of reasons.

In addition, the Sponsor has considered generally whether the Merge may have caused Ether to be classified as a security under Reves or any other instrument making up the definition of “security” in the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act and concluded that it did not.

Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that Ether 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 Ether, 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 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 Ether or any other particular digital asset.

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

If the Sponsor determines that Ether, or transactions in Ether, are 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 Ether is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding Ether 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, are or are 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 Ether is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that Ether 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 Ether, or transactions in Ether, are 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 Ether, as well as the Shares. This is because the market structure behind most digital assets are incompatible with

regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset or transactions in that digital asset are 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 are 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 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 Ether, or transactions in Ether, 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 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 ETF. If the SEC or a federal court were to determine that Ether is a security or transactions in Ether are securities transactions, it is likely that the value of the Shares of the Trust would decline significantly. Furthermore, if a federal court upholds an allegation that Ether is a security or transactions in Ether are securities transactions, the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.

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 Ether, validating activity or the operation of the Ethereum Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares.

As digital assets have grown in both popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, 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 Ether 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.

On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” aimed at supporting “the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technology, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.” The Executive Order also established an interagency working group that is tasked with “proposing a Federal regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets” in the United States. Pursuant to this Executive Order, the working group released a report in July 2025 outlining the administration's recommendations to Congress and various agencies reflecting the administration’s “pro-innovation mindset toward digital assets and blockchain technologies.” In particular, the report recommends that Congress enact legislation regarding self custody of digital assets, clarifying the applicability of Bank Secrecy Act obligations with respect to digital asset service providers, granting the CFTC authority to regulate spot markets in non-security digital assets, prohibiting the adoption of a CBDC, and clarifying tax laws as relevant to digital assets. In addition, the report recommends that agencies reevaluate existing guidance on digital asset activities, use existing authorities to enable the trading of digital assets at the federal level, embrace DeFi, launch or relaunch crypto innovation efforts, and promote U.S. private sector leadership in the 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 Ether 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 Ethereum Network. These features, including those adopted by the Ethereum Network or which may be introduced on the Ethereum 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 U.S. citizens from using Tornado Cash, a digital asset protocol designed to obfuscate blockchain transactions, by adding certain Ethereum wallet addresses associated with the protocol to its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. A large portion of Ethereum 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 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. In August 2025, a co-founder of Tornado Cash was convicted of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, but a mistrial was declared with respect to charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions. Future additional regulatory action with respect to privacy-enhancing digital assets is possible.

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 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 Ether 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 validating activity, including by regulating or limiting manufacturers’ ability to produce or sell semiconductors or hard drives in connection with validating, it would have a material adverse effect on digital asset networks (including the Ethereum 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 the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”) in April 2023, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. Certain parts of MiCA became effective as of June 2024 and the remainder became effective as of December 2024. 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 Ethereum 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 Ether. 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 Ether is impossible to predict, and such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and 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.

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 Ether is treated. In particular, Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

To the extent that Ether 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 Ether at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

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

In particular, the Staking Condition has been satisfied as to the particular form of Staking described herein, and the Sponsor intends to continue to take the position that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes and that any Staking activity undertaken by the Trust in compliance with the opinion, ruling or other guidance relied upon to satisfy the Staking Condition will not prevent the Trust from continuing to qualify as a grantor trust for such purposes. The IRS recently issued a revenue procedure providing a staking safe harbor for certain grantor trust vehicles whose beneficial interests are listed and traded on a national securities exchange (the “2025 Revenue Procedure”), but certain aspects of the 2025 Revenue Procedure are unclear, and therefore the Trust may not currently satisfy all conditions of the safe harbor. Accordingly, due to the uncertainty regarding the ability of a grantor trust to engage in Staking activities, there can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or any court would agree with this position (or with any opinion of counsel delivered to the Sponsor in support thereof). Therefore, the Trust might cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

of Shares under the procedures governing Cash Orders will not cause the Trust to fail 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 in 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. Moreover, it is possible, in that case, that a portion of the Trust’s income would be considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States and, accordingly, a non-U.S. person owning Shares could be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a net income basis with respect to that “effectively connected” income and be required to file a U.S. tax return. If none of the Trust’s Staking income were considered to be “effectively connected” income, a non-U.S. person owning Shares might be subject to withholding on its pro rata portion of income from the Trust’s Staking activities as described below in “—Shareholders may be subject to withholding tax on Staking Consideration received as staking rewards and income derived from forks, airdrops and similar occurrences.” Tax-exempt shareholders may also recognize “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”) from the Trust’s Staking activities if the Trust is not treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

The treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes is uncertain.

As discussed in the section entitled Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences-Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets,” 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 Ether (and, if applicable, any Incidental Rights, IR Virtual Currency and/or any Staking Consideration) 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 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” that has been updated from time to time since (the “Ruling & FAQs”). The Ruling & FAQs 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. Moreover, in 2023, the IRS released a revenue ruling that provided guidance on digital asset staking, including guidance to the effect that staking rewards will, under certain circumstances, be treated as giving rise to taxable income (the “2023 Staking Guidance”). Further, the IRS recently issued the 2025 Revenue Procedure, which provides a staking safe harbor for certain grantor trust vehicles. However, the Notice, the Ruling & FAQs, the 2023 Staking Guidance and the 2025 Revenue Procedure do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets. For example, for a non-U.S. Holder (as defined below), there currently is no guidance directly addressing whether or in what circumstances engaging in certain activities to generate yield on digital assets, including Staking, could give rise to income that is effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. Similarly, for a U.S. tax-exempt shareholder, there currently is no guidance directly addressing whether or in what circumstances such activities could give rise to UBTI. 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. 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, the Ruling & FAQs, the 2023 Staking Guidance and the 2025 Revenue Procedure. 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 Ether. 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 could hold certain types of digital assets that are not within the scope of the Notice in the event the Sponsor seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC.

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 Ether, 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 Ether 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.

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 Ethereum Network 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 Ether 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 Ether in the Digital Asset Markets. As a result, any such future guidance could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

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

Because Ether is a new technological innovation, the tax treatment of Ether 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 Ether for state and local tax purposes may be issued in the future. A state or local government authority’s treatment of Ether may have negative consequences, including the imposition of a greater tax burden on investors in Ether or the imposition of a greater cost on the acquisition and disposition of Ether generally. Any such treatment may have a negative effect on prices of Ether and may adversely affect 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. Moreover, as separately provided by the IRS in the 2023 Staking Guidance, staking rewards will, under certain circumstances, be treated as giving rise to taxable 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 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 “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

Shareholders may be subject to withholding tax on Staking Consideration received as staking rewards and 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 or staking could be subject to the 30% withholding tax imposed on U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” income. Based on the current manner in which the Trust’s Staking activities are undertaken and certain assurances from the Trust’s Staking Providers regarding their connections to the United States, the Trust believes that its income from staking rewards should not be treated as U.S.-source FDAP income. However, that conclusion is not free from doubt under current law due to the lack of direct governing authority, and no assurance can be given that a withholding agent (including a broker through which Shares are held) will not take a contrary position. In addition, changes in law or changes to the Trust’s Staking Arrangements could cause all or a portion of the Trust’s staking rewards to be treated as U.S.-source FDAP income in the future. As a result, Non-U.S. Holders (as defined under “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders”) should be aware that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including a broker through which a Non-U.S. Holder holds Shares) may 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, IR Virtual Currency or Staking Consideration received as staking rewards. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

In addition, the Trust may enter into Staking Arrangements with Staking Providers organized in, or that have operations in, a non-U.S. jurisdiction. Non-U.S. jurisdictions may seek to impose withholding tax on Staking Consideration received by the Trust as staking rewards, which may negatively affect a shareholder’s investment in the Trust.”

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, 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 Ether that they are permitted to manage taking into account their own interests without regard to the interests of the Trust or its shareholders, and any increases, decreases or other changes in such investments could affect the Index Price and, in turn, the value of the Shares;

•

There is an absence of arm’s-length negotiation with respect to certain terms of the Trust, and, where applicable, there has been no independent due diligence conducted with respect to the Trust;

•

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

•

DCG is (i) the indirect parent company of the Sponsor; and (ii) a minority interest holder in Kraken, one of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index, representing less than 1.0% of its equity;

•

DCG has investments in a large number of digital assets and companies involved in the digital asset ecosystem, including trading platforms and custodians. DCG’s positions on changes that should be adopted in the Ethereum Network could be adverse to positions that would benefit the Trust or its shareholders. Additionally, before or after a hard fork on the Ethereum Network, DCG’s position regarding which fork among a group of incompatible forks of the Ethereum Network should be considered the “true” Ethereum 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 Ether. Any investments in, or public positions taken on, digital assets other than Ether by DCG could have an adverse impact on the price of Ether;

•

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

•

While the Index Provider does not currently utilize data from over-the-counter markets or derivatives platforms, it may decide to include pricing from such markets or platforms in the future;

•

The Sponsor may appoint an agent to act on behalf of the shareholders, and such agent may be the Sponsor or an affiliate of the Sponsor; and

•

The Sponsor has historically, and may again select an Index 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.”

DCG is a minority interest holder in Kraken, which operates one of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index Price.

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

Although DCG does not exercise control over Kraken, 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 Ether 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.

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 Ether.

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 Ether in trust on the Trust’s behalf. However, the SEC previously released proposed amendments in February 2023 to 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 proposed. In June 2025, however, the SEC formally withdrew that proposed rulemaking and stated that it does not intend to issue final rules based on the proposal. However, there can be no assurance that the Custodian would continue to qualify as a “qualified custodian” under a final rule that may be proposed or adopted by the SEC in the future.

Furthermore, during the initial term, the Custodian may terminate the Prime Broker Agreement for Cause (as defined in “Description of the Prime Broker 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 Prime Broker 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.

Risk Factors Related to Staking

Although the Trust is permitted to engage in Staking, the Trust is only permitted to engage in Staking to the extent that the Staking Condition is satisfied with respect thereto. There can be no assurance that the Trust will be permitted to engage in any different form of Staking in the future. The Trust Agreement provides that the Trust may engage in Staking, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied.

Subject to the Staking Condition being satisfied and subject to compliance with certain related requirements, in the future the Sponsor may, from time to time, seek to modify the form of Staking in which the Trust engages, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied with respect to any such modified form of Staking, and subject to compliance with any additional requirements that may arise in connection with satisfaction of the Staking Condition with respect thereto. However, as long as the Staking Condition and any related requirements have not been satisfied with respect to any modified form of Staking, the Trust will not be permitted to engage in such modified form of Staking, which could place the Shares at a comparative disadvantage relative to an investment in Ether directly or through a vehicle that is not subject to such a prohibition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.

Staking introduces a risk of loss of Ether, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Staking introduces a risk of loss of Ether. None of the Trust’s assets, including potentially staked assets, are subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors or customers of institutions with FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation membership.

The Ethereum Network imposes three types of sanctions for validator misbehavior or inactivity, which would result in a portion of staked Ether being destroyed or “burned”: penalties, slashing and inactivity leaks.

A more severe sanction (i.e., “slashing”) is imposed if a validator commits malicious acts related to the proposal or attestation of blocks with invalid transactions. Slashing can result in the validator having a portion of its staked Ether immediately confiscated, withdrawn, or burned by the Ethereum Network, resulting in losses to them. After this initial slashing, the validator is queued for forceful removal from the Ethereum Network’s validator “pool,” and more of the validator’s stake is burned over a period of approximately 36 days (with the exact amount of Ether burned and time period determined by the protocol) regardless of whether the validator makes any further slashable errors, at which point the validator is automatically removed from the validator pool. Staked Ether may also be burned through a process known as an “inactivity leak,” which is triggered if the Ethereum protocol has gone too long without finalizing a new block. For a new block to be successfully added to the blockchain, validators that account for at least two-thirds of all staked Ether must agree on the validity of a proposed block. This means that if validators representing more than one-third of the total staked Ether are offline, no new blocks can be finalized. To prevent this, an inactivity leak causes the Ether staked by the inactive validators to gradually “bleed away” until these inactive validators represent less than one-third of the total stake, thereby allowing the remaining active validators to finalize proposed blocks. This provides a further incentive for validators to remain online and continue performing validation activities.

There can be no guarantee that these penalties and resulting losses will not occur as a result of the activities of a Staking Provider. Furthermore, a Staking Provider’s liability to the Trust is expected to be limited, and a Staking Provider may lack the assets or insurance in order to support the recovery of any losses incurred. While the Staking Arrangements may provide for indemnification up to a specified cap, insurance or other reimbursement programs, there can be no guarantee that the Trust would recover any of its staked assets, or the value thereof, if it is subject to penalties imposed by the Ethereum Network.

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

Under current Ethereum Network protocols, staked Ether are permitted to be un-staked by the holder of the private keys for the withdrawal address of such Ether. However, staked Ether will be inaccessible for a variable period of time determined by a range of factors, resulting in certain liquidity risks that the Sponsor plans to manage. Un-staking can take between hours, days or weeks to

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

The Sponsor anticipates that it will engage in staking with respect to all of the Trust’s Ether at all times, except (i) as necessary to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, (ii) as necessary to pay any additional Trust expenses, (iii) as necessary to satisfy existing and reasonably foreseen potential redemption requests (assuming the Trust is then permitted to operate an ongoing redemption program) as determined by the Sponsor, (iv) as necessary to reduce the Ether obtained by the Trust as Staking Consideration to cash for distribution at regular intervals, (v) if the Sponsor determines that Staking raises significant governmental, policy or regulatory concerns or is subject or likely subject to a specialized regulatory regime, (vi) if the Sponsor determines there exists vulnerabilities in the source code or cryptography underlying the Ethereum Network and any associated software, (vii) if the Custodian or Staking Provider discontinues their arrangements with the Trust, (viii) if the Sponsor otherwise determines that continued Staking of such portion of the Trust’s assets would be inconsistent with the Trust’s purpose of protecting and preserving the value of the Trust Estate, (ix) to fund or replenish the Liquidity Sleeve or (x) in accordance with any other exception that is expressly contemplated by an opinion, ruling or tax guidance that satisfies the Staking Condition. All Ether received by the Trust in connection with the creation of new Shares, or as Staking Consideration, would also be staked upon receipt by the Trust, unless one or more of the exceptions described in clauses (i)-(ix) above applies. As of the date of this filing, and subject to the satisfaction of the Staking Condition, the Sponsor generally seeks to stake as much of the Trust’s Ether as is practicable (i.e., up to 100%) at all times, with the remainder of the Trust’s Ether remaining unstaked in order to address the various exceptions and other considerations described herein. The approximate percentage of the Trust’s Ether that is staked each day will be reported the following day at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on etfs.grayscale.com/eth.

Due to the time involved in “exiting” the staking process, there is a risk that the Trust could become unable to timely meet excessive redemption requests in amounts that are greater than the portion of the Trust’s Ether that remains un-staked, leading to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program. Moreover, any staked Ether which must be un-staked in order to fulfill a redemption (to the extent such redemption cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust’s Ether that has not been staked, or through another mechanism to manage liquidity in connection with Redemption Orders contemplated by an opinion of a Tax Advisor, a Tax Ruling or Tax Guidance that satisfies the Staking Condition) will be un-staked only after the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction through the Custodian, and such transaction is processed by the Ethereum Network. The Staking Provider will not be able to transfer unstaked Ether or Staking Consideration to another address on the Ethereum Network.

Although the Sponsor anticipates that the Trust may enter into financing arrangements to borrow Ether in order to fulfill redemption requests if the Trust’s unstaked Ether is insufficient to do so, there can be no assurance that such arrangements will be available as intended or provide sufficient liquidity to satisfy redemption requests.

The Trust will be dependent on third parties or intermediary technical systems to effectively execute the Trust’s Staking Arrangements.

Staking is carried out by the third-party Staking Providers, the amount of Staking Consideration that the Trust’s staking activity generates is dependent on the performance of the Staking Provider, including the adequacy and reliability of the hardware and software utilized by the Staking Provider. If the Custodian or the Staking Provider experience service outages or otherwise are unable to optimally execute the Staking of the Trust’s Ether, the Trust’s Staking Consideration may be adversely affected. Moreover, the Trust’s Staking Arrangements may rely on smart contracts, wallet infrastructure, validator clients, or other intermediary technical systems that could malfunction, contain vulnerabilities, or be subject to cyberattacks, any of which could result in loss or inaccessibility of Ether.

The regulatory landscape surrounding Staking is uncertain.

The regulatory landscape surrounding Staking is highly uncertain, and may expose the Sponsor, Custodian, third-party Staking Providers and the Trust and its shareholders to unforeseen regulatory risks or potential enforcement actions. For example, there is a risk that the Staking Arrangements could constitute an “investment contract” under the federal securities laws, such that it is a security, and thus needs to be registered or eligible for an exemption from registration. In May 2025, staff at the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement (the “SEC Staking Statement”) expressing the view that certain staking activities do not involve the offer and sale of securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws, and we believe the Staking Arrangements satisfy the criteria in this guidance. However, the SEC Staking Statement is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the SEC, and has no legal force or effect. There is accordingly a risk that a court could disagree with the views expressed in the SEC Staking Statement. In that case, or if Ether were deemed a security, there would also be a risk that a Staking Provider could be deemed to be acting as a broker-dealer, on the basis that the Staking Provider is receiving a commission for effecting the staking transactions and receipt of Staking Consideration.

The Sponsor is permitted to cause the Trust to engage in Staking only if certain conditions set forth in the Trust Agreement relating to the qualification of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes are satisfied. Due to the lack of authority regarding the ability of a grantor trust to engage in activities such as Staking, there can be no assurance whether or when these conditions will be satisfied or the Trust will be permitted to engage in Staking.

Beneficial owners of Shares could incur tax liabilities without receiving corresponding distributions from the Trust.

As of the date of this filing, the Staking Condition has been satisfied as to the particular form of Staking described in this Annual Report. Shareholders may suffer adverse tax consequences as a result. In particular, the IRS has indicated that the receipt of Staking Consideration gives rise to current, ordinary income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Assuming that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, beneficial owners of Shares will be required to take their ratable share of any such income into account in determining their own tax liability, regardless of whether the Trust makes any corresponding distributions. Shareholders should therefore expect that other sources of funds may be needed to satisfy any associated tax liability. Moreover, if the Trust were to sell Ether to fund cash distributions in respect of that tax liability, a shareholder generally would be treated as having sold its pro rata share of those Ether for their fair market value at that time (which, in the case of Ether sold by the Trust, generally will be equal to the cash proceeds received by the Trust in respect thereof), and the shareholder generally would recognize gain or loss on such sale as described in the section entitled “Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

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 ERC provides updates to the Board quarterly, including on changes to security risks and 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 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 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 and 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:

During the year ended December 31, 2025, we did not identify any cybersecurity threats at the Sponsor or the Trust that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect our business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition. 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.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Grayscale Operating, LLC, the former Co-Sponsor of the Trust until May 3, 2025, was a 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 May 19, 2025, Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis Capital”) and Genesis Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (“Genesis Asia”) filed a complaint in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY Bankruptcy Court”) against Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“DCG”) and certain of its affiliates including GSO alleging that Genesis Capital made certain preferential transfers to GSI, the predecessor in interest to GSO prior to the Merger, during the preference period prior to Genesis Capital’s filing of a bankruptcy petition in SDNY Bankruptcy Court while GSI was allegedly an insider to Genesis Capital pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(31). Genesis Capital seeks to avoid the alleged preferential transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), as well as recovery of property and disallowance of claims. Genesis Capital is seeking to avoid transfers to GSI, the predecessor in interest to GSO prior to the Merger, of 105 Bitcoin and 37,647.06 Ethereum Classic tokens. GSO believes this lawsuit is without merit and 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.

PART II

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

Market Information

The Shares commenced trading on NYSE Arca on July 23, 2024 under the ticker symbol “ETH.”

Holders of Record

As of December 31, 2025, there were approximately 16 DTC participating shareholders of record of the Trust. 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.

Dividends

The Trust made no distributions to shareholders during the period from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2024 and during the year ended December 31, 2025. The Trust has no obligation to make periodic distributions to shareholders.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Shares

Not applicable.

Purchases of Equity Securities

Although the Trust does not purchase Shares directly from its shareholders, in connection with its redemption of Baskets from Authorized Participants during the three months ended December 31, 2025, the Trust redeemed the following Shares:


Period	Total Number of Shares of ETH Redeemed		Average Price Paid per Share of ETH(1)
October 1, 2025 - October 31, 2025		3,880,000	$	37.45
November 1, 2025 - November 30, 2025		7,380,000		31.51
December 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025		3,650,000		28.46
Total		14,910,000	$	32.31

(1)

The Price Paid per Share is based on the NAV per Share, which is derived from the Index Price as represented by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Trust’s NAV per Share is calculated using a non-GAAP methodology where the price is derived from multiple Digital Asset Trading Platforms.

Item 6. [Reserved]

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 Ether and, from time to time on a periodic basis, issues Creation Baskets in exchange for deposits of Ether. On July 22, 2024, in connection with the approval of application under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act on July 18, 2024 and the effectiveness of the registration statement on Form S-1, as amended (File No. 333-278878), the Sponsor authorized the commencement of a redemption program. Shares of the Trust began trading on NYSE Arca on July 23, 2024, following the effectiveness of the Trust’s registration statement on Form S-1, as amended. The Trust issues Shares only in one or more blocks of 10,000 Shares (a block of 10,000 Shares is called a “Basket”) to certain Authorized Participants from time to time. Baskets are offered in exchange for Ether. Through its redemption program, the Trust redeems Shares from Authorized Participants on an ongoing basis. As a passive investment vehicle, the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on Ether per Share) to reflect the value of the Ether held by the Trust, including Ether earned as Staking Consideration, determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in Ether, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to Ether. 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.

The Initial Distribution

On July 23, 2024, the Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF (“ETHE”) completed its previously announced pro rata distribution of 31,015,850 Shares of the Trust (retroactively adjusted to reflect the 1-for-10 Reverse Share Split of the Trust’s issued and outstanding Shares completed on November 19, 2024) to the shareholders of ETHE as of July 18, 2024 (the “Record Date”), as described in ETHE’s definitive information statement on Schedule 14C, filed with the SEC on July 18, 2024 (referred to as the “Initial Distribution”). In connection therewith, on July 23, 2024, ETHE contributed to the Trust an amount of Ether equal to 10% of the total Ether held by ETHE as of the Record Date, equal to 292,262.98913350 Ether, as consideration and in exchange for the issuance of Shares of the Trust.

Staking

On October 6, 2025, the Trust began staking its Ether pursuant to staking arrangements with the Custodian and certain third-party staking providers. As a result, the Trust may earn staking rewards in the form of additional Ether (“Staking Consideration”).

The amount of Staking Consideration received by the Trust, if any, may vary from period to period and is influenced by a number of factors, including prevailing Ethereum Network conditions, protocol-level reward rates, the amount of Ether held by the Trust during the period, and the portion of the Trust’s Ether that is staked. Because staking rewards are determined by network-level mechanics rather than by the Trust or the Sponsor, the Trust does not expect Staking Consideration to be earned at a consistent rate.

Pursuant to the Trust’s staking arrangements and the Trust Agreement, a portion of gross Staking Consideration is allocated among the Custodian, the applicable staking provider(s), and the Sponsor (the “Sponsor’s Staking Fee”), with the Trust retaining the remainder. The net amount of Staking Consideration retained by the Trust increases the Trust’s Ether holdings, while any Ether distributed or sold for cash in connection with distributions reduces the Trust’s Ether holdings by the amount distributed or sold.

From time to time, the Trust may distribute Ether (or cash from the sale of Ether) received as Staking Consideration to shareholders, although the timing and amount of any such distributions, if made, are subject to the Sponsor’s discretion and applicable requirements under the Trust Agreement. Shareholders may incur tax liabilities with respect to Staking Consideration regardless of whether the Trust makes corresponding distributions.

Staking introduces additional operational, liquidity, regulatory and tax considerations for the Trust. In particular, staked Ether may be inaccessible for a period of time required to un-stake and withdraw Ether under Ethereum Network protocols, and the Trust remains dependent on third-party staking providers and related technical systems for the execution of staking activities. These

considerations, and the risks associated with staking, are discussed further under “Item 1. Business—Staking” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Staking.”

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Investment Transactions and Revenue Recognition

The Trust considers investment transactions to be the receipt of Ether by the Trust in connection with Share creations and the delivery of Ether by the Trust in connection with Share redemptions or for payment of expenses in Ether. 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 Ether.

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 Ether 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 Ether 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.

The Trust only receives Ether 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 Ether 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 Ether received by the Trust in connection with a creation order is recorded by the Trust at the fair value of Ether 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 Ether 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. 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 Year Ended December 31, 2025 and the Period from July 23, 2024 (the Commencement of the Trust’s Operations) to December 31, 2024

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


	Year Ended December 31, 2025			July 23, 2024 (the Commencement of the Trust’s Operations) to December 31, 2024
Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in Ether	$	(322,816	)	$	(32,812	)
Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations	$	(317,667	)	$	(32,812	)
Net assets(1)	$	2,181,155		$	1,572,914

(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 Ether 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.

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in Ether for the year ended December 31, 2025 was ($322,816), which includes a realized gain of $15,839 on the transfer of Ether to meet Redemptions, a realized loss of ($168) on the transfer of Ether to pay expenses, net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on Sponsor’s Staking Fee payable in Ether of $18, and net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investment in Ether of ($338,505). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in Ether for the period was driven by Ether price depreciation from $3,340.40 per Ether as of December 31, 2024, to $2,971.94 per Ether as of December 31, 2025. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($317,667) for the year ended December 31, 2025, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in Ether and net investment gain of $2,908. Net assets decreased to $2,181,155 at December 31, 2025, a 39% decrease for the year. The decrease in net assets resulted from the aforementioned Ether price depreciation, the redemption of approximately 280,498 Ether with a value of $976,628 from the Trust, the withdrawal of approximately 836 Ether to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee and the payable of approximately 78 Ether to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Staking Fee, partially offset by the contribution of approximately 541,944 Ether with a value of $1,902,536 to the Trust in connection with Share creations during the period and the contribution of approximately 2,509 Ether with a value of $8,057 in connection with Staking Rewards.

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in Ether for the period from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2024 was ($32,812), which includes a realized loss of ($15,313) on the transfer of Ether to meet Redemptions and net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investment in Ether of ($17,499). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in Ether for the period was driven by Ether price depreciation from $3,458.99 per Ether as of July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations), to $3,340.40 per Ether as of December 31, 2024. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($32,812) for the period from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2024, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in Ether. Net assets increased to $1,572,914 at December 31, 2024. The

increase in net assets resulted from the contribution of approximately 292,263 Ether with a value of $1,010,935 to the Trust in connection with the Initial Distribution from Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF and the contribution of approximately 216,682 Ether with a value of $706,933 to the Trust in connection with Share creations during the period, partially offset by the aforementioned Ether price depreciation and the redemption of approximately 38,070 Ether with a value of $112,142 from the Trust.

Cash Resources and Liquidity

The Trust only receives and holds cash in order to facilitate creations and redemptions pursuant to Cash Orders, and has not otherwise had or maintained a cash balance at any time since the completion of the Initial Distribution. When selling Ether in the Digital Asset Market to pay Additional Trust Expenses on behalf of the Trust, the Sponsor endeavors to sell the exact amount of Ether needed to pay expenses in order to minimize the Trust’s holdings of assets other than Ether. In addition, upon the consummation or deemed failure of a Cash Order to create or redeem Baskets, the Trust will promptly return any excess cash it continues to hold with respect to such Cash Order to the applicable counterparty. 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.

Generally, the Trust does not intend to hold cash, except in connection with Cash Orders for creations or redemptions of Baskets. Cash includes non-interest bearing non-restricted cash with one institution. Cash in a bank deposit account, at times, may exceed U.S. federally insured limits. The Trust has not experienced any losses in such accounts and does not believe it is exposed to any significant credit risk on such bank deposits.

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 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. Effective July 23, 2024, the Sponsor determined to waive a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee for the first six months of the Trust’s operation, so that the fee was 0% of the NAV of the Trust for the first $2.0 billion of the Trust’s assets. If the Trust’s assets exceeded $2.0 billion prior to the end of the six-month period, the Sponsor’s Fee charged on assets over $2.0 billion would have become 0.15%. Following the expiration date of the six-month waiver period on January 23, 2025 (the “Sponsor’s Fee Waiver Expiration Date”), the Sponsor’s Fee is now 0.15%. For the period from the Sponsor’s Fee Waiver Expiration Date through December 31, 2025, the Trust incurred Sponsor’s Fees of $2,659,142.

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


	As of December 31,
	2025		2024
Price of Ether on principal market	$	2,971.94	$	3,340.40
Principal Market NAV per Share(1)(2)	$	28.06	$	31.48
Principal Market NAV(2)	$	2,181,154,844	$	1,572,913,381
Index Price	$	2,971.48	$	3,343.74
NAV per Share(1)(3)	$	28.06	$	31.51
NAV (Non-GAAP)(3)	$	2,180,817,242	$	1,574,486,106

(1)

Share and per Share amounts have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the 1-for-10 Reverse Share Split of the Trust’s issued and outstanding Shares completed on November 19, 2024.

(2)

The Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share are calculated using the fair value of Ether based on the price provided by 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, in accordance with U.S. GAAP.

(3)

The Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share are derived from the Index Price as represented by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Trust’s NAV per Share is calculated using a non-GAAP methodology where the price is derived from multiple Digital Asset Trading Platforms. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Bitcoin Industry and Market—Ether Value—The Index and the Index Price” for a description of the Index and the Index Price.

The Trust reflects creations and redemptions and the Ether for proceeds receivable or payable with respect to such creations and redemptions, respectively, on the business day following the receipt of a notification of a creation or redemption order by an Authorized Participant. Creation and redemption orders are settled on T+1 or T+2, as established at the time of order placement, and therefore the Ether for proceeds receivable or payable with respect to such creations and redemptions, respectively, are recorded as a receivable or payable until the Ether are delivered or removed from the Trust for settlement.

Historical NAV and Ether Prices

As movements in the price of Ether will directly affect the price of the Shares, investors should understand recent movements in the price of Ether. Investors, however, should also be aware that past movements in the Ether price are not indicators of future movements. Movements may be influenced by various factors, including, but not limited to, government regulation, security breaches experienced by service providers, as well as political and economic uncertainties around the world.

The following chart illustrates the movement in the Trust’s NAV per Share (as adjusted for the Reverse Share Split for periods prior to November 20, 2024) versus the Index Price and the Trust’s Principal Market NAV per Share (as adjusted for the Reverse Share Split for periods prior to November 20, 2024) from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025. For more information on the determination of the Trust’s NAV, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market—Ether Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

100

The following table illustrates the movements in the Index Price from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the Constituent Trading Platforms individually or as a group.


			High			Low
Period	Average		Index Price		Date	Index Price		Date	End of period		Last business day
July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2024	$	2,901.40	$	4,050.21	12/6/2024	$	2,221.82	9/6/2024	$	3,343.74	$	3,343.74
Twelve months ended December 31, 2025	$	3,063.06	$	4,832.59	8/22/2025	$	1,465.07	4/8/2025	$	2,971.48	$	2,971.48
July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025	$	3,013.36	$	4,832.59	8/22/2025	$	1,465.07	4/8/2025	$	2,971.48	$	2,971.48

The following table illustrates the movements in the Digital Asset Market price of Ether, as reported on the Trust’s principal market, from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025.


			High			Low
Period	Average		Digital Asset Market Price		Date	Digital Asset Market Price		Date	End of period		Last business day
July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2024	$	2,901.22	$	4,053.28	12/6/2024	$	2,220.15	9/6/2024	$	3,340.40	$	3,340.40
Twelve months ended December 31, 2025	$	3,063.21	$	4,833.89	8/22/2025	$	1,465.40	4/8/2025	$	2,971.94	$	2,971.94
July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025	$	3,013.41	$	4,833.89	8/22/2025	$	1,465.40	4/8/2025	$	2,971.94	$	2,971.94

101

The following chart sets out the historical closing prices for the Shares as reported by NYSE Arca from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025 and the Trust’s NAV per Share from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025.

ETH Premium/(Discount): ETH Share Price vs. NAV per Share (Non-GAAP) ($)

The following chart sets out the historical premium and discount for the Shares calculated as a percentage of the historical closing prices for the Shares as reported by NYSE Arca from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025 divided by the Trust’s NAV per Share from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025.

ETH Premium/(Discount): ETH Share Price vs. NAV per Share (Non-GAAP) (%)

102

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

The Trust Agreement does not authorize the Trust to borrow for payment of the Trust’s ordinary expenses. The Trust does not engage in transactions in foreign currencies which could expose the Trust or holders of Shares to any foreign currency related market risk. The Trust does not invest in derivative financial instruments and has no foreign operations or long-term debt instruments.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

See Index to Financial Statements on page F-1 for a list of the financial statements being filed therein.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

There have been no disagreements with accountants on any matter of accounting principles or practices or financial statement disclosures during the year ended December 31, 2025.

103

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Trust maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in its Exchange Act reports is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Sponsor, and to the audit committee of the Sponsor, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Under the supervision and with the participation of the Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Sponsor, the Sponsor conducted an evaluation of the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures, as defined under Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e). Based on this evaluation, the Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Sponsor concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The Sponsor’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined under Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). The Trust’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that: (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the Trust’s assets, (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that the Trust’s receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with appropriate authorizations; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the Trust’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become ineffective because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

The Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Sponsor assessed the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025. In making this assessment, they used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013). Their assessment included an evaluation of the design of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Based on their assessment and those criteria, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Sponsor concluded that the Trust maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025.

KPMG LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm that audited the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2025 included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as stated in their report which is included herein, issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025 on page F-2.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There was no change in the Trust’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the Trust’s most recently completed fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2025 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, these internal controls.

Item 9B. Other Information

Not applicable.

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections

Not applicable.

104

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

Management of the Sponsor

The Trust does not have any directors, officers or employees. Under the Trust Agreement, all management functions of the Trust have been delegated to and are conducted by the Sponsor, its agents and its affiliates, including without limitation, the Custodian and its agents. As officers of the Sponsor, Peter Mintzberg, the principal executive officer of the Sponsor, and Edward McGee, the principal financial and accounting officer of the Sponsor, may take certain actions and execute certain agreements and certifications for the Trust, in their capacity as the principal officers of the Sponsor.

As of and prior to December 31, 2024, GSI had a board of directors that was responsible for managing and directing the affairs of the Sponsor. From January 1, 2025 to October 22, 2025, GSO Intermediate Holdings Corporation (“GSOIH”), a Delaware corporation formed in connection with the Reorganization, which was the sole managing member of GSO and an indirect subsidiary of DCG, had a board of directors which was responsible for managing and directing the affairs of the Sponsor.

On October 22, 2025, GSOIH consummated an internal corporate reorganization (the “Management Reorganization”), pursuant to which GSOIH transferred a portion of its common membership units of GSO for Class A shares of Grayscale Investments, Inc. (“Grayscale Investments”), a Delaware corporation incorporated in connection with the Management Reorganization, and ceded its managing member rights in GSO to Grayscale Investments. As a result of the Management Reorganization, Grayscale Investments is now the sole managing member of GSO, the sole member of the Sponsor.

From and after October 22, 2025, as a result of the Management Reorganization, DCG Grayscale Holdco, LLC (“DCG Holdco”), the sole stockholder of Grayscale Investments, elected a board of directors (the “Board”) at Grayscale Investments. As a result of the Management Reorganization, the Board of Grayscale Investments is responsible for managing and directing the affairs of the Sponsor, and consists of Barry Silbert, Mark Shifke, Simon Koster, Peter Mintzberg, and Edward McGee, the same members as the board of directors of GSOIH prior to the Management Reorganization. Mr. Mintzberg and Mr. McGee also retain the authority granted to them as officers of the Sponsor under the limited liability company agreement of the Sponsor.

The Sponsor has an Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has the responsibility for overseeing the financial reporting process of the Trust, including the risks and controls of that process and such other oversight functions as are typically performed by an audit committee of a public company.

The Sponsor has a code of ethics (the “Code of Ethics”) that applies to its executive officers and agents. The Code of Ethics is available by writing the Sponsor at 290 Harbor Drive, 4th Floor, Stamford, Connecticut 06902 or calling the Sponsor at (212) 668-1427. The Sponsor’s Code of Ethics is intended to be a codification of the business and ethical principles that guide the Sponsor, and to deter wrongdoing, to promote honest and ethical conduct, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to foster compliance with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations, the prompt internal reporting of violations and accountability for adherence to this code.

Prior to January 1, 2025, references to the “Sponsor” in this section refer to GSI, and thereafter refer to GSO or GSIS, as applicable. In connection with the Reorganization, the former Board of GSI was reconstituted at GSOIH, and in connection with the Management Reorganization, the former board of GSOIH was reconstituted at Grayscale Investments. Prior to January 1, 2025, any references to the “Board” refer to the board of directors of Grayscale Investments, LLC, the former sponsor of the Trust. From January 1, 2025 to October 22, 2025, any references to the “Board” refer to the board of directors of GSOIH. From and after October 22, 2025, any references to the “Board” refer to the board of directors of Grayscale Investments.

Barry Silbert, Chairman of the Board

Barry Silbert, 49, is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of DCG and has served as chairman of the Board since August 2025 (previously served as a director and chairman of the Board from February 2020 through December 2023). Until January 2021, Mr. Silbert was the Chief Executive Officer of the Sponsor. A pioneer in blockchain investing, Mr. Silbert established himself in 2012 as one of the earliest and most active investors in the industry. Mr. Silbert founded DCG in 2015 and today, it is one of the world’s most prolific investors in decentralized technologies, backing over 250 early-stage companies in more than 40 countries. Mr. Silbert founded Yuma, a decentralized AI-focused subsidiary of DCG, where he also serves as CEO. Yuma invests in, builds, and scales the Bittensor network. The Sponsor is a consolidated subsidiary of DCG. DCG also owns Foundry, Fortitude, Luno and Yuma. DCG also invests directly in digital currencies and other digital assets. Prior to leading DCG, Mr. Silbert was the founder and CEO of SecondMarket, a venture-backed technology company that was acquired by Nasdaq. Mr. Silbert has received numerous awards and accolades, including being named “Entrepreneur of the Year” by both Ernst & Young and Crain’s, and being selected to Fortune’s prestigious “40 under 40” list. Before becoming an entrepreneur, Mr. Silbert worked as an investment banker. He graduated with honors from the Goizueta Business School of Emory University.

105

Mark Shifke, Board Member

Mark Shifke, 66, is the Chief Financial Officer of DCG and has served as a director of the Board since January 2024. Since March 2021, Mr. Shifke has served on the board of directors of Dock Ltd., a full-stack payments and digital banking platform. Since September 2023, Mr. Shifke has served on the board of directors of Luno, a cryptocurrency platform. Mr. Shifke has nearly four decades of financial and fintech experience, and more than eight years of CFO experience leading two publicly-traded companies. Prior to joining DCG, Mr. Shifke served as CFO of Billtrust, a company focused on providing AR and cloud-based solutions around payments, and as CFO of Green Dot (NYSE: GDOT), a mobile banking company and payments platform. Previously, Mr. Shifke led teams at JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, specializing in M&A Structuring and Advisory, as well as Tax Asset Investments. Mr. Shifke also served as the Head of International Structured Finance Group at KPMG. Mr. Shifke began his career at Davis Polk, where he was a partner. He is a graduate of Tulane University (B.A./J.D.) and the New York University School of Law (LL.M. in Taxation).

Simon Koster, Board Member

Simon Koster, 44, is the Chief Strategy Officer of DCG and has served as a director of the Board since October 2025. As CSO, Mr. Koster leads the investment team, managing the portfolio comprised of digital assets, wholly owned subsidiaries, and more than 250 early-stage companies in over 35 nations across the world as of the date of this filing. Prior to his current role, Mr. Koster was the CEO of Real Estate at DCG, spearheading both internal and external real estate ventures. Previously, he served as CEO of The Collective and brings a decade of real estate experience from JDS Development Group, where he was instrumental in the acquisition and development of top-tier residential, hospitality, and mixed-use projects in New York City and Miami. He is a graduate of Rutgers University (B.S.) and holds a Master’s degree in Engineering from the University of Michigan. Mr. Koster has served on the board of directors of Foundry and Luno since 2023. He has served as a director of Fortitude since 2024 and as a director of Yuma since 2025. Each of Foundry, Luno, Fortitude and Yuma are affiliated with the registrant.

Peter Mintzberg, Board Member and Chief Executive Officer

Peter Mintzberg, 57, has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Sponsor and has served as a director of the Board since August 2024. Mr. Mintzberg joins the Sponsor from Goldman Sachs, where he served as Global Head of Strategy for Asset and Wealth Management. Prior, he held several global leadership roles in Strategy, M&A, and Investor Relations at BlackRock, Apollo, OppenheimerFunds, and Invesco. With deep knowledge across a broad base of client types and asset classes, Mr. Mintzberg has over two decades of experience developing and executing strategy and innovating to drive growth. Mr. Mintzberg started his career working at McKinsey & Co. in New York, San Francisco, and São Paulo, focused on the financial services and technology sectors. Mr. Mintzberg was recognized as a Latino leader in Finance by The Alumni Society in 2018, and was selected as a David Rockefeller Fellow in the 2016-2017 Class by the Partnership for New York City. He earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering from the Universidade Federal Rio de Janeiro, and an MBA from Harvard University.

Edward McGee, Board Member and Chief Financial Officer

Edward McGee, 42, has been the Chief Financial Officer of the Sponsor since January 2022 and has served as a director of the Sponsor since January 2024. Before serving as CFO, Mr. McGee was Vice President, Finance and Controller of the Sponsor since June 2019. Prior to taking on his role at the Sponsor, Mr. McGee served as a Vice President, Accounting Policy at Goldman, Sachs & Co. providing coverage to their SEC Financial Reporting team facilitating the preparation and review of their financial statements and provided U.S. GAAP interpretation, application and policy development while servicing their Special Situations Group, Merchant Banking Division and Urban Investments Group from 2014 to 2019. From 2011 to 2014, Mr. McGee was an auditor at Ernst & Young providing assurance services to publicly listed companies. Mr. McGee earned his Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from the John H. Sykes College of Business at the University of Tampa and graduated with honors while earning his Master of Accountancy in Financial Accounting from the Rutgers Business School at the State University of New Jersey. Mr. McGee is a Certified Public Accountant licensed in the state of New York.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

Not applicable.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans and Related Stockholder Matters

Not applicable.

106

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

The Trust does not have any directors, officers or employees. The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the beneficial ownership of the Shares for (i) each person that, to the Sponsor’s knowledge based on the records of the Transfer Agent and other ownership information provided to the Sponsor, owns beneficially a significant portion of the Shares; (ii) each director and executive officer of the Sponsor individually; and (iii) all directors and executive officers of the Sponsor as a group.

The number of Shares beneficially owned and percentages of beneficial ownership set forth below are based on the number of Shares outstanding as of February 20, 2026.

In accordance with the rules of the SEC, beneficial ownership includes voting or investment power with respect to securities.


Name and Address of Beneficial Owner	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership	Percentage of Beneficial Ownership
Significant Shareholders:
Digital Currency Group, Inc.	*	* %
Directors & Executive Officers of the Sponsor:(1)
Barry Silbert	*	* %
Mark Shifke	*	* %
Simon Koster	*	* %
Peter Mintzberg	*	* %
Edward McGee	*	* %
Directors & Executive Officers of the Sponsor as a group	*	* %

(1)

Barry Silbert is the Chief Executive Officer of DCG and in such capacity may be deemed to have voting and dispositive power over securities held, directly or indirectly by such entity.

(2)

(3)

Does not include Shares beneficially owned through DCG.

* Represents beneficial ownership of less than 1%.

Unless otherwise indicated, the address for each shareholder listed in the table above is c/o Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, 290 Harbor Drive, 4th Floor, Stamford, Connecticut 06902.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence

General

The Sponsor has not established formal procedures to resolve all potential conflicts of interest. Consequently, shareholders may be dependent on the good faith of the respective parties subject to such conflicts to resolve them equitably. Although the Sponsor attempts to monitor these conflicts, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Sponsor to ensure that these conflicts do not, in fact, result in adverse consequences to the Trust.

The Sponsor presently intends to assert that shareholders have, by subscribing for Shares of the Trust, consented to the following conflicts of interest in the event of any proceeding alleging that such conflicts violated any duty owed by the Sponsor to investors.

Digital Currency Group, Inc.

DCG is (i) the indirect parent company of the Sponsor and (ii) a minority interest holder in Kraken, one of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index, representing less than 1.0% of its equity.

DCG has investments in a large number of digital assets and companies involved in the digital asset ecosystem, including trading platforms and custodians. DCG’s positions on changes that should be adopted in the Ethereum Network could be adverse to positions that would benefit the Trust or its shareholders. Additionally, before or after a hard fork, DCG’s position regarding which fork among a group of incompatible forks of the Ethereum Network should be considered the “true” Ethereum Network could be adverse to positions that would most benefit the Trust.

107

The Sponsor

The Sponsor has a conflict of interest in allocating its own limited resources among, when applicable, different clients and potential future business ventures, to each of which it owes fiduciary duties. Additionally, the professional staff of the Sponsor also services other affiliates of the Trust, including several other digital asset investment vehicles, and their respective clients. Although the Sponsor and its professional staff cannot and will not devote all of its or their respective time or resources to the management of the affairs of the Trust, the Sponsor intends to devote, and to cause its professional staff to devote, sufficient time and resources to manage properly the affairs of the Trust consistent with its or their respective fiduciary duties to the Trust and others.

The Sponsor and Grayscale Securities are affiliates of each other, and the Sponsor may engage other affiliated service providers in the future. Because of the Sponsor’s affiliated status, it may be disincentivized from replacing affiliated service providers. 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 which are greater or less than the rate paid by the Trust.

The Sponsor and any affiliated service provider may, from time to time, have conflicting demands in respect of their obligations to the Trust and, in the future, to other clients. It is possible that future business ventures of the Sponsor and affiliated service providers may generate larger fees, resulting in increased payments to employees, and therefore, incentivizing the Sponsor and/or the affiliated service providers to allocate its/their limited resources accordingly to the potential detriment of the Trust.

There is an absence of arm’s length negotiation with respect to some of the terms of the Trust, and, where applicable, there has been no independent due diligence conducted with respect to the Trust. The Sponsor will, however, not retain any affiliated service providers for the Trust which the Sponsor has reason to believe would knowingly or deliberately favor any other client over the Trust.

Authorized Participants

Effective July 23, 2024, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, and the Transfer Agent entered into Participant Agreements with Jane Street Capital, LLC, Virtu Americas LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., ABN AMRO Clearing USA LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, pursuant to which such entities have agreed to act as Authorized Participants. The Sponsor may engage additional Authorized Participants who are unaffiliated with the Trust in the future.

Proprietary Trading/Other Clients

Because the officers of the Sponsor may trade Ether for their own personal trading accounts (subject to certain internal trading policies and procedures) at the same time as they are managing the account of the Trust, the activities of the officers of the Sponsor, subject to their fiduciary duties, may, from time-to-time, result in their taking positions in their personal trading accounts which are opposite of the positions taken for the Trust. Records of the Sponsor’s officers’ personal trading accounts will not be available for inspection by shareholders.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services

Fees for services performed by KPMG, LLP (“KPMG”) for the period from July 23, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025 were:


	Year Ended December 31, 2025		July 23, 2024 (the Commencement of the Trust’s Operations) to December 31, 2024
Audit fees	$	244,400	$	197,000
Total	$	244,400	$	197,000

In the table above, in accordance with the SEC’s definitions and rules, Audit Fees are fees paid to KPMG for professional services for the audit of the Trust’s financial statements included in the annual report on Form 10-K and review of financial statements included in the quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and for services that are normally provided by the accountants in connection with regulatory filings or engagements.

Pre-Approved Policies and Procedures

The Trust has no board of directors, and as a result, has no audit committee or pre-approval policy with respect to fees paid to its principal accounting firm. Such determinations, including for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, are made by the Sponsor’s Board and Audit Committee. Prior to January 1, 2025, “Board” refers to the board of directors of Grayscale Investments, LLC, the former Sponsor of the Trust. From January 1, 2025, to October 22, 2025, “Board” refers to the board of directors of GSOIH. From and after October 22, 2025, “Board” refers to the board of directors of Grayscale Investments.

108

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statements Schedules

1. Financial Statements

See Index to Financial Statements on Page F-1 for a list of the financial statements being filed herein.

2. Financial Statement Schedules

Schedules have been omitted since they are either not required, not applicable, or the information has otherwise been included.

3. Exhibits


Exhibit Number		Exhibit Description

3.1		Certificate of Trust (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed by the Registrant on July 18, 2024).

3.2		Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on November 4, 2024).

3.3		Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 5, 2026).

4.1		Second Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on September 26, 2025).

4.2		Amendment No. 1 to the Second Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 5, 2026).

4.3		Form of Participant Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on February 6, 2026).

4.4*		Description of Registrant’s Securities.

10.1†		Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement, dated October 9, 2025, between the Trust and the Administrator (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on October 9, 2025).

10.2†		Prime Broker Agreement, dated October 3, 2025, between the Sponsor and the Prime Broker, on behalf of itself, the Custodian and Coinbase Credit (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on October 6, 2025).

10.3		Marketing Agent Agreement, dated May 23, 2024, between the Sponsor and the Marketing Agent (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 of the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed by the Registrant on July 18, 2024).

10.4†		Index License Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed by the Registrant on July 18, 2024).

10.5†		Amendment No. 1 to the Index License Agreement dated June 20, 2023, between the Sponsor and Index Provider (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed by the Registrant on July 18, 2024).

10.6†		Amendment No. 6 to the Index License Agreement dated March 1, 2025, between the Sponsor and Index Provider (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by the Registrant on February 28, 2025).

10.7		Transfer Agency and Service Agreement, dated May 22, 2024 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 of the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed by the Registrant on July 18, 2024).

10.8		Co-Transfer Agency Agreement, dated June 14, 2024, between the Sponsor and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by the Registrant on February 28, 2025).

10.9†		Assignment and Assumption Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 3, 2025).

109


10.10†		Coinbase Assignment Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 3, 2025).

10.11		Foreside Assignment Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 3, 2025).

10.12†		Master Custody Service Agreement, dated August 8, 2025, between the Trust and Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on September 26, 2025).

10.13		Second Amendment to Master Custody Service Agreement, dated September 25, 2025, between the Trust and Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on September 26, 2025).

10.14†		Staking Addendum to Custodial Services Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on October 6, 2025).

10.15†*		Master Services Agreement, dated August 6, 2020, between the Sponsor and the Secondary Index Provider.

31.1*		Certification by Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2*		Certification by Principal Financial and Accounting Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1*		Certification by Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.2*		Certification by Principal Financial and Accounting Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

97.1*		Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation Policy.

101.INS*		Inline XBRL Instance Document – the instance document does not appear in the Interactive Data File because its XBRL tags are embedded within the Inline XBRL document.

101.SCH*		Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema With Embedded Linkbase Documents.

104		Cover Page Interactive Data File—The cover page interactive data file does not appear in the interactive data file because its XBRL tags are embedded within the inline XBRL document.

* Filed herewith.

† Portions of this exhibit (indicated by asterisks) have been omitted as the Registrant has determined that (i) the omitted information is not material and (ii) the omitted information is of the type that the Registrant treats as private or confidential.

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary

Not applicable.

110

Glossary of Defined Terms

In this Annual Report, each of the following quoted terms has the meanings set forth after such term:

“Actual Exchange Rate”—With respect to any particular asset, at any time, the price per single unit of such asset (determined net of any associated fees) at which the Trust is able to sell such asset for U.S. dollars (or other applicable fiat currency) at such time to enable the Trust to timely pay any Additional Trust Expenses, through use of the Sponsor’s commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the highest such price.

“Actual Execution Cash Order”—A Cash Order pursuant to which any price differential between (x) the Total Basket NAV on the trade date and (y) the price realized in acquiring or disposing of the corresponding Total Basket Amount, as the case may be, will be borne solely by the Authorized Participant.

“Additional Creation Cash”—In connection with a creation pursuant to an Actual Execution Cash Order, the amount of additional cash required to be delivered by the Authorized Participant in the event the price realized in acquiring the corresponding Total Basket Amount is higher than the Total Basket NAV on the trade date.

“Additional Custodian” or “Anchorage Digital”—Anchorage Digital Bank N.A.

“Additional Redemption Cash”—In connection with a redemption pursuant to an Actual Execution Cash Order, the amount of additional cash to be delivered to the Authorized Participant in the event the price realized in disposing the corresponding Total Basket Amount is higher than the Total Basket NAV on the trade date.

“Additional Trust Expenses”—Together, any expenses incurred by the Trust in addition to the Sponsor’s Fee that are not Sponsor-paid Expenses, including, but not limited to, (i) taxes and governmental charges, (ii) 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, (iii) any indemnification of the Custodian or other agents, service providers or counterparties of the Trust, (iv) 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 (v) extraordinary legal fees and expenses, including any legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with litigation, regulatory enforcement or investigation matters.

“Administrator”—The Bank of New York Mellon, a New York corporation authorized to conduct banking business.

“Administrator Fee”—The fee payable to any administrator of the Trust for services it provides to the Trust, which the Sponsor will pay such administrator as a Sponsor-paid Expense.

“Affirmative Action”—A decision by the Trust to acquire or abandon specific Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency at any time prior to the time of a creation or redemption of Shares.

“Anchorage Digital Custodian Agreement”—The Master Custody Service Agreement, dated as of August 8, 2025, between the Trust and Anchorage Digital regarding the custody and safekeeping of the Trust’s Ether holdings.

“AML”—Anti-money laundering.

“AP Designee”—An Authorized Participant’s designee in connection with In-Kind Orders.

“Authorized Participant”—Certain eligible financial institutions that have entered into an agreement with the Trust and the Sponsor concerning the creation or redemption of Shares. Each Authorized Participant (i) is a registered broker-dealer and (ii) has entered into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor and the Transfer Agent, and (iii) in the case of creations or redemptions through In-Kind Orders must also own, or their AP Designee (as defined above) must own, a Ether wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant or its AP Designee and maintain an account with the Custodian.

“Basket”—A block of 10,000 Shares.

“Basket Amount”—On any trade date, the amount of Ether required as of such trade date for the creation or redemption of a Basket, as determined by dividing (x) the amount of Ether owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such trade date, after deducting the amount of Ether representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the Index Price at such time, and carried to the eighth decimal place), by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the

111

quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one Ether (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 10,000.

“Basket NAV”—The U.S. dollar value of a Basket calculated by multiplying the Basket Amount by the Index Price as of the trade date.

“Binance”—Binance Holdings Ltd.

“Blockchain”—The public transaction ledger of the Ethereum Network on which transactions in Ether are recorded.

“Board”—Board of Directors of Grayscale Investments, Inc., which, as of October 22, 2025, and pursuant to the Management Reorganization, manages and directs the affairs of the Sponsor. Prior to January 1, 2025, any references to the “Board” refer to the board of directors of Grayscale Investments, LLC, the former Sponsor of the Trust. From January 1, 2025, to October 22, 2025, any references to the “Board” refer to the board of directors of GSOIH. From and after October 22, 2025, any references to the "Board" refer to the board of directors of Grayscale Investments.

“Cash Account”—The segregated account maintained by the Transfer Agent in the name of the Trust for purposes of receiving cash from Authorized Participants in connection with creations of Shares and distributing cash to Authorized Participants in connection with redemptions of Shares.

“Cash Order”—An order for the creation or redemption of Shares pursuant to procedures facilitated by the Transfer Agent and pursuant to which a Liquidity Provider is engaged to facilitate the purchase or sale of Ether. A Cash Order may be executed as either a Variable Fee Cash Order or an Actual Execution Cash Order. Unless the Sponsor determines otherwise in its sole discretion based on market conditions and other factors existing at the time of such Cash Order, all creations and redemptions pursuant to Cash Orders are expected to be executed as Variable Fee Cash Orders.

“CDI”—CoinDesk Indices, Inc., with its affiliates, including CC Data Limited.

“CEA”—Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended.

“CFPB”—The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

“CFTC”—The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an independent agency with the mandate to regulate commodity futures and option markets in the United States.

“CME”—The Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

“Code”—The U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

“Coinbase”—Coinbase, Inc.

“Coinbase Credit”—Coinbase Credit, Inc.

“Co-Transfer Agent”—Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company.

“Covered Person”—The Sponsor and its affiliates. See “Item 1. Business—Description of the Trust Agreement—The Sponsor—Liability of the Sponsor and Indemnification.”

“Creation Basket”—Basket of Shares issued by the Trust upon deposit of the Basket Amount required for each such Creation Basket.

“Creation Time”—With respect to the creation of any Shares by the Trust, the time at which the Trust creates such Shares.

“Custodial and Prime Broker Services”—The services of the Custodian and the Prime Broker that provide for: (i) holding of the Trust’s Ether in the Vault Balance and the Settlement Balance; (ii) transfer of the Trust’s Ether between the relevant Vault Balance and the Settlement Balance; (iii) the deposit of Ether from a public blockchain address into the respective account or accounts in which the Vault Balance or the Settlement Balance are maintained; and (iv) the withdrawal of Ether from the Vault Balance to a public blockchain address the Trust controls.

112

“Custodial Entities”—The Prime Broker, together with the Custodian.

“Custodian”—Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. and/or other custodians, collectively or in their individual capacities, as the context may require.

“Custodian Fee”—Fee payable to the Custodian and the Prime Broker for services they provide to the Trust, which the Sponsor shall pay to the Custodian and the Prime Broker as a Sponsor-paid Expense.

“DAOs”—Decentralized autonomous organizations.

“DCG”—Digital Currency Group, Inc.

“DCG Holdco”—DCG Grayscale Holdco, LLC.

“DCM”—A designated contract market, which is a board of trade (commonly referred to as an exchange) that operates under the regulatory oversight of the CFTC.

“Digital Asset Market”—A “Brokered Market,” “Dealer Market,” “Principal-to-Principal Market” or “Exchange Market” (referred to as “Trading Platform Market” in this Annual Report), as each such term is defined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Master Glossary.

“Digital Asset Trading Platform”—An electronic marketplace where trading platform participants may trade, buy and sell Ether based on bid-ask trading. The largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms are online and typically trade on a 24-hour basis, publishing transaction price and volume data.

“Digital Asset Trading Platform Market”—The global trading platform market for the trading of Ether, which consists of transactions on electronic Digital Asset Trading Platforms.

“Distribution Date”—July 23, 2024, the distribution date of the Trust’s Shares to ETHE shareholders in the Initial Distribution.

“DSTA”—The Delaware Statutory Trust Act, as amended.

“DTC”—The Depository Trust Company. DTC is a limited purpose trust company organized under New York law, a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System and a clearing agency registered with the SEC. DTC will act as the securities depository for the Shares.

“ERISA”—The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.

“ETC” or “Ethereum Classic”—Ether Classic tokens, which are a type of digital asset based on an open-source cryptographic protocol existing on the Ethereum Classic network.

“Ether”—Ethereum tokens, which are a type of digital asset based on an open-source cryptographic protocol existing on the Ethereum Network, comprising units that constitute the assets underlying the Trust’s Shares.

“Ethereum Classic Network”—The online, end-user-to-end-user network hosting a public transaction ledger, known as the Ethereum Classic blockchain, and the source code comprising the basis for the cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the Ethereum Classic network.

“Ethereum Network”—The online, end-user-to-end-user network hosting the public transaction ledger, known as the Blockchain, and the source code comprising the basis for the cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the Ethereum Network. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the Ethereum Industry and Market.”

“ETHE”—Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF (formerly known as the Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF), another Delaware Statutory Trust whose purpose is to hold Ether and which is sponsored by the Sponsor.

“Excess Creation Cash”—In connection with a creation pursuant to an Actual Execution Cash Order, the amount of excess cash to be returned to the Authorized Participant in the event the price realized in acquiring the corresponding Total Basket Amount is lower than the Total Basket NAV on the tr

Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF 10-K