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, ~~2024~~2025


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

For the transition period from _____ to ______

Commission File Number 000-56433

Grayscale Zcash Trust (ZEC)

SPONSORED BY GRAYSCALE ~~OPERATING, LLC AND GRAYSCALE~~ INVESTMENTS SPONSORS, LLC

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)


Delaware	82-6646113
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

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

(212) 668-1427

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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



Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
Grayscale Zcash Trust (ZEC) Shares	ZCSH	N/A

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

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

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

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

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


Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐

Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒

		Emerging growth company	☒

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

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

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

Aggregate market value of registrant’s Shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based upon the closing price of a Share on June 30, ~~2024~~2025 as reported by the OTC Markets Group Inc. on that date: $1614,~~669~~436,~~591~~ 171

Number of Shares of the registrant outstanding as of March 36, ~~2025~~2026: 4,~~724~~829,~~600~~300

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

~~the~~Summary ~~extreme volatility~~ of ~~trading~~Risk prices that many digital assets, including ZEC, have experienced in recent periods and may continue to experience, which could cause the value of the Shares to be volatile and/or have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares;Factors

~~the~~Below ~~recentness~~is a summary of the ~~development~~principal offactors ~~digital~~that ~~assets~~make ~~and~~an investment in the ~~uncertain~~Shares ~~medium-to-long~~speculative ~~term~~or ~~value~~risky. This summary does not address all of the ~~Shares~~risks ~~due~~that towe aface. ~~number~~Additional discussion of ~~factors~~the ~~relating~~risks tosummarized ~~the~~in ~~capabilities~~this risk factor summary, and ~~development~~other risks that we face, can be found below in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.” Some of ~~blockchain~~the ~~technologies~~factors that could materially and toadversely ~~the~~affect ~~fundamental~~our ~~investment~~business ~~characteristics~~include, ofbut ~~digital~~are ~~assets;~~not limited to, the following:

~~the~~Risk ~~value~~Factors ofRelated ~~the~~to ~~Shares~~Digital ~~depending on the acceptance of digital assets, such as ZEC, which represent a new and rapidly evolving industry;~~Assets

•

aExtreme ~~temporary~~volatility orof ~~permanent~~trading ~~“fork”~~prices orthat amany ~~“clone”~~digital assets, including ZEC, have experienced in recent periods and may continue to experience, could ~~adversely~~have ~~affect~~a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares; and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

•

~~recent~~The ~~developments~~medium-to-long interm ~~the~~value ~~digital~~of ~~asset~~the ~~economy~~Shares ~~which~~is ~~have~~subject ~~led~~ to ~~extreme~~a ~~volatility~~number ~~and~~of ~~disruption~~factors inrelating ~~digital~~to ~~asset~~the ~~markets,~~capabilities aand ~~loss~~development of ~~confidence~~blockchain intechnologies ~~participants~~and ofto the ~~digital~~fundamental ~~asset~~investment ~~ecosystem,~~characteristics ~~significant~~of ~~negative publicity surrounding~~ digital assets ~~broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity;~~.

•

~~the~~Digital ~~value~~assets ofrepresent ~~the~~a ~~Shares~~relatively ~~relating~~new ~~directly~~and torapidly ~~the~~evolving ~~value~~industry, ofand ~~ZEC then held by~~ the ~~Trust, the~~ value of ~~which~~the ~~may~~Shares bedepends ~~highly~~on ~~volatile~~the ~~and~~acceptance ~~subject to fluctuations due to a number~~ of ~~factors;~~ZEC.

•

~~the~~Digital ~~largely~~assets ~~unregulated~~may ~~nature~~have concentrated ownership and ~~lack~~large ofsales ~~transparency~~or ~~surrounding~~distributions ~~the~~by ~~operations~~holders of ~~Digital~~such ~~Asset~~digital ~~Trading~~assets ~~Platforms,~~could ~~which~~have ~~may~~an ~~adversely~~adverse ~~affect~~effect on the ~~value~~market price of such digital assets ~~and, consequently, the value of the Shares;~~.

•

~~the~~A ~~limited~~temporary ~~history~~or permanent “fork” or a “clone” could adversely affect the value of the ~~Index;~~Shares.

~~competition~~Risk ~~from~~Factors ~~the~~Related ~~emergence~~to ~~or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on~~ the ~~price~~Digital ofAsset ~~ZEC and adversely affect the value of the Shares;~~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 ZEC held by the Trust, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations.

•

~~the~~The ~~Trust’s~~largely ~~reliance~~unregulated onnature ~~third-party~~and ~~service~~lack ~~providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs~~ of ~~the~~transparency ~~Trust~~surrounding ~~and~~ the ~~replacement~~operations of ~~such~~Digital ~~service~~Asset ~~providers~~Trading ~~could~~Platforms ~~pose~~may ~~challenges~~adversely toaffect the ~~safekeeping~~value of ~~the~~digital ~~Trust’s~~assets ~~ZEC~~ and, toconsequently, the ~~operations~~value of the ~~Trust;~~Shares.

•

~~because~~Digital ofAsset ~~the~~Trading ~~holding~~Platforms ~~period~~may ~~under~~be ~~Rule~~exposed ~~144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program, and the Trust’s ability~~ to ~~halt~~front-running ~~creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price~~ and ~~the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share;~~wash-trading.

•

~~the~~The ~~possibility~~Index ~~that~~has ~~the Shares may trade at~~ a ~~price~~limited ~~that~~history isand ~~at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as~~ a ~~result~~failure of the ~~non-current~~Index ~~trading~~Price ~~hours~~could ~~between~~adversely ~~OTCQX~~affect ~~and~~ the ~~Digital~~value ~~Asset~~of ~~Trading~~the ~~Platform Market;~~Shares.

•

aCompetition ~~determination~~from ~~that~~the ~~ZEC~~emergence or ~~any~~growth of other digital ~~asset~~assets iscould have a ~~“security”~~negative ~~may~~impact ~~adversely~~on ~~affect~~ the ~~value~~price of ZEC and ~~the~~adversely ~~value~~affect of the ~~Shares,~~value ~~and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination~~ of, the ~~Trust;~~Shares.

~~regulatory~~Risk ~~changes~~Factors orRelated ~~actions~~to by the ~~U.S.~~Trust ~~Congress~~and ~~or any U.S. federal or state agencies that may affect~~ the ~~value of the~~ Shares or restrict the use of one or more digital assets, mining activity or the operation of their networks or the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares;

•

~~changes~~The inTrust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the ~~policies~~affairs of the ~~U.S.~~Trust ~~Securities~~ and ~~Exchange~~the ~~Commission~~replacement ~~(the~~of ~~“SEC”)~~such ~~that~~service providers could ~~adversely~~pose ~~impact~~challenges to the ~~value~~safekeeping of the ~~Shares;~~Trust’s ZEC and to the operations of the Trust.

•

~~regulatory~~The ~~changes~~liquidity ~~or other events in foreign jurisdictions that may affect the value~~ of the Shares ormay ~~restrict~~be ~~the~~affected ~~use~~if ofAuthorized ~~one~~Participants orcease ~~more~~to ~~digital~~perform ~~assets,~~their ~~mining~~obligations ~~activity~~under or the ~~operation~~Participant ofAgreements ~~their networks~~ or the ~~Digital~~Liquidity ~~Asset~~Engager ~~Trading~~is ~~Platform~~unable ~~Market~~to inengage aLiquidity ~~manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares;~~Providers.

•

Because of the ~~possibility~~holding ~~that~~period under Rule 144, the lack of an ~~Authorized~~ongoing ~~Participant~~redemption program, and the Trust’s orability ~~the~~to ~~Sponsor~~halt ~~could~~creations befrom ~~subject~~time to ~~regulation~~time, asthere ais ~~money~~no ~~service~~arbitrage ~~business~~mechanism orto ~~money~~keep ~~transmitter,~~the ~~which~~value ~~could~~of ~~result~~the inShares ~~extraordinary~~closely ~~expenses~~linked to the ~~Authorized~~Index ~~Participant,~~Price and the ~~Trust~~Shares orhave ~~the~~historically ~~Sponsor~~traded ~~and~~at ~~also~~a ~~result~~substantial inpremium ~~decreased~~over, ~~liquidity~~or ~~for~~a substantial discount to, the ~~Shares;~~NAV per Share.

•

~~regulatory~~The ~~changes~~possibility orthat ~~interpretations~~the ~~that~~Shares ~~could~~may ~~obligate~~trade ~~the~~at ~~Trust~~a price that is at, above or below the ~~Sponsor~~Trust’s toNAV ~~register~~per ~~and~~Share ~~comply~~as ~~with~~a ~~new~~result ~~regulations,~~of ~~resulting~~the innon-concurrent ~~potentially~~trading ~~extraordinary,~~hours ~~nonrecurring~~between ~~expenses~~OTCQX toand the ~~Trust;~~Digital Asset Trading Platform Market.

•

~~potential~~Shareholders ~~conflicts~~may ofsuffer ~~interest~~a ~~that~~loss ~~may~~on ~~arise~~their ~~among~~investment if the ~~Sponsor~~Shares ortrade ~~its~~above ~~affiliates~~or ~~and~~below the Trust;’s NAV per Share.

•

~~the~~Extraordinary ~~potential~~expenses, ~~discontinuance~~tax ofliabilities ~~the~~arising ~~Sponsor’s~~from ~~continued~~Zcash ~~services~~sales without distributions, ~~which~~indemnification obligations, intellectual property claims, and disruptions from pandemics or other disasters could beadversely ~~detrimental~~affect tothe value of the ~~Trust;~~Shares.

~~the~~Risk ~~Custodian’s~~Factors ~~possible~~Related ~~resignation~~to ~~or removal by~~ the ~~Sponsor~~Regulation orof ~~otherwise,~~Digital ~~without replacement~~Assets, ~~which could trigger early termination of~~ the Trust; and the Shares

•

~~additional~~A ~~risk~~determination ~~factors~~that ~~discussed~~ZEC inor ~~“Part~~any I,other ~~Item~~digital ~~1A.~~asset ~~Risk~~is ~~Factors”~~a ~~and~~ “~~Part~~security” ~~II,~~may ~~Item~~adversely 7.affect ~~Management’s~~the ~~Discussion~~value ~~and Analysis~~ of ~~Financial~~ZEC ~~Condition~~ and ~~Results~~the ofvalue ~~Operations”~~ of ~~this~~the ~~Annual Report on Form 10-K~~Shares, asand ~~well~~result asin ~~those~~potentially ~~described~~extraordinary, ~~from~~nonrecurring ~~time~~expenses to, ~~time~~or intermination ~~our~~of, ~~future reports filed with~~ the ~~SEC~~Trust.

•

~~Unless~~Regulatory ~~otherwise~~changes ~~stated~~or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies may affect the ~~context~~value ~~otherwise~~of ~~requires,~~the Shares or restrict the ~~terms~~use ~~“we~~of one or more digital assets,” ~~“our”~~mining ~~and~~activity ~~“us”~~or inthe ~~this~~operation ~~Annual~~of ~~Report~~their ~~refer~~networks toor the ~~Sponsor~~Digital ~~acting~~Asset onMarkets ~~behalf~~in a manner that adversely affects the value of the ~~Trust~~Shares.

•

ARegulatory ~~glossary~~changes or other events in foreign jurisdictions may affect the value of ~~industry~~the ~~and~~Shares ~~other~~or ~~defined~~restrict ~~terms~~the isuse ~~included~~of inone ~~this~~or ~~Annual~~more ~~Report~~digital assets, ~~beginning~~mining onactivity ~~page~~or ~~102~~the operation of their networks or the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares.

•

~~This~~The ~~Annual~~Authorized ~~Report~~Participant, ~~supplements~~the ~~and~~Trust ~~where~~or ~~applicable~~the ~~amends~~Sponsor ~~the~~could ~~Memorandum,~~be subject to regulation as ~~defined~~a money service business or money transmitter, which could result in ~~the~~extraordinary ~~Trust’s~~expenses ~~Amended~~to ~~and~~the ~~Restated~~Authorized ~~Declaration~~Participant, ofthe Trust or the Sponsor and ~~Trust~~also ~~Agreement,~~result in decreased liquidity for ~~general~~the ~~purposes~~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, ZEC and transactions involving ZEC 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

~~Table~~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 ~~Contents~~the Trust.

Item No.	Item Caption	Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	49
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	83
Item 1C.	Cybersecurity	83
Item 2.	Properties	83
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	84
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	84
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	85
Item 6.	[Reserved]	85
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	86
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	94
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	94
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	94
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	94
Item 9B.	Other Information	95
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	95
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	96
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	97
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	97
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	98
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	99
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	100
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	101
	Glossary of Defined Terms	102

A glossary of industry and other defined terms is included in this Annual Report, beginning on page 92.

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

Table of Contents


Item No.	Item Caption	Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	43
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	75
Item 1C.	Cybersecurity	75
Item 2.	Properties	75
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	76
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	76
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	77
Item 6.	[Reserved]	77
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	78
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	84
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	84
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	84
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	84
Item 9B.	Other Information	85
Item 9C.	Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections	85
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	86
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	87
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	87
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	88
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	89
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	90
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	91
	Glossary of Defined Terms	92

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview of the Trust and the Shares

Grayscale Zcash Trust (ZEC) (the “Trust”) is a Delaware Statutory Trust that was formed on October 23, 2017 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 Zcash (“ZEC”). Zcash, an alternative software implementation of Bitcoin, was created in 2016 by a group of scientists, cryptographers, and engineers. ~~Although~~See ~~Zcash~~“—Overview isof ~~similar to Bitcoin, there are several key differences between~~ the ~~Zcash~~ZEC ~~Network~~Industry and ~~the~~Market” Bitcoin Network. The fundamental difference between Bitcoin and Zcash is that Zcash offers selective privacy-preserving features as described below. In addition, Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 algorithm, which is preferred for ~~parallel~~additional ~~processing,~~information ~~but is also easily used to build application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) to mine the network more efficiently. In contrast, Zcash employs the Equihash algorithm. The Equihash algorithm relies~~ on ~~different technology than the SHA-256 algorithm and does not require miners to have access to ASICs, which is expensive, and therefore results in less centralized mining hash power.~~ Zcash ~~has a current block size of 2MB compared to 1MB on the Bitcoin~~ Network~~. Zcash blocks are generated every 1.3 minutes, which is approximately 8 times faster than Bitcoin~~’s ~~block~~selective production. Due to a similar monetary supply curve to Bitcoin, Zcash halvings also take place approximately every four years, occurring every 210,000 blocks. Zcash’s mining difficulty is lower than Bitcoin’s, making it easier to mine blocks and earn rewards. Additionally, Zcash and Bitcoin both have a maximum supply of 21 million coins. As of December 31, 2024, Zcash had a circulating supply of 16.3 million coins which is less than Bitcoin’s current circulating supply of 19.8 million coins. As of December 31, 2024, the 24privacy-~~hour~~preserving ~~trading~~features ~~volume of Zcash~~ and ~~Bitcoin~~recent ~~were approximately $29~~upgrades.4 million and $17.7 billion, respectively. As of December 31, 2024, the aggregate market value of Zcash was $916.4 million as compared to the $1,850.3 billion aggregate value of Bitcoin. As of December 31, 2024, ZEC was the 104th largest digital asset by market capitalization as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com.

~~The~~As ~~Zcash Network is one~~ of aDecember ~~number~~31, of2025, ~~projects~~the ~~intended~~Trust toholds ~~enhance~~approximately ~~blockchain technology~~2.4% ~~The Zcash Network’s primary enhancement~~ of the ~~blockchain~~ZEC ~~was~~in tocirculation. ~~add~~The ~~additional~~size ~~layers~~ of ~~privacy~~the toTrust’s ~~traditional~~position ~~blockchain~~does ~~infrastructure~~not soitself ~~that~~enable ~~users~~the ~~can~~Sponsor ~~make~~or ~~transactions~~the ~~that~~Trust ~~selectively disclose details related~~ to ~~those~~participate ~~transactions.~~in ~~ZEC~~or ~~accomplishes~~otherwise ~~this~~influence ~~privacy preservation by using novel cryptographic protocols called Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Argument of Knowledge (“zk-SNARKs”) to protect both~~ the ~~amount~~development ~~and the sender and recipient~~ of the ~~transaction~~Zcash Network. ~~The~~As ~~result is~~ a ~~private~~decentralized ~~transaction~~digital ~~known~~asset ~~as a “shielded” transaction~~network, ~~which is distinct from a public transaction on~~ the Zcash Network, ~~known~~consists asof anseveral ~~“unshielded”~~stakeholders, ~~transaction.~~including ~~From~~core ~~the~~developers ~~inception~~ of ~~the~~ZEC, ~~Zcash Network through December 31~~users, ~~2024~~services, ~~approximately 45% of Zcash transactions have been unshielded~~businesses, ~~45%~~miners ~~involved~~and ~~one~~other ~~party utilizing a shielded address~~constituencies, ~~and~~of ~~10%~~which ~~involved~~the ~~both~~Trust ~~parties~~is ~~utilizing~~only aone ~~shielded address~~constituent. ~~ZEC’s~~Furthermore, ~~primary~~in ~~advantage~~contrast ~~over~~to other ~~digital~~protocols ~~assets, its use~~ in ~~private~~which ~~on-chain~~token ~~transactions,~~holders ~~has~~participate ~~not been widely adopted even~~ in the ~~context~~governance of ~~Zcash~~the ~~transactions.~~network, ~~See~~ownership ~~“—Overview~~ of ~~the~~ ZEC ~~Industry~~confers ~~and~~no ~~Market”~~such ~~for additional information on Zcash Network’s selective privacy-preserving features and recent upgrades~~rights.

As of December 31, 2024, the Trust holds approximately 2.4% of the ZEC 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 Zcash Network. As a decentralized digital asset network, the Zcash Network consists of several stakeholders, including core developers of ZEC, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, of which the Trust is only one constituent. Furthermore, in contrast to other protocols in which token holders participate in the governance of the network, ownership of ZEC confers no such rights.

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

~~Until~~As ~~December~~a ~~31,~~passive ~~2024,~~investment ~~Grayscale Investments~~vehicle, ~~LLC was~~ the ~~sponsor~~Trust’s ~~and~~investment ~~administrator~~objective ofis ~~the~~for ~~Trust (~~the ~~“Sponsor”).~~value ~~As a result~~ of the ~~Reorganization~~Shares (asbased ~~defined herein)~~ on ~~January~~ZEC 1,per ~~2025, Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (“GSIS”~~Share) ~~and~~to ~~Grayscale~~reflect ~~Operating,~~the ~~LLC~~value ~~(“GSO”), indirect wholly owned subsidiaries~~ of ~~DCG,~~ZEC ~~became~~held ~~Co-Sponsors~~by of the Trust~~. On January 3~~, ~~2025~~determined ~~GSO~~by ~~voluntarily~~reference ~~withdrew~~to ~~as a Sponsor of~~ the ~~Trust,~~Index ~~and effective May 3~~Price, ~~2025~~less ~~GSIS shall be~~ the ~~sole remaining Sponsor. See “Item 7. Management~~Trust’s ~~Discussion~~expenses and ~~Analysis~~other ofliabilities. ~~Financial~~The ~~Condition~~Trust ~~and~~does ~~Results~~not ofseek ~~Operations—Recent~~to ~~Developments”~~generate ~~for~~returns ~~more~~beyond ~~information.~~tracking ~~CSC Delaware Trust Company is~~ the ~~trustee~~price of ~~the~~ZEC. ~~Trust~~There ~~(the~~can ~~“Trustee”),~~be ~~Continental~~no ~~Stock~~assurance ~~Transfer~~that &the Trust ~~Company~~will isbe ~~the~~able ~~transfer~~to ~~agent~~achieve ofits ~~the~~investment ~~Trust~~objective. ~~(in~~The ~~such~~Trust ~~capacity,~~will ~~the~~not ~~“Transfer~~utilize ~~Agent”)~~leverage, ~~and~~derivatives ~~Coinbase~~or ~~Custody~~any ~~Trust~~similar ~~Company,~~arrangements ~~LLC~~in isseeking ~~the~~to ~~custodian~~meet ofits ~~the~~investment ~~Trust (the “Custodian”)~~objective.

~~The~~Until ~~Trust~~December ~~issues~~31, ~~Shares~~2024, ~~only~~Grayscale inInvestments, ~~one~~LLC orwas ~~more~~the ~~blocks~~sponsor and administrator of ~~100~~the ~~Shares~~Trust. (As a ~~block~~result of ~~100~~the ~~Shares~~Reorganization is(as ~~called~~defined aherein) on January 1, 2025, Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (“~~Basket~~GSIS”) toand ~~certain~~Grayscale ~~authorized~~Operating, ~~participants~~LLC (“~~Authorized Participants~~GSO”), ~~from~~consolidated ~~time~~subsidiaries toof ~~time.~~Digital ~~Baskets~~Currency ~~are~~Group, ~~offered~~Inc. in(“DCG”), ~~exchange~~became ~~for~~Co-Sponsors ~~ZEC~~of the Trust. AtOn ~~this~~January ~~time~~3, ~~the~~2025 ~~Sponsor~~GSO isvoluntarily ~~not~~withdrew ~~operating~~as a ~~redemption~~Sponsor ~~program~~of ~~for~~ the ~~Shares~~Trust, and ~~therefore~~effective ~~Shares~~May ~~are~~3, ~~not~~2025 ~~redeemable~~GSIS byis the ~~Trust~~sole remaining Sponsor. ~~Due~~Prior to ~~the~~May ~~lack~~3, of2025, anall ~~ongoing~~references ~~redemption~~herein ~~program~~to asthe ~~well~~“Sponsor” asshall ~~price~~be ~~volatility,~~deemed ~~trading~~to ~~volume~~include ~~and~~both ~~closings~~GSIS ofand ~~Digital~~GSO ~~Asset~~as ~~Trading~~Sponsors ~~Platforms~~unless ~~due~~the tocontext ~~fraud,~~otherwise ~~failure~~requires, ~~security~~and ~~breaches~~on or ~~otherwise,~~after ~~there~~May ~~can~~3, be2025, noall ~~assurance~~references ~~that~~herein ~~the~~to ~~value of~~ the ~~Shares~~“Sponsor” ~~will~~shall ~~reflect~~refer ~~the~~only ~~value~~to ofGSIS. ~~the~~CSC Delaware Trust’s ~~ZEC,~~Company ~~less~~is the ~~Trust’s~~trustee ~~expenses~~of ~~and~~the ~~other~~Trust ~~liabilities~~(the “Trustee”), ~~and~~Continental ~~the~~Stock ~~Shares~~Transfer ~~may~~& ~~trade~~Trust atCompany ais ~~substantial~~the ~~premium~~transfer ~~over,~~agent orof athe ~~substantial~~Trust ~~discount~~(in tosuch capacity, the ~~value~~“Transfer ofAgent”) ~~the~~and Coinbase Custody Trust’s ~~ZEC~~Company, ~~less~~LLC is the ~~Trust’s~~custodian ~~expenses~~of ~~and~~the ~~other~~Trust ~~liabilities.~~(the “Custodian”).

~~The~~In U.November 2025, the Trust filed a registration statement on Form S.-3 ~~dollar~~under ~~value~~the Securities Act of 1933, relating to a ~~Basket~~proposed public offering of ~~Shares~~the atTrust’s ~~4:00~~shares. pAs of the date of this filing, the Trust’s shares are offered only through private placements (i.me., ~~New~~not ~~York~~in ~~time~~any public offering), and are publicly traded on OTCQX but are not listed on any national securities exchange. The registration statement reflects the ~~trade~~Trust’s ~~date~~intent ofto alist ~~creation~~its ~~order~~Shares ison ~~equal~~NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) under the ticker symbol “ZCSH” and to register an indeterminate number of Shares for continuous issuance to the ~~Basket~~public. ~~Amount,~~In ~~which~~connection iswith the ~~amount~~effectiveness of ~~ZEC~~the ~~required~~registration and the NYSE Arca listing, the Sponsor plans to ~~create~~rename athe ~~Basket~~Trust as Grayscale Zcash Trust ETF and to implement certain structural and operational changes, including the commencement of an ongoing redemption program that would allow authorized participants to create and redeem Shares in large blocks (baskets) on an ongoing basis. These structural changes are intended to align the Trust’s operations with an exchange-traded product model; however, ~~multiplied~~there bycan be no assurance that the ~~“Index~~SEC ~~Price~~will declare the registration statement effective or that NYSE Arca will approve the listing (or that,” ~~which~~if islisted, an active trading market for the ~~price~~Shares on NYSE Arca will develop and be sustained).

1The Trust currently issues Shares only in one or more blocks of 100 Shares (a block of 100 Shares is called a “Basket”) to certain authorized participants (“Authorized Participants”) from time to time. At this time, the Sponsor is not operating a redemption program for the Shares and therefore Shares are not redeemable by the Trust. Due to the lack of an ongoing redemption program as well as price volatility, trading volume and closings of Digital Asset Trading Platforms due to fraud, failure, security breaches or otherwise, there can be no assurance that the value of the Shares will reflect the value of the Trust’s ZEC, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, and the Shares may trade at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the value of the Trust’s ZEC, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities.

of a ZEC calculated by applying a weighting algorithm to the price and trading volume data for the immediately preceding 24-hour period as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, derived from the selected Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are reflected in the CoinDesk Zcash Price Index (ZCX) (the “Index”) on each business day. The Index Price is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements. See “—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

The Basket Amount is determined by dividing (x) the amount of ZEC owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such trade date, after deducting the amount of ZEC 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 ZEC (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100.

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

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

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

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

For example, from October 18, 2021 to December 31, ~~2024~~2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 240%, the average premium was 7253%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 55%, and the average discount was 2220%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between October 18, 2021 and December 31, ~~2024~~2025, has been quoted at a discount on ~~482~~583 days. As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, the last business day of the period, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a ~~premium~~discount of 2224% to the Trust’s NAV per Share. ~~Prior to February 23, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings and NAV per Share was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings per Share.~~ See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Secondary Market Trading.”

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

Shares purchased in a private placement are restricted securities that may not be resold except in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act and state securities laws and any such transaction must be approved in advance by the Sponsor. In determining whether to grant approval, the Sponsor will specifically look at whether the conditions of Rule 144 under the Securities Act, including the requisite holding period thereunder, and any other applicable laws have been met. Any attempt to sell the Shares without the approval of the Sponsor in its sole discretion will be void ab initio. See “—Description of the Shares—Transfer Restrictions” for more information.

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

The Trust’s ZEC 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 ZEC 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, other fiat currency, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency), less the U.S. dollar value of the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, calculated in the manner set forth under “—Valuation of ZEC 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.

At this time, the Trust is not operating a redemption program for Shares and therefore Shares are not redeemable by the Trust. In addition, the Trust may halt creations for extended periods of time for a variety of reasons, including in connection with forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences. As a result, Authorized Participants are not able to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities

~~The~~created ~~Trust’s~~when ~~ZEC~~the ~~are~~market ~~carried, for financial statement purposes, at fair~~ value, asof ~~required by~~ the ~~U.S.~~Shares ~~generally~~deviates ~~accepted~~from ~~accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”). The Trust determines~~ the ~~fair~~ value of ~~ZEC based on~~ the ~~price provided by the Digital Asset Market that the~~ Trust’s ~~considers~~NAV ~~its~~per ~~principal market as of 4:00 p.m.~~Share, ~~New~~which ~~York~~may ~~time,~~cause on the ~~valuation~~Shares ~~date.~~to ~~The~~trade ~~net~~at ~~asset~~a ~~value~~substantial ofpremium ~~the~~over, ~~Trust~~or ~~determined on~~ a ~~U.S.~~substantial ~~GAAP~~discount ~~basis is referred~~ to ~~in this Annual Report as “Principal Market NAV.” Prior to February 23~~, ~~2024,~~the ~~Principal~~value ~~Market NAV was referred to as NAV. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis~~ of ~~Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Principal Market and Fair Value Determination” for more information on~~ the Trust’s ~~principal~~NAV ~~market~~per ~~selection~~Share.

~~The~~Subject ~~Trust~~to ~~uses~~receipt ~~the~~of ~~Index~~regulatory ~~Price~~approval tofrom ~~calculate~~the ~~its~~SEC ~~“NAV,”~~and aapproval ~~non-GAAP~~by ~~metric,~~the ~~which~~Sponsor isin ~~the~~its ~~aggregate~~sole ~~value~~discretion, ~~expressed~~the inTrust ~~U.S.~~may ~~dollars,~~in of the ~~Trust’s~~future ~~assets~~operate ~~(other~~a ~~than~~redemption Uprogram.S. ~~dollars,~~No ~~other~~assurance ~~fiat~~can ~~currency,~~be ~~Incidental~~given ~~Rights~~as to the timing of such relief or IRthat ~~Virtual~~such ~~Currency),~~relief ~~less~~will ~~the~~be Ugranted.S. ~~dollar~~If ~~value~~such ofrelief ~~the~~is ~~Trust’s~~granted ~~expenses~~ and ~~other~~the ~~liabilities,~~Sponsor ~~calculated~~approves ina redemption program, the ~~manner~~Shares ~~set~~will ~~forth~~be ~~under~~redeemable ~~“—Valuation~~in ofaccordance ~~ZEC~~with ~~and~~the ~~Determination~~provisions of ~~NAV.”~~the ~~“NAV~~Trust ~~per~~Agreement ~~Share”~~and isthe ~~calculated~~relevant byParticipant ~~dividing~~Agreement. ~~NAV~~Although by the ~~number~~Sponsor ofcannot ~~Shares~~predict ~~currently~~with ~~outstanding.~~certainty ~~NAV~~what ~~and~~effect, ~~NAV~~if ~~per~~any, ~~Share~~the ~~are~~operation ~~not~~of ~~measures~~a ~~calculated~~redemption inprogram ~~accordance~~would ~~with~~have ~~U.S.~~on ~~GAAP.~~the ~~NAV~~trading isprice ~~not~~of ~~intended~~the toShares, be a ~~substitute~~redemption ~~for~~program ~~the~~would ~~Trust’s~~allow ~~Principal~~Authorized ~~Market~~Participants ~~NAV~~to ~~calculated~~take inadvantage ~~accordance~~of ~~with~~arbitrage ~~U.S.~~opportunities ~~GAAP,~~created ~~and~~when ~~NAV~~the ~~per~~market ~~Share~~value isof ~~not~~the ~~intended~~Shares todeviates befrom athe ~~substitute~~value ~~for~~of the Trust’s ~~Principal~~ZEC, ~~Market~~less ~~NAV~~the ~~per~~Trust’s ~~Share~~expenses ~~calculated~~and inother ~~accordance~~liabilities, ~~with~~which ~~U.S.~~may ~~GAAP.~~have ~~Prior~~the toeffect ~~February~~of ~~23,~~reducing ~~2024,~~any ~~NAV~~premium ~~was~~or ~~referred~~discount toat aswhich ~~Digital~~the ~~Asset~~Shares ~~Holdings~~trade ~~and~~on ~~Principal~~OTCQX ~~Market~~over ~~NAV~~or ~~was~~below ~~referred~~such tovalue, asrespectively, ~~NAV~~which at times has been substantial.

AtFor ~~this~~a ~~time,~~discussion ~~the~~of ~~Trust~~risks isrelating ~~not~~to ~~operating~~the adeviation ~~redemption~~in ~~program~~the ~~for~~trading ~~Shares~~price ~~and~~of ~~therefore~~the Shares ~~are~~from ~~not~~the ~~redeemable~~NAV byper ~~the~~Share, ~~Trust~~see “Item 1A. InRisk ~~addition,~~Factors—Risk ~~the~~Factors ~~Trust~~Related ~~may~~to ~~halt~~the ~~creations~~Trust ~~for~~and ~~extended~~the ~~periods~~Shares—Because of ~~time~~the ~~for~~holding aperiod ~~variety~~under ofRule ~~reasons~~144, ~~including~~the inlack ~~connection~~of ~~with~~an ~~forks,~~ongoing ~~airdrops~~redemption program and ~~other~~the ~~similar~~Trust’s ~~occurrences.~~ability Asto ahalt ~~result~~creations from time to time, ~~Authorized~~there ~~Participants~~is ~~are~~no ~~not~~arbitrage ~~able~~mechanism to ~~take~~keep ~~advantage~~the value of ~~arbitrage~~the ~~opportunities~~Shares ~~created~~closely ~~when~~linked to the ~~market~~Index ~~value~~Price ofand the Shares ~~deviates~~have ~~from~~historically ~~the~~traded ~~value~~at ofa ~~the~~substantial ~~Trust’s~~premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share,” ~~which~~“Item ~~may~~1A. ~~cause~~Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The toShares may trade at a ~~substantial~~price ~~premium~~that ~~over~~is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a ~~substantial~~result ~~discount~~of tothe non-concurrent trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the ~~value~~Trust ofand the Shares—Shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment if the Shares trade above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.”

~~Subject~~Pursuant to ~~receipt~~the terms of ~~regulatory~~the ~~approval~~Trust ~~from~~Agreement, the ~~SEC~~Trust ~~and~~is ~~approval~~required byto dissolve under certain circumstances. In addition, the Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, dissolve the Trust ~~may~~for ~~in the future operate~~ a ~~redemption~~number ~~program.~~of ~~However~~reasons, ~~because~~including if the Sponsor ~~does~~determines, ~~not~~in ~~believe~~its sole discretion, that ~~the~~it ~~SEC~~is ~~would,~~desirable ator ~~this~~advisable ~~time,~~for ~~entertain~~any anreason ~~application~~to ~~for~~discontinue the ~~waiver~~affairs of ~~rules~~the ~~needed~~Trust. inFor ~~order~~example, toif ~~operate~~the anSponsor ~~ongoing~~determines ~~redemption~~that ~~program,~~ZEC ~~the~~is ~~Sponsor~~a ~~currently~~security ~~has~~under nothe ~~intention~~federal ofsecurities ~~seeking~~laws, ~~regulatory~~whether ~~approval~~that ~~from~~determination ~~the~~is ~~SEC~~initially ~~for~~made by the ~~Trust~~Sponsor toitself, ~~operate~~or anbecause ~~ongoing~~a ~~redemption~~federal ~~program.~~court ~~Even~~upholds ifan ~~such~~allegation ~~relief~~that ZEC is ~~sought~~a insecurity, the ~~future,~~Sponsor nodoes ~~assurance~~not ~~can~~intend beto ~~given~~permit asthe Trust to ~~the~~continue ~~timing~~holding ofZEC ~~such~~in ~~relief~~a orway that ~~such~~would ~~relief~~violate ~~will~~the befederal ~~granted.~~securities Iflaws ~~such~~(and ~~relief~~therefore iswould ~~granted~~either ~~and~~dissolve the ~~Sponsor~~Trust ~~approves~~or apotentially ~~redemption~~seek ~~program,~~to operate the ~~Shares~~Trust ~~will~~in bea ~~redeemable~~manner inthat ~~accordance~~complies with the ~~provisions~~federal ofsecurities ~~the~~laws, ~~Trust~~including ~~Agreement and~~ the ~~relevant~~Investment ~~Participant~~Company ~~Agreement.~~Act ~~Although~~of ~~the~~1940, ~~Sponsor~~as ~~cannot~~amended ~~predict~~(the ~~with~~“Investment ~~certainty~~Company ~~what~~Act”)). ~~effect,~~See if“—Description ~~any,~~of the ~~operation~~Trust Agreement—Termination of athe ~~redemption~~Trust” ~~program~~for ~~would~~additional ~~have~~discussion onof the ~~trading~~circumstances ~~price~~under ofwhich the ~~Shares,~~Trust acould ~~redemption~~be ~~program~~dissolved. ~~would~~See ~~allow~~“Item ~~Authorized~~1A. ~~Participants~~Risk toFactors—Risk ~~take~~Factors ~~advantage~~Related ofto ~~arbitrage opportunities created when~~ the ~~market~~Trust ~~value~~and of the Shares—A ~~deviates~~determination ~~from~~that ~~the value of the Trust’s~~ ZEC, ~~less~~or ~~the~~any ~~Trust’s~~other ~~expenses~~digital ~~and~~asset ~~other~~is ~~liabilities,~~a ~~which~~“security” may ~~have~~adversely affect the ~~effect~~value of ~~reducing~~ZEC ~~any~~and ~~premium~~the orvalue ~~discount~~of ~~at which~~ the Shares, ~~trade~~and onresult ~~OTCQX~~in ~~over~~potentially orextraordinary, ~~below~~nonrecurring ~~such~~expenses ~~value~~to, ~~respectively,~~or ~~which~~termination atof, ~~times~~the ~~has been substantial~~Trust.”

For a discussion of risks relating to the deviation in the trading price of the Shares from the NAV per Share, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program and the Trust’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-current trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—Shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment if the Shares trade above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.”

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 ZEC 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 ZEC is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding ZEC in a way that would violate the federal securities laws (and therefore would either dissolve the Trust or potentially seek to operate the Trust in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”)). See “—Description of the Trust Agreement—Termination of the Trust” for additional discussion of the circumstances under which the Trust could be dissolved. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—A determination that ZEC or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of ZEC 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, ~~2024~~2025, each Share represented approximately 0.~~0835~~0815 ZEC. The logistics of accepting, transferring and safekeeping of ZEC 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 ZEC by using the Shares instead of directly purchasing and holding ZEC, and for many investors, transaction costs related to the Shares will be lower than those associated with the direct purchase, storage and safekeeping of ZEC.

•

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

•

Minimal Credit Risk. The Shares represent an interest in actual ZEC owned by the Trust. The Trust’s ZEC are not subject to borrowing arrangements with third parties and are subject to counterparty and minimal credit risk with respect to the Custodian. This contrasts with the other financial products such as CoinShares exchange-traded notes, TeraExchange swaps, futures and 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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC are kept in cold storage, which means that the Trust’s ZEC are disconnected and/or deleted entirely from the internet. See “—Custody of the Trust’s ZEC” 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 ZEC are distributed geographically by the Custodian in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States. The locations of the secure vaults may change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes.

•

Enhanced Security. Transfers from the Trust’s Digital Asset Account require certain security procedures, including but not limited to, multiple encrypted private key shards, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification. Multiple private key shards held by the Custodian must be combined to reconstitute the private key to sign any transaction in order to transfer the Trust’s ZEC. 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 ZEC.

•

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 ZEC. The Trust directly owns actual ZEC held through the Custodian. This may differ from other digital asset financial vehicles that provide ZEC 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 ZEC transferred to the Trust as consideration in connection with the creations, (ii) transferring or selling ZEC, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency as necessary to cover the Sponsor’s Fee and/or any Additional Trust Expenses, (iii) transferring ZEC in exchange for Baskets surrendered for redemption (subject to obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC and approval from the Sponsor), (iv) causing the Sponsor to sell ZEC, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency on the termination of the Trust, (v) making distributions of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency or cash from the sale thereof and (vi) engaging in all administrative and security procedures necessary to accomplish such activities in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement, the Custodian Agreement, the 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, 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 ZEC.

Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

In determining whether the IR Virtual Currency is, or may be, a security under federal securities laws, the Sponsor takes into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under the federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security for purposes of the federal securities laws.

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

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

Secondary Market Trading

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

Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market

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

The value of ZEC is determined by the supply of and demand for ZEC on the Digital Asset Markets or in private end-user-to-end-user transactions.

Similar to the Bitcoin Network, the Zcash Network operates on a proof-of-work model. New ZEC are created and rewarded to the miners of a block in the Zcash Blockchain for verifying transactions. The Zcash Blockchain is effectively a decentralized database that includes all blocks that have been solved by miners and it is updated to include new blocks as they are solved. Each ZEC transaction is broadcast to the Zcash Network and, when included in a block, recorded in the Zcash Blockchain. As each new block records outstanding ZEC transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Zcash Blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions of the Zcash Network. For further details, see “—Creation of New ZEC.”

The Zcash Network is one of a number of projects intended to enhance blockchain technology. The Zcash Network’s primary enhancement of the blockchain was to add additional layers of privacy to traditional blockchain infrastructure so that users can make transactions that selectively discloses details related to those transactions. ZEC accomplishes this privacy preservation by using zk-SNARKs to protect both the amount and the sender and recipient of the transaction. The result is a private transaction known as a “shielded” transaction. From the inception of the Zcash Network through December 31, ~~2024~~2025, approximately 45% of Zcash transactions have been unshielded, 45% involved one party utilizing a shielded address, and 10% involved both parties utilizing a shielded address. On October 29, 2018, a Zcash Network upgrade called “Sapling” was activated. The purpose of Sapling was to improve the performance and functionality of shielded transactions to increase mobile, exchange and vendor adoption of shielded transactions and thus the Zcash Network’s overall privacy. The Sapling upgrade also removed a potential vulnerability, inadvertently created during the creation of Zcash, which allowed those charged with creating “shielded pools,” a term used to refer to groups of addresses capable of utilizing privacy-preserving features, to mint new ZEC without being detected. ~~More recently~~Additionally, on May 31, 2022, the Electric Coin Company announced the activation of the NU5 upgrade. This upgrade implements Halo, a type of cryptography technology invented by the Electric Coin Company, to remove the need for complex generation ceremonies and is intended to further the development of zero-knowledge proof cryptography.

Zcash is a derivative of Bitcoin that was created in October 28, 2016 by a team of scientists, advisers, and engineers of the Electric Coin Company (f/k/a the Zcash Company) (“ECC”). Rather than being a fork of the Bitcoin ~~network~~Network, in which Bitcoin owners would receive a proportionate number of ZEC tokens following the fork, Zcash is what is referred to as a “clone”, in which the codebase of Bitcoin was copied in order to produce the protocols underlying the Zcash ~~network~~Network, with the principal difference between the networks being the privacy-preserving features of Zcash created by the founders of Zcash. Because Zcash was a “clone” and not a fork, holders of Bitcoin did not receive any ZEC as part of the clone. Since its founding, ECC has aimed to enhance the uses of ZEC and researched the development of the scalability and usability of the network. In this role, ECC supports the development of ZEC by, among other things, reviewing and implementing upgrades that become part of the main implementation of ZEC. This is analogous to the Bitcoin network, in which a group of core developers, known as Bitcoin Core, have ultimate control over reviewing and implementing upgrades into Bitcoin Core, the most commonly used Bitcoin client.

Although Zcash is thus very similar to Bitcoin, there are several key differences between the Zcash Network and the Bitcoin ~~network~~Network. These differences include a block generation time of approximately 1.3 minutes for ZEC, as compared to 10 minutes for Bitcoin. Like Bitcoin, Zcash has a cap on the number of coins that will be created of 21 million. However, although all ZEC is mined, the Zcash code is designed such that, of the 21 million ZEC to be mined, 2.1 million ZEC ~~are~~were automatically allocated to the founders, employees and advisers of ECC, as well as to certain investors in ECC. This allocation is called the “Founders’ Reward.” To effect this, the Zcash code provides that for the first four years of ZEC’s existence, 80% of newly created ZEC went to miners, while 20% of newly created ZEC was allocated to the Founders’ Reward. After the first four years, the Founders’ Reward would be fully paid, and 100% of newly created ZEC would go to miners. The result was that 10% of ZEC’s fully diluted supply was automatically distributed to holders who themselves were not responsible for its mining.

Since its founding, ECC has aimed to enhance the uses of ZEC and researched the development of the scalability and usability of the network. In this role, ECC supports the development of ZEC by, among other things, reviewing and implementing upgrades that become part of the main implementation of ZEC. This is analogous to the Bitcoin Network, in which a group of core developers, known as Bitcoin Core, have ultimate control over reviewing and implementing upgrades into Bitcoin Core, the most commonly used Bitcoin client.Although ECC does not control the Zcash Network, it monitors the development of the Zcash Network and offers updates to the ZEC protocol which the public may choose to implement or ignore. ECC does not sell, exchange, transmit or retain custody of ZEC for consumers or the public at large. On January 7, 2026, former ECC Chief Executive Officer Josh Swihart stated on social media that on the previous day, “the entire ECC team left after being constructively discharged.”

In June 2019, in light of the expected expiration of the Founders’ Reward in November 2020, Zooko Wilcox, founder of ECC, expressed his support for a Dev Fund (as defined below) that, like the original Founders’ Reward, would allocate ZEC from “future block rewards for core support functions such as software development, user support, business development, regulatory and government outreach, security auditing and monitoring, educational and marketing initiatives and new protocol development.” The Zcash Foundation (the “Foundation”) conducted several rounds of community polling regarding whether and how a Dev Fund should be implemented. On February 14, 2020, the Foundation announced that community consensus and agreement had been reached on a final proposal, named “ZIP 1014,” which included a 20% block reward allocation for four years, split into the following three slices (collectively, the “Dev Fund”):

•

35% (7% of the total mining reward) for ECC;

•

25% (5% of the total mining reward) for the Foundation;

•

40% (8% of the total mining reward) for additional major grants for large-scale long-term projects to be determined by the Foundation, with additional community input and scrutiny.

On November 18, 2020, ZIP 1014 was implemented in an upgrade of the Zcash Network called Canopy. However, the original Founders’ Reward and the Dev Fund established under ZIP 1014 expired in late 2024 and no longer govern current block reward allocations.

Following the expiration of the Dev Fund established under ZIP 1014 at the Zcash ~~also~~Network’s second halving in November 2024, the Zcash Network implemented a ~~memory-hard~~revised ~~proof~~block ofreward ~~work~~allocation ~~algorithm~~structure in updates known as “NU6” and “NU6.1.” Under the current structure, ~~Equihash~~80% of newly created ZEC is allocated to miners, ~~which~~while ~~involves~~the ~~adding~~remaining a20% ~~memory~~is allocated to development-~~hard~~related ~~problem~~purposes. Of this 20%, a portion is directed to bea ~~solved~~community ingrants ~~valid~~program ~~blocks~~administered by the Foundation, ~~which~~and the remainder is allocated to a protocol-level funding mechanism intended to ~~result~~support infuture ~~less~~development ~~centralized~~initiatives, ~~hash~~with ~~power~~the use of such funds subject to network-level processes influenced by community and ZEC-holder inputs.

The Zcash Network is decentralized in that it does not require governmental authorities, financial institution intermediaries or others, including ECC, to create, transmit or determine the value of ZEC. Rather, ZEC is created and allocated by the Zcash Network protocol through a “mining” process. Although ECC does not control the Zcash Network, it monitors the development of the Zcash Network and offers updates to the ZEC protocol which the public may choose to implement or ignore. ECC does not sell, exchange, transmit or retain custody of ZEC for consumers or the public at large. The value of ZEC is determined by the supply of and demand for ZEC on the Digital Asset Trading Platforms or in private end-user-to-end-user transactions.

Similar to the Bitcoin network, the Zcash Network operates on a proof-of-work model. New ZEC are created and rewarded to the miners of a block in the Zcash Blockchain for verifying transactions. The Zcash Blockchain is effectively a decentralized database that includes all blocks that have been solved by miners and it is updated to include new blocks as they are solved. Each ZEC transaction is broadcast to the Zcash Network and, when included in a block, recorded in the Zcash Blockchain. As each new block records outstanding ZEC transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Zcash Blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions of the Zcash Network. For further details, see “—Creation of New ZEC.”

Similar to Bitcoin, ZEC can be used to pay for goods and services or can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on digital asset trading platforms or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system. Additionally, ZEC is used to pay for transaction fees to miners for verifying transactions on the Zcash Network.

Overview of the Zcash Network’s Operations

In order to own, transfer or use ZEC directly on the Zcash Network, as opposed to through an intermediary, such as a custodian, a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Zcash Network. ZEC transactions may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary. To prevent the possibility of double-spending ZEC, a user must notify the Zcash Network of the transaction by broadcasting certain transaction data to its network peers. The Zcash Network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing transactions in the Zcash Blockchain, in the case of public transactions, or through zero-knowledge proofs (i.e., zk-SNARKs) in the case of private transactions. This memorialization and verification against double-spending is accomplished through the Zcash Network mining process, which adds “blocks” of data, including certain transaction information, to the Zcash Blockchain. Although the Zcash Network is publicly accessible, it does not, by design, have the same level of transparency as the Bitcoin blockchain.

Brief Description of ZEC Transfers

There are two types of transactions that can occur on the Zcash Network: (1) unshielded transactions, which are very similar to the transactions that take place on other blockchains, such as the Bitcoin ~~network~~Network and the Ethereum network and (2) shielded transactions.

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

Each Zcash Network address, or wallet, is associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair. To receive ZEC, the ZEC 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~~with ~~consists of~~ the ~~recipient’s~~ private key associated with the ~~private key of the~~ address from ~~where~~which the ~~payor~~ZEC is ~~transferring~~being ~~the ZEC~~transferred. 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 ZEC contained in the associated address. Likewise, ZEC is irretrievably lost if the private key associated with them is deleted and no backup has been made. When sending ZEC, a user’s Zcash Network software program must validate the transaction with the associated private key. The resulting digitally validated transaction is sent by the user’s Zcash Network software program to the Zcash Network to allow transaction confirmation.

Shielded transactions utilize a scientific breakthrough in the field of cryptography known as “zero-knowledge proofs.” Zero-knowledge proofs allow users to prove knowledge of some facts about hidden information without revealing that information by encrypting certain aspects of the transaction. Ordinarily, if a blockchain’s transaction data is encrypted, nodes in the blockchain cannot determine whether senders really held the tokens they sent, whether they previously sent it to someone else or whether they never had it in the first place. The encrypted data becomes unverifiable by network nodes.

With ZEC, a particular type of zero-knowledge proof called zk-SNARKs solves this problem. In a ZEC shielded transaction, the sender provides a string of data that makes up the “zero-knowledge proof” and encrypted transaction data, which proves properties of the encrypted data cryptographically, including that the sender could not have generated a specific string unless the sender had ownership over the private key and unless the input and output values were equal. The proof also guarantees creation of a unique nullifier which is used to mark tokens as spent, when they are, in fact spent. In other words, zero-knowledge proofs allow verifiability without compromising confidentiality.

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

In contrast to on-blockchain transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Zcash Blockchain, information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. Therefore, off-blockchain transactions are not truly ZEC transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Zcash Network and do not reflect a movement of ZEC between addresses recorded in the Zcash Blockchain. For these reasons, off-blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of ZEC ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Zcash Network or recorded in, and validated through, the blockchain mechanism.

Creation of New ZEC

Initial Creation of ZEC

The initial creation of ZEC as part of the first Zcash Network block, or genesis block, was conducted on October 28, 2016. All additional ZEC have been, and will be, created through the mining process. In order to minimize the impact of any unforeseen problems during the launch of the Zcash Network, the amount of ZEC created each time a block was mined started at zero and gradually increased to 12.5 ZEC after 34 days. The slow-start period ended on December 1, 2016.

during the launch of the Zcash Network, the amount of ZEC created each time a block was mined started at zero and gradually increased to 12.5 ZEC after 34 days. The slow-start period ended on December 1, 2016.

Mining Process

The Zcash Network is kept running by computers all over the world. In order to incentivize those who incur the computational costs of securing the network by validating transactions, there is a reward that is given to the computer that was able to create the latest block on the chain. As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, every 1.3 minutes, on average, a new block is added to the Zcash Blockchain with the latest transactions processed by the network and the computer that generated this block will be rewarded 31.~~125~~5625 newly minted ZEC. Due to the nature of the algorithm for block generation, this process (generating a “proof-of-work”) is guaranteed to be random. Over time rewards are expected to be proportionate to the computational power of each machine.

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

To begin mining, a user can download and run Zcash Network mining software~~, which turns the user’s computer into a “node” on the Zcash Network that validates blocks~~. Each block contains the details of some or all of the most recent transactions that are not memorialized in prior blocks, as well as a record of the award of ZEC to the miner who added the new block. Each unique block can be solved and added to the Zcash Blockchain by only one miner. Therefore, all individual miners and mining pools on the Zcash Network are engaged in a competitive process of constantly increasing their computing power to improve their likelihood of solving for new blocks. As more miners join the Zcash Network and its processing power increases, the Zcash Network adjusts the complexity of the block-solving equation to maintain a predetermined pace of adding a new block to the Zcash Blockchain approximately every 1.3 minutes. A miner’s proposed block is added to the Zcash Blockchain once a majority of the nodes on the Zcash Network confirms the miner’s work. Miners that are successful in adding a block to the Zcash Blockchain are automatically ~~rewarded~~awarded ZEC for their effort and may also receive transaction fees paid by transferors whose transactions are recorded in the block. This reward system is the method by which new ZEC enter into circulation to the public.

Limits on ZEC Supply

The Zcash Network is structured to allow a maximum of 21 million ZEC to be created, which are mined over time with the creation of each new block. ~~Currently, one ZEC is created every 1.3 minutes, on average.~~ During the first four years of ZEC’s existence, 80% of newly created ZEC was distributed to miners, while 20% of newly created ZEC was allocated to the founders, employees and advisers of ECC, as well as to certain investors in ECC. This allocation is called the “Founders’ Reward.” Every four years, the rate of ZEC being created will halve, just as it does for Bitcoin. The end result is that there will ultimately be 21 million ZEC in existence, and 10% of it, or 2.1 million, will have been distributed to the Founders’ Reward. AsIn of November 2020, the Zcash community voted to approve extending the Founders’ Reward for four more years until the next halving. Following the expiration of the Founder’s Reward in November 2024, the Zcash Network implemented a revised block reward allocation structure. Under the current structure, 80% of newly created ZEC is allocated to miners, while the remaining 20% is allocated to development-related purposes. Of this 20%, a portion is directed to a community grants program administered by the Foundation, and the remainder is allocated to a protocol-level funding mechanism intended to support future development initiatives, with the use of such funds subject to network-level processes influenced by community and ZEC-holder inputs.

As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, approximately 16.35 million ZEC were outstanding, and estimates of when the 21 million ZEC limitation will be reached range from at or near the year 2035.

Modifications to the ZEC Protocol

Although the Zcash Network is an open-source project, historically ECC has supported the development of ZEC. ECC is able to access, and can alter, the Zcash Network source code and, as a result, they are responsible for quasi-official releases of updates and other changes to the Zcash Network’s source code.

For example, the first network upgrade, called “Overwinter”, was implemented on June 26, 2018. The purpose of Overwinter was to make initial upgrades on which future upgrades could be built. The next upgrade, called “Sapling”, was implemented on October 29, 2018. The purpose of Sapling was to improve the performance and functionality of shielded transactions to increase mobile, exchange and vendor adoption of shielded transactions and thus the Zcash Network’s overall privacy. The next upgrade, called “Blossom”, was implemented on October 28, 2019. The purpose of Blossom was to increase the frequency of blocks, which were previously mined approximately once every 2.5 minutes, to increase the network’s speed and usability. “Canopy” implemented on November 18, 2020 established a development fund along with 5 other minor Zcash Improvement Proposals. “NU5”, which occurred May 31, 2022, was intended to further the development of zero-knowledge proof cryptography and bolster the Zcash Network’s privacy enhancing features. Subsequent upgrades implemented in 2024 and 2025, referred to as “NU6” and “NU6.1,” respectively, modified certain block reward allocation and funding mechanics following the expiration of the prior Dev Fund, without altering the Zcash Network’s consensus mechanism or core privacy features.

~~approximately~~would ~~once~~transfer ~~every~~the ~~2.5~~duties ~~minutes,~~of tosecuring ~~increase~~ the network’s ~~speed~~from ~~and~~miners ~~usability.~~to ~~“Canopy”~~stakers, ~~implemented~~who ondedicate ~~November 18~~ZEC, ~~2020~~rather ~~established~~than aspecialized ~~development~~hardware, ~~fund~~to ~~along~~validate ~~with~~network ~~5 other minor Zcash Improvement Proposals~~transactions. ~~The~~It ~~most~~was ~~recent~~projected ~~upgrade,~~this ~~“NU5”,~~transition ~~occurred~~will ~~May~~take ~~31,~~approximately ~~2022~~three ~~and~~years ~~is intended~~ to ~~further~~implement, ~~the~~though ~~development~~as of ~~zero-knowledge~~December ~~proof~~31, ~~cryptography~~2025, ~~and~~such ~~bolster~~a ~~the~~transition ~~Zcash~~had ~~Network’s~~not ~~privacy~~yet ~~enhancing features~~occurred.

On November 19, 2021, the Electric Coin Company announced its intention to support a shift from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanisms underlying the Zcash Network. While full details about this change have not been crystallized, this shift would transfer the duties of securing the network from miners to stakers, who dedicate ZEC, rather than specialized hardware, to validate network transactions. It is projected this transition will take approximately three years to implement.

The release of updates to the Zcash Network’s source code does not guarantee that the updates will be automatically adopted. Users and miners must accept any changes made to the Zcash source code by downloading the proposed modification of the Zcash Network’s source code. A modification of the Zcash Network’s source code is effective only with respect to the Zcash users and miners that download it. If a modification is accepted by only a percentage of users and miners, a division in the Zcash Network will 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 Zcash Network only if accepted by participants collectively having most of the processing power on the Zcash Network.

Forms of Attack Against the Zcash Network

All networked systems are vulnerable to various kinds of attacks. As with any computer network, the Zcash Network contains certain flaws. For example, the Zcash Network is currently vulnerable to a “51% attack” where, if a mining pool were to gain control of more than 50% of the hash rate for a digital asset, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the network and the ability to manipulate the Zcash Blockchain.

In addition, many digital asset networks have been subjected to a number of denial of service attacks, which has led to temporary delays in block creation and the transfer of digital assets. Any similar attacks on the Zcash Network that impact the ability to transfer ZEC could have a material adverse effect on the price of ZEC and the value of the Shares. This is not intended as an exhaustive list of all forms of attack against the Zcash Network. For additional information, see “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets.”

Because ZEC is a privacy-preserving digital asset, it is also subject to certain types of attacks that may go undetected. For example, on February 5, 2019, the team behind Zcash announced that it discovered a vulnerability in its zk-SNARK implementation on March 1, 2018 that was subsequently patched in connection with a network upgrade called “Sapling” in October 2018. The vulnerability was a counterfeiting vulnerability that could have allowed an attacker to exploit a flaw in the original protocol implementation to create extra code elements in the zero-knowledge proof cryptography, which would create fake ZEC on the Zcash ~~network~~Network without being detected. Although the privacy features prevent one from being certain no ZEC or ZEN were counterfeited, the team behind Zcash found no evidence that counterfeiting occurred prior to the patch and believes the vulnerability has been fully remediated. For additional information see “—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets—The cryptography used to enhance the privacy of transactions on the Zcash Network is new and could ultimately fail, or could be used to facilitate illicit activities, and businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEC may be at increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having services cut off, which could negatively affect the price of ZEC and the value of the Shares.”

Market Participants

Miners

Miners range from ZEC enthusiasts to professional mining operations that design and build dedicated machines and data centers, including mining pools, which are groups of miners that act cohesively and combine their processing power to solve blocks (in the case of proof-of-work) or stake coins (in the case of proof-of-stake). When a pool mines a new block, the pool operator receives the ZEC and, after taking a nominal fee, splits the resulting reward among the pool participants based on the processing power each of them contributed to mine such block. Mining pools provide participants with access to smaller, but steadier and more frequent, ZEC payouts. See “—Creation of New ZEC” 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 ZEC transactions through the direct sending of ZEC over the Zcash Network. While the use of Bitcoin to purchase goods and services from commercial or service businesses is developing, ZEC has not yet been accepted in the same manner because ZEC has a slightly different purpose than Bitcoin. ZEC’s primary purpose is its use in privacy-preserving transactions on the Zcash Network. In the year ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025, the Zcash Network facilitated publicly-visible daily transaction values between approximately $5.95 million and approximately $~~233~~2.9 ~~million~~billion, though by design shielded transactions are not publicly-visible on the Zcash Network and the total value of daily transactions was likely much higher. For reference, the Bitcoin Network facilitated daily transaction values between approximately $2.9 billion and $5754.65 billion over the same period. If ZEC’s privacy-preserving 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 ZEC. For example, Coinbase, Kraken, ~~Bitfinex~~ and Gemini are some of the largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms by volume traded. For storing ZEC, Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, the Custodian for the Trust, is a digital asset custodian that provides custodial accounts that store ZEC for users. As the Zcash 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 Zcash 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 ~~ZEC~~the Zcash Network has enjoyed some success in its limited history, the aggregate value of outstanding ZEC is smaller than that of Bitcoin and may be eclipsed by the more rapid development of other digital assets. In particular, ~~Monero~~XMR, ~~Dash~~DASH and ~~Oasis~~ROSE ~~Network~~ are three privacy-enabling digital assets that are direct competitors to ZEC. Usage by any other digital asset network of these features could cause them to gain greater or more rapid acceptance than the Zcash Network.

Some industry groups ~~are~~have also ~~creating~~created private, permissioned ~~blockchain versions of digital assets~~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. ~~Similar events may occur with ZEC.~~

ZEC Value

Digital Asset Trading Platform Valuation

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

Digital Asset Trading Platform Public Market Data

On each online Digital Asset Trading Platform, ZEC 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, ~~2024~~2025, the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index were Coinbase, ~~Bitfinex,~~ Kraken and Gemini. AsThe ~~further described below, 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 ~~Trading~~inclusion ~~Platform~~criteria ~~Category~~ and ~~Jurisdiction~~jurisdiction, as detailed below, and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-customer (“KYC”) regulations.

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

~~Bitfinex~~Kraken: A ~~British Virgin Islands~~ U.S.-based trading platform. ~~Bitfinex~~that ~~does~~has ~~not~~entities ~~hold~~registered ~~any~~as ~~licenses~~MSBs orwith ~~registrations~~FinCEN, inand ~~the~~that ~~U.S.~~is ~~and~~licensed isas ~~not~~a ~~available~~money totransmitter in various U.S. ~~based~~states ~~customers.~~and ~~Bitfinex~~chartered ~~is categorized by the Index Provider~~ as a ~~“Category~~Special 2”Purpose ~~trading~~Depository ~~platform~~Institution ~~which~~by ~~meets~~ the ~~Inclusion~~Wyoming ~~Criteria~~Division ~~outlined~~of ~~below~~Banking. ~~but~~Kraken isdoes ~~non-U.S.~~not ~~licensed~~hold a BitLicense.

~~Kraken~~Gemini: A U.S.-based trading platform that has entities registered as anMSBs ~~MSB~~ with FinCEN and that is licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states. ~~Kraken~~Gemini ~~does~~also ~~not~~has ~~hold~~a New York entity that holds a limited purpose trust charter and has received approval from the NYDFS to engage in virtual currency business activity and is exempt from applying for a BitLicense. under the framework established by NYDFS because of their trust charter under New York Banking Law.

Gemini: A U.S.-based trading platform registered as an MSB with FinCEN and licensed as 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 NY Banking Law.11

Currently, there are several Digital Asset Trading Platforms operating worldwide and online Digital Asset Trading Platforms represent a substantial percentage of ZEC buying and selling activity and provide the most data with respect to prevailing valuations of ZEC. 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 ZEC. The below table reflects the trading volume in ZEC and market share of the ZEC-U.S. dollar trading pairs of each of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, ~~2024~~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, 2024(1)	Volume (ZEC)		Market Share(2)
Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2025(1)	Volume (ZEC)		Market Share(2)
Coinbase		5685,~~181~~734,~~296~~284		3542.1327	%
Bitfinex		29,900,943		18.70	%
Kraken		31,797,057		15.68	%
Kraken		20,350,098		12.73	%
Gemini		10,853,992		5.35	%
Gemini		10,010,526		6.26	%
Total ZEC-U.S. Dollar trading pair		128,385,333		63.30	%
Total ZEC-USD trading pair		116,442,863		72.82	%

(1)

On ~~July~~December 2821, ~~2024~~2025, the Index Provider ~~added~~removed Bitfinex ~~to the Index due to the trading platform meeting the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement as part of its scheduled quarterly review, and removed Gemini~~ from the Index due to the trading platform failing to meet the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement~~. On December 22~~, ~~2024, the Index Provider added back Gemini to the Index due to the trading platform meeting the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement,~~ and did not ~~remove~~add any Constituent Trading Platforms as part of its scheduled quarterly review.

(2)

Market share is calculated using trading volume (in ZEC) for certain Digital Asset Trading Platforms including, Coinbase, Gemini, ~~Bitfinex~~ and Kraken, 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, ~~2024~~2025, including Bitfinex, Binance.US (data included from July 22, 2020 to June 26, 2023), Bittrex (data included from January 1, 2019 to December 3, 2023), HitBTC (data included from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019), and OKCoin (data included from December 25, 2018 to February 5, 2020 and from October 23, 2025).

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.

12Although the Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of ZEC, third parties may be able to purchase and sell ZEC 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 ZEC 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 32.50% 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 11.98%. 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 0.67%. 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 ZEC.

Although the Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of ZEC, third parties may be able to purchase and sell ZEC 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 ZEC 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, 2024, 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 7.93% 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 5.01%. 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 0.06%. 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 ZEC.

The Index and the Index Price

The Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of ZEC. The Index is designed to (1) mitigate the effects of fraud, manipulation and other anomalous trading activity from impacting the ZEC reference rate, (2) provide a real-time, volume-weighted fair value of ZEC 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. ~~Prior to February 23, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings and NAV per Share was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings per Share.~~

Constituent Trading Platform Selection

~~The~~ Digital Asset Trading Platforms ~~that~~ are ~~included~~selected for inclusion in the Index ~~are~~based ~~selected~~on a methodology developed by the Index Provider ~~utilizing~~in aalignment ~~methodology~~with ~~that is guided by~~ the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) ~~principles~~Principles for ~~financial~~Financial ~~benchmarks~~Benchmarks. ~~For~~To aqualify ~~trading~~as ~~platform to become~~ a Constituent Trading Platform, ita ~~must~~platform ~~satisfy~~is evaluated across the following core criteria listed below (the “Inclusion Criteria”):

•

NoMarket ~~evidence~~Quality: inOverall ~~the~~liquidity, ~~past 12 months of~~ trading ~~restrictions~~activity, onprice ~~individuals~~reliability, orand ~~entities~~market ~~that would otherwise meet the trading platform’s eligibility requirements to trade;~~stability.

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

•

~~Real-time~~Security: ~~price~~Cybersecurity ~~discovery;~~safeguards, custody practices, and operational risk controls.

•

~~Limited~~Legal orand noRegulatory: ~~capital~~Licensing ~~controls;~~status, regulatory compliance, and legal transparency.

•

~~Transparent~~KYC: ~~ownership~~Assessment ~~including~~of aanti-money ~~publicly~~laundering (“AML”) and know-~~known~~your-customer ~~ownership~~(“KYC”) ~~entity;~~frameworks, transaction monitoring capabilities, and market oversight.

•

~~Publicly~~Data ~~available~~Provision: ~~language and policies addressing legal and regulatory compliance~~Quality, ~~including KYC (Know Your Customer)~~accessibility, ~~AML (Anti-Money Laundering)~~ and ~~other~~reliability ~~policies~~of ~~designed~~trading todata ~~comply~~and ~~with~~technical ~~relevant regulations that might apply to it; and~~infrastructure.

•

~~Offer~~Transparency: ~~programmatic~~Financial ~~spot~~and ~~trading~~operational ~~of the trading pair~~disclosures, ~~and~~including ~~reliably~~reserve ~~publish trade prices~~ and ~~volumes~~governance ~~on a real-time basis through Rest and Websocket APIs~~transparency.

•

~~All~~Team: ~~trading~~Assessment ~~platforms~~of ~~that~~executive ~~meet~~leadership, ~~these~~relevant ~~Inclusion~~experience, ~~Criteria~~organizational ~~will~~structure, beand ~~assigned~~service toofferings ~~one~~across ~~trading~~institutional ~~platform~~and ~~Category~~retail ~~as defined by the additional criteria below:~~markets.

•

~~Category~~Negative 1Events: The Index Provider may apply a downward adjustment for material adverse events, including data breaches, regulatory penalties, withdrawal freezes, or other significant incidents.

~~Licensed~~Trading platforms that meet these Inclusion Criteria are also required to be licensed and~~/or~~ able to serve ~~investors,~~customers ~~retail~~in one or ~~professional,~~more inof the ~~U.S.;~~following ~~and~~jurisdictions:

•

~~Maintain~~United ~~sufficient~~States ~~USD~~(FinCEN, orstate ~~USDC~~regulatory ~~liquidity relative to the size of the listed assets.~~authorities)

•

13United Kingdom (FCA)

•

~~Category~~European 2Union (MiCA passport)

•

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

•

~~United~~Singapore ~~Kingdom~~(MAS)

•

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

•

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

~~Hong~~A ~~Kong~~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 trading platforms that require additional support from contributing trading platforms 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. ZEC derivative markets are also not currently included as the markets remain relatively thin. 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 ZEC derivatives and the aforementioned Inclusion Criteria when considering whether to include over-the-counter or derivative platform data in the future.

Singapore; and

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

A Digital Asset Trading Platform is removed from the Constituent Trading Platforms when it no longer satisfies the Inclusion Criteria. 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. ZEC derivative markets are also not currently included as the markets remain relatively thin. 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 ZEC 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 ~~any~~certain ~~material~~ changes to the Constituent Trading Platforms, including any additions or removals of the Constituent Trading Platforms, in addition to issuing press releases in connection with the same. The Sponsor will ~~notify~~provide ~~investors~~updates of ~~any~~ such ~~material~~changes ~~event~~in bythe ~~filing~~Trust’s aquarterly ~~current~~reports ~~report~~ on Form 810-KQ. 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.

1413

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 ZEC 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 ZEC price movements than a simple average of Digital Asset Trading Platform spot prices, and that the weighting of ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC, 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 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 ZEC, 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 ZEC for operational purposes by reference to the Index Price. The Index Price is the value of a ZEC 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 ~~Bitstamp~~Gemini.

•

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.

1514

~~Price-Variance~~period ~~Weighting:~~and ~~The~~continue ~~price-variance~~to ~~weighting~~do ~~adjustment~~so isuntil aits ~~relative~~influence ~~measure~~was ofeffectively ~~each~~zero. ~~trading~~As ~~platform~~soon ~~versus~~as ~~the cohort of~~ trading ~~platforms.~~activity ~~The~~resumed ~~further the price~~ at ~~a constituent trading platform is from~~ the ~~mean~~Constituent ~~price~~Trading ~~of the cohort~~Platform, the ~~less~~index ~~influence that trading platform’s price will have on the~~ algorithm ~~that~~would ~~produces~~re-weight ~~the~~it ~~Index~~to ~~Price, as~~ the ~~trading~~appropriate ~~platform~~weighting ~~data~~factoring ~~is discretely weighted~~ in ~~proportion to their variance from~~ the ~~rest~~period of ~~the trading platforms on a per-second basis~~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

~~On January 11, 2022, the Sponsor changed the cascading set of rules used to determine the Index Price.~~ 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 and criminal investigations, enforcement actions and other regulatory activity across the digital asset ecosystem. 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.”

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. (“Binance”) and Coinbase, Inc. (“Coinbase”), and in November 2023, the SEC brought charges against Kraken, alleging that they operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In its complaints, the SEC asserted that several digital assets are securities under the federal securities laws. The outcomes of these proceedings, as well as ongoing and future regulatory actions, have had a material adverse effect on the digital asset industry as a whole and on the price of ZEC, and may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares and/or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate. Additionally, U.S. state and federal, and foreign regulators and legislatures have taken action against virtual currency businesses or enacted restrictive regimes in response to adverse publicity arising from hacks, consumer harm, or criminal activity stemming from virtual currency activity.15

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

~~The~~On ~~SEC~~January ~~has~~23, ~~taken steps to interpret its existing authorities as covering various digital asset activities. For example~~2025, ~~the~~President ~~SEC~~Trump ~~has~~issued ~~previously~~an ~~proposed~~executive ~~amendments~~order totitled ~~the~~“Strengthening ~~custody~~American ~~rules~~Leadership ~~under~~in ~~Rule~~Digital ~~206(4)-2~~Financial ofTechnology” ~~the~~aimed ~~Investment~~at ~~Advisers~~supporting ~~Act. The proposed rule changes would amend~~ “the ~~definition~~responsible ofgrowth ~~a “qualified custodian” under Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6)~~ and ~~expand~~use ~~the~~of ~~current custody rule under Rule 206(4)-2 to cover~~ digital assets, ~~and~~blockchain ~~related advisory activities. If enacted as proposed~~technology, ~~these rules would likely impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to the custody~~ and ~~storage~~related oftechnologies ~~digital~~across ~~assets~~all ~~and~~sectors ~~could lead to additional regulatory oversight~~ of the ~~digital asset ecosystem more broadly~~economy.” ItThe isexecutive ~~also~~order ~~possible~~established ~~that~~an ainteragency ~~new~~working ~~Administration~~group ~~and~~tasked awith ~~new Congress in the United States propose new laws and regulations related to digital assets. See~~ “~~Item~~proposing ~~1A.~~a ~~Risk~~Federal ~~Factors—Risk~~regulatory ~~Factors~~framework ~~Related~~governing to the ~~Regulation~~issuance ~~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 ZEC, mining activity or the~~ operation of ~~the~~digital ~~Zcash~~assets” ~~Network or the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market~~ in ~~a manner that adversely affects~~ the ~~value~~United ~~of the Shares,” “Item 1A~~States. ~~Risk~~Pursuant ~~Factors—Risk Factors Related~~ to ~~the~~this ~~Regulation~~executive ~~of Digital Assets~~order, the ~~Trust~~working ~~and~~group ~~the~~released ~~Shares—A determination that ZEC or any other digital asset is~~ a ~~“security”~~report ~~may~~in ~~adversely~~July ~~affect~~2025 ~~the~~outlining ~~value of ZEC and~~ the ~~value~~administration's ofrecommendations ~~the~~to ~~Shares,~~Congress and ~~result~~various inagencies ~~potentially~~reflecting ~~extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of,~~ the ~~Trust”~~administration's ~~and~~ “~~Item~~pro-innovation ~~1A.~~mindset ~~Risk~~toward ~~Factors—Risk~~digital ~~Factors~~assets ~~Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust~~ and ~~the~~blockchain ~~Shares—Changes in SEC policy could adversely impact the value of the Shares~~technologies.”

17In 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 also has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants including the Zcash Foundation in January 2026. 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 ZEC, mining activity or the operation of the Zcash 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 ZEC or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of ZEC 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 ZEC by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the Zcash ecosystem in the United States and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of the ZEC held by the Trust. The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or the ZEC held by the Trust is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.

See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares—Regulatory changes or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of ZEC, mining activity or the operation of the Zcash 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 October 24, 2017 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, as amended (“DSTA”). On January 11, 2019, the Trust changed its name from Zcash Investment Trust to Grayscale Zcash Trust (ZEC) 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 ZEC is held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust’s ZEC will be transferred out of the Digital Asset Account only in the following circumstances: (i) transferred to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expenses, (ii) sold on an as-needed basis to pay Additional Trust Expenses or (iii) sold on behalf of the Trust in the event the Trust terminates and liquidates its assets or as otherwise required by law or regulation. Assuming that the Trust is treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery or sale of ZEC 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.”

18The 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 ZEC derivatives, including ZEC futures contracts, on any futures exchange. The Trust is authorized solely to take immediate delivery of actual ZEC. The Sponsor does

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 ZEC derivatives, including ZEC futures contracts, on any futures exchange. The Trust is authorized solely to take immediate delivery of actual ZEC. 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 ZEC derivatives, including ZEC 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 ZEC futures contracts on regulated futures exchanges.17

~~The~~not ~~Trust~~believe ~~creates~~the ~~Shares~~Trust’s ~~from~~activities ~~time~~are required to ~~time~~be ~~but~~regulated ~~only~~by inthe ~~Baskets.~~CFTC Aunder ~~Basket~~the ~~equals~~CEA as a ~~block~~“commodity ofpool” ~~100~~under ~~Shares.~~current ~~The~~law, ~~number~~regulation ofand ~~outstanding~~interpretation. ~~Shares~~The isTrust ~~expected~~will tonot ~~increase~~be ~~from~~operated ~~time~~by ~~to time as~~ a ~~result~~CFTC-regulated ofcommodity ~~the~~pool ~~creation~~operator ofbecause ~~Baskets.~~it ~~The creation of Baskets~~ will ~~require~~not ~~the~~trade, ~~delivery~~buy, tosell ~~the~~or ~~Trust~~hold ofZEC ~~the~~derivatives, ~~amount~~including of ZEC ~~represented~~futures bycontracts, ~~the~~on ~~Baskets~~any ~~being~~futures ~~created~~exchange. ~~The~~Investors ~~creation of a Basket will be made only~~ in ~~exchange for~~ the ~~delivery~~Trust towill ~~the~~not ~~Trust~~receive of the ~~amount~~regulatory ofprotections ~~whole~~afforded ~~and~~to ~~fractional~~investors ~~ZEC~~in ~~represented~~regulated bycommodity ~~each Basket being created~~pools, ~~the~~nor ~~amount~~may ~~of which is determined by dividing (x)~~ the ~~amount~~COMEX division of ~~ZEC owned by~~ the ~~Trust at 4:00 p.m.,~~ New York ~~time,~~Mercantile onExchange ~~the~~or ~~relevant~~any ~~trade~~futures ~~date,~~exchange ~~after~~enforce ~~deducting~~its ~~the~~rules ~~amount~~with ofrespect ~~ZEC~~to ~~representing~~ the ~~U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the~~ Trust’s ~~(converted~~activities. ~~using~~In ~~the Index Price at such time~~addition, ~~and~~investors ~~carried~~in to the ~~eighth~~Trust ~~decimal~~will ~~place)~~not bybenefit ~~(y)~~from the ~~number~~protections ofafforded ~~Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated~~ to ~~one~~investors ~~one-hundred-millionth~~in ~~of one~~ ZEC ~~(i.e.,~~futures ~~carried~~contracts toon ~~the~~regulated ~~eighth~~futures ~~decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100~~exchanges.

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

~~Each~~The ~~Share~~Trust ~~represented~~creates ~~approximately~~Shares ~~0.0835~~from ~~ZEC~~time asto oftime ~~December~~but ~~31,~~only ~~2024. Each Share~~ in ~~the initial~~ Baskets ~~represented approximately 0~~.1 ~~ZEC.~~A ~~The~~Basket ~~amount~~equals ~~of ZEC required to create~~ a ~~Basket~~block isof ~~expected~~100 toShares. ~~continue~~See“—Description toof ~~gradually~~Creation ~~decrease~~and ~~over~~Redemption ~~time~~of ~~due~~Shares.” toThe ~~the~~Sponsor ~~transfer~~will ordetermine ~~sale of~~ the Trust’s ~~ZEC~~NAV toon ~~pay~~each ~~the~~business ~~Sponsor’s~~day ~~Fee~~as ~~and~~of ~~any~~4:00 ~~Additional Trust Expenses~~p.m., ~~The~~New ~~Trust~~York ~~will~~time, ~~not accept~~ or ~~distribute~~as ~~cash~~soon inthereafter ~~exchange~~as ~~for Baskets other than upon its dissolution~~practicable. ~~Authorized~~The ~~Participants~~Sponsor ~~may~~will ~~sell~~also todetermine ~~other investors~~ the ~~Shares~~NAV ~~they~~per ~~purchase~~Share, ~~from~~which ~~the~~equals ~~Trust only in transactions exempt from registration under~~ the ~~Securities~~NAV ~~Act.~~divided ~~For~~by ~~a discussion of risks relating to~~ the ~~unavailability~~number of aoutstanding ~~redemption program, see “Item 1A~~Shares. ~~Risk~~Each ~~Factors—Risk~~business ~~Factors~~day, ~~Related to~~ the ~~Trust~~Sponsor ~~and~~will ~~the~~publish ~~Shares—Because of~~ the ~~holding~~Trust’s ~~period~~NAV ~~under~~and ~~Rule~~NAV ~~144,~~per ~~the~~Share ~~lack~~on ~~of an ongoing redemption program and~~ the Trust’s ~~ability~~website, ~~to halt creations from time to time~~grayscale.com/funds/grayscale-zcash-trust/, ~~there~~as issoon noas ~~arbitrage~~practicable ~~mechanism~~after ~~to keep~~ the ~~value~~Trust’s ofNAV ~~the Shares closely linked to the Index Price~~ and ~~the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the~~ NAV per Share” ~~and~~have ~~“Item~~been ~~1A.~~determined ~~Risk~~by ~~Factors—Risk Factors Related to~~ the ~~Trust~~Sponsor. ~~and~~See ~~the Shares~~“—~~The~~Valuation ~~restrictions~~of onZEC ~~transfer~~ and ~~redemption~~Determination ~~may result in losses on the value~~ of ~~the Shares~~NAV.”

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

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

19ZEC pricing information is available on a 24-hour basis from various financial information service providers or Zcash 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, and Gemini. 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.

ZEC pricing information is available on a 24-hour basis from various financial information service providers or Zcash 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, 2024, the Constituent Trading Platforms of the Index were Coinbase, Gemini, Bitfinex and Kraken. 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 ~~wholly~~consolidated ~~owned~~ subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“DCG”). See “~~Item~~—Overview ~~7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis~~ of ~~Financial~~the ~~Condition~~Trust and ~~Results~~the ~~of Operations—Recent Developments~~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 ~~sole~~indirect ~~equity~~parent ~~holder~~company of the Sponsor, is not responsible for the debts, obligations and liabilities of the Sponsor solely by reason of being the ~~sole~~indirect ~~equity~~parent ~~holder~~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 quotation of the Shares on OTCQX. As partial consideration for its receipt of the Sponsor’s Fee from the Trust, the Sponsor is obligated to pay the Sponsor-paid Expenses. The Sponsor also paid the costs of the Trust’s organization and the costs of the initial sale of the Shares.

The Sponsor is generally responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Trust under the provisions of the Trust Agreement. This includes (i) preparing and providing periodic reports and financial statements on behalf of the Trust for investors, (ii) processing 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 ZEC, as needed to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses, (vi) upon dissolution of the Trust, distributing the Trust’s remaining ZEC, Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency or the cash proceeds of the sale thereof to the owners of record of the Shares and (vii) establishing the principal market for U.S. GAAP valuation. In addition, if there is a fork in the Zcash Network after which there is a dispute as to which network resulting from the fork is the Zcash Network, the Sponsor has the authority to select the network that it believes in good faith is the Zcash 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 ZEC but instead has entered into the Custodian Agreement with the Custodian to facilitate the security of the Trust’s ZEC.

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 ZEC.”

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 under “—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC 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.

Distribution and Marketing Agreement

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

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

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 ZCASH 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.~~

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.

The Trustee

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Transfer Agent

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

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

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

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

Authorized Participants

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

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

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

since October 3, 2022, Genesis ceased acting as an Authorized Participant of the Trust, but served as a Liquidity Provider to Grayscale Securities from October 3, 2022 through September 12, 2023.

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

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

The Custodian

Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC is a fiduciary under § 100 of the New York Banking Law and a qualified custodian for purposes of Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6) under the Investment Advisers Act. The Custodian is authorized to serve as the Trust’s custodian under the Trust Agreement and pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Custodian Agreement. The Custodian has its principal office at 200 Park Avenue South, Suite 1208, New York, ~~New~~NY ~~York~~ 10003. A copy of the Custodian Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ZEC custody services or similar services provided by entities other than Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC at any time without prior notice to Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC.

Custody of the Trust’s ZEC

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

Key Generation

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

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

Key Storage

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

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

Security Procedures

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

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 ZEC to the Digital Asset Account will be available to the Trust once processed on the Blockchain.

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

The Distributor and Marketer

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

In its capacity as distributor and marketer, Grayscale Securities assists the Sponsor in developing an ongoing marketing plan for the Trust; preparing marketing materials regarding the Shares, including the content on the Trust’s website, www.grayscale.com/crypto-products/grayscale-zcash-trust/; and executing the marketing plan for the Trust. Grayscale Securities is an affiliate of the Sponsor.22

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

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

Description of the Shares

The Trust is authorized under the Trust Agreement to create and issue an unlimited number of Shares. Shares will be issued only in Baskets (a Basket equals a block of 100 Shares) in connection with creations. The Shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust and have no par value. The Shares are quoted on OTCQX under the ticker symbol “ZCSH.”

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. InThe ~~addition,~~Sponsor nois also permitted to make certain restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that would materially adversely affect the interests of the shareholders ~~may~~as bedetermined ~~made~~by ~~without~~ the ~~vote~~Sponsor ofin atits ~~least~~sole adiscretion ~~majority~~with ~~(over~~a ~~50%) of the then~~20-~~outstanding~~day ~~Shares~~notice ~~(not~~to ~~including~~shareholders. ~~any~~Additionally, ~~Shares held by~~ the Sponsor oris ~~its~~permitted ~~affiliates). A shareholder will be deemed~~ to ~~have~~make ~~consented~~certain torestatements, aamendments ~~modification~~ or ~~amendment~~supplements ofto the Trust Agreement ifthat ~~the~~could ~~Sponsor~~adversely ~~has~~affect ~~notified~~ the ~~shareholders~~status ~~in writing~~ of the ~~proposed~~Trust ~~modification~~as ora ~~amendment~~grantor ~~and~~trust ~~the~~for ~~shareholder~~U.S. ~~has~~federal ~~not~~income tax purposes, ~~within~~but 20only ~~calendar~~if ~~days~~certain ofconditions ~~such~~set ~~notice,~~forth ~~notified~~in the ~~Sponsor~~amendments inrelating ~~writing~~to ~~that~~the qualification of the ~~shareholder~~Trust ~~objects~~as toa ~~such~~grantor ~~modification~~trust orfor ~~amendment~~U.S. ~~Additionally~~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 may make distributions on the Shares in-cash or in-kind, including in such form as is necessary or permissible for the Trust to facilitate its shareholders’ access to any Incidental Rights or to IR Virtual Currency.

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

Appointment of Agent

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

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

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

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

Creation of Shares

The Trust creates Shares at such times and for such periods as determined by the Sponsor, but only in one or more whole Baskets. A Basket equals 100 Shares. As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, each Share represented approximately 0.~~0835~~0815 ZEC. See “—Description of Creation of Shares.” The creation of a Basket requires the delivery to the Trust of the amount of ZEC represented by one Share immediately prior to such creation multiplied by 100. The Trust may from time to time halt creations, including for extended periods of time, for a variety of reasons, including in connection with forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences.

Redemption of Shares

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

~~Even~~No ~~if such relief is sought in the future, no~~ assurance can be given as to the timing of such relief or that such relief will be granted. If such relief is granted and the Sponsor approves a redemption program, the Shares will be redeemable only in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement and the relevant Participant Agreement. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program and the Trust’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share,” “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-~~current~~concurrent trading hours between OTCQX and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.”

Transfer Restrictions

Shares purchased in a private placement are restricted securities that may not be resold except in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act and state securities laws and any such transaction must be approved by the Sponsor. In determining whether to grant approval, the Sponsor will specifically look at whether the conditions of Rule 144 under the Securities Act and any other applicable laws have been met. Any attempt to sell Shares without the approval of the Sponsor in its sole discretion will be void ab initio.

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

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

•

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

•

the shareholder is the sole beneficial owner of the Shares;

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

the Sponsor consents to the transfer of the Shares; and

•

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

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

Book-Entry Form

Shares are held primarily in book-entry form by the Transfer Agent. The Sponsor or its delegate will direct the Transfer Agent to credit or debit, as applicable, the number of ~~Creation~~ Baskets to the applicable Authorized Participant. The Transfer Agent will issue ~~Creation~~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 of Shares

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

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

~~Because~~The ~~the~~Trust ~~Sponsor~~issues ~~does~~Shares to Authorized Participants from time to time, but only in one or more Baskets (with a Basket being a block of 100 Shares). The Trust will not ~~believe~~issue ~~that~~fractions of a Basket. The creation of Baskets will be made only in exchange for the ~~SEC~~delivery ~~would~~to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the amount of whole and fractional ZEC represented by each Basket being created, which is determined by dividing (x) the amount of ZEC owned by the Trust at ~~this~~4:00 p.m., New York time, ~~entertain~~on anthe ~~application~~trade ~~for~~date of a creation order, after deducting the ~~waiver~~amount of ~~rules~~ZEC ~~needed~~representing inthe ~~order~~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 ~~operate~~the aneighth ~~ongoing~~decimal ~~redemption~~place), ~~program~~by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one ZEC (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100 (the “Basket Amount”). All questions as to the calculation of the Basket Amount will be conclusively determined by the Sponsor ~~currently~~and ~~has~~will nobe ~~intention~~final and binding on all persons interested in the Trust. The Basket Amount multiplied by the number of ~~seeking~~Baskets ~~regulatory~~being ~~approval~~created ~~from~~is the ~~SEC~~“Total ~~for~~Basket Amount.” The amount of ZEC represented by a Share will gradually decrease over time as the Trust’s ZEC are used to ~~operate~~pay anthe ~~ongoing~~Trust’s ~~redemption~~expenses. ~~program~~As of December 31, 2025, each Share represented approximately 0.0815 ZEC. Information regarding the amount of ZEC represented by each Share is posted to the Trust’s website daily at grayscale.com/funds/grayscale-zcash-trust/.

The Trust will issue Shares to Authorized Participants from time to time, but only in one or more Baskets (with a Basket being a block of 100 Shares). The Trust will not issue fractions of a Basket. The creation of Baskets will be made only in exchange for the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the amount of whole and fractional ZEC represented by each Basket being created, which is determined by dividing (x) the amount of ZEC owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date of a creation order, after deducting the amount of ZEC 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 ZEC (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100 (the “Basket Amount”). All questions as to the calculation of the Basket Amount will be conclusively determined by the Sponsor and will be final and binding on all persons interested in the Trust. The Basket Amount multiplied by the number of Baskets being created is the “Total Basket Amount.” The amount of ZEC represented by a Share will gradually decrease over time as the Trust’s ZEC are used to pay the Trust’s expenses. As of December 31, 2024, each Share represented approximately 0.0835 ZEC. Information regarding the amount of ZEC represented by each Share is posted to the Trust’s website daily at www.grayscale.com/crypto-products/grayscale-zcash-trust/.

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

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

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

2725

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

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

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

Creation Procedures

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

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

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

Suspension or Rejection of Orders and Total Basket Amount

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

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

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

Tax Responsibility

Authorized Participants are responsible for any transfer tax, sales or use tax, stamp tax, recording tax, value-added tax or similar tax or governmental charge applicable to the creation of Baskets, regardless of whether such tax or charge is imposed directly on the Authorized ~~Participant~~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 ZEC and Determination of NAV

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

2826

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

•

Add the U.S. dollar value of ZEC, 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 ZEC, calculated using the Index Price, to be distributed under pending redemption orders, if any, determined by multiplying the number of Baskets to be redeemed represented by such redemption orders by the Basket Amount and then multiplying such product by the 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 ZEC) (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 ZEC, the Sponsor will utilize the cascading set of rules as described in “—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price.” In addition, in the event that the Trust holds any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, the Sponsor may, at its discretion, include the value of such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in the determination of the NAV, provided that the Sponsor has determined in good faith a method for assigning an objective value to such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. At this time, the Trust does not expect to take any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency it may hold into account for the purposes of determining the NAV or the NAV per Share.

The Sponsor will publish the 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 ZEC 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 ZEC resulting from such calculation.

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

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

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.

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

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

Extraordinary and Other Expenses

In certain extraordinary circumstances, the Trust may incur certain extraordinary, non-recurring expenses that are not Sponsor-paid Expenses, including, but not limited to: taxes and governmental charges; expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust or the interests of shareholders (including in connection with any Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency); any indemnification of the Custodian or other agents, service providers or counterparties of the Trust; the fees and expenses related to the listing, quotation or trading of the Shares on any Secondary Market (including legal, marketing and audit fees and expenses) to the extent exceeding $600,000 in any given fiscal year; and extraordinary legal fees and expenses, including any legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with litigation, regulatory enforcement or investigation matters (collectively, “Additional Trust Expenses”). If Additional Trust Expenses are incurred, the Trust will be required to pay these Additional Trust Expenses by selling or delivering ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. Generally, the Sponsor will cover such expenses on behalf of the Trust and the Trust will reimburse the Sponsor by delivering to the Sponsor ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in an amount equal to such expenses. When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, sell or deliver, as applicable, ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized ~~Participant~~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 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 value of any such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency will be determined on an arm’s-length basis. The Trust currently expects that the value of any such Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency would be determined by reference to an index provided by the Index Provider or, in the absence of such an index, by reference to the cascading set of rules described in “Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price.” If the Trust pays Additional Trust Expenses in Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, in whole or in part, the amount of ZEC that would otherwise have been used to satisfy such payment will be correspondingly reduced. See “—Disposition of ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency” for further information on sales or other dispositions of ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. Although the Sponsor cannot definitively state the frequency or magnitude of Additional Trust Expenses, the Sponsor expects that they may occur infrequently.

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

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

To cause the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor will instruct the Custodian to (i) withdraw from the Digital Asset Account the amount of ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, determined as described above in “—Expenses; Sales of ZEC,” equal to the accrued but unpaid Sponsor’s Fee and (ii) transfer such ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency to an account maintained by the Custodian for the Sponsor at such times as the Sponsor determines in its absolute discretion. In addition, if the Trust incurs any Additional Trust Expenses, the Sponsor or its delegates (i) will instruct the Custodian to withdraw from the Digital Asset Account ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of such Additional Trust Expenses and (ii) may either (x) cause the Trust to convert such ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency into U.S. dollars or other fiat currencies at the Actual Exchange Rate or (y) when the Sponsor incurs such expenses on behalf of the Trust, cause the Trust (or its delegate) to deliver such ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in kind to the Sponsor, in each case in such quantity as may be necessary to permit payment of such Additional Trust Expenses. The Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses payable by the Trust will generally be paid in ZEC. 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 ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency. Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the transfer or sale of ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency 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 ZEC held by the Trust will decrease as a consequence of the payment of the Sponsor’s Fee in ZEC or the sale of ZEC to pay Additional Trust Expenses (and the Trust will incur additional fees associated with converting ZEC into U.S. dollars), the amount of ZEC represented by a Share will decline at such time and the Trust’s NAV may also decrease. Similarly, the amount (if any) of Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency represented by a Share will decrease as a consequence of the use of Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses. Accordingly, the shareholders will bear the cost of the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses. New ZEC deposited into the Digital Asset Account in exchange for additional new Baskets issued by the Trust will not reverse this trend.

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

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

Hypothetical Expense Example

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

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

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 ZEC. 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.

3229

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. Shareholders may determine the total number of Shares outstanding by reviewing the Trust’s annual filings on Form 10-K, quarterly filings on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K reporting sales of unregistered securities pursuant to Item 3.02 thereof, or by requesting the number of Shares outstanding at any time from the Sponsor pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 8.1 of the Trust Agreement and Section 3819(a) of the DSTA. Because the Trust is a grantor trust, it may only issue one class of securities, the Shares.

The Trust offers Shares on a periodic basis at such times and for such periods as the Sponsor determines in its sole discretion. As a result, in order to maintain the 10.0% ownership threshold required to maintain a derivative action, shareholders may need to increase their holdings or locate additional shareholders during the pendency of a claim. The Trust posts the number of Shares outstanding as of the end of each month on its website and as of the end of each quarter in its annual and quarterly filings with the SEC. The Trust additionally reports sales of unregistered securities on Form 8-K pursuant to Item 3.02 thereof. Shareholders may monitor the number of Shares outstanding at any time for purposes of calculating their ownership threshold by reviewing the Trust’s website and SEC filings and by requesting the number of Shares outstanding on any date from the Sponsor at any time pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 8.1 of the Trust Agreement. Shareholders have the opportunity at any time to increase their holdings or locate other shareholders to maintain the 10.0% threshold throughout the duration of a derivative claim. Shareholders may do so by ~~contacting shareholders that are required to file Schedule 13Ds or Schedule 13Gs with the SEC or by~~ requesting from the Sponsor the list of the names and last known address of all shareholders pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 8.1 of the Trust Agreement and Section 3819(a) of the DSTA. 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~~sponsors within ninety (90) days of any such event.

The Trustee

The Trustee is a fiduciary under the Trust Agreement and must satisfy the requirements of Section 3807 of the ~~Delaware Trust Statute~~DSTA. 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 ZEC 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.

3431

Indemnification of the Trustee

The Trustee and any of the officers, directors, employees and agents of the Trustee will be indemnified by the Trust as primary obligor and ~~DCG~~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 ~~DCG~~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, ~~DCG~~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 ~~DCG~~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. However, the Sponsor may not make an amendment, or otherwise supplement the Trust Agreement, if such amendment or supplement would permit the Sponsor, the Trustee or any other person to vary the investment of the shareholders (within the meaning of applicable Treasury Regulations) or would otherwise adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. InThe ~~addition,~~Sponsor nois also permitted to make certain restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that would materially adversely affect the interests of shareholders ~~may~~as bedetermined ~~made~~by ~~without~~ the ~~vote~~Sponsor ofin atits ~~least~~sole discretion with a ~~majority~~20-day ~~(over~~notice ~~50%)~~to ofshareholders. Additionally, the ~~Shares~~Sponsor ~~(not~~is ~~including~~permitted ~~any~~to ~~Shares~~make ~~held~~certain byrestatements, ~~the~~amendments ~~Sponsor~~ or ~~its~~supplements ~~affiliates).~~to Athe ~~shareholder~~Trust ~~will~~Agreement bethat ~~deemed~~could toadversely ~~have~~affect ~~consented~~the tostatus of the Trust as a ~~modification~~grantor ortrust ~~amendment~~for ofU.S. ~~the~~federal ~~Trust~~income ~~Agreement~~tax purposes, but only if ~~the~~if ~~Sponsor~~certain ~~has~~conditions ~~notified~~set forth in the ~~shareholders~~amendments inrelating ~~writing~~to the qualification of the ~~proposed~~Trust ~~modification~~as ora ~~amendment~~grantor ~~and~~trust ~~the~~for ~~shareholder~~U.S. ~~has~~federal ~~not,~~income ~~within~~tax 20purposes ~~calendar~~are ~~days~~satisfied. ofFurthermore, ~~such~~subject ~~notice,~~to ~~notified~~certain limitations, the Sponsor inmay ~~writing~~make any other. In addition, no amendments tothe Trust Agreement which do not materially adversely affect the ~~shareholder~~interests ~~objects~~of tothe ~~such~~shareholders ~~modification~~in orits ~~amendment~~sole discretion without shareholder consent.

Termination of the Trust

~~The~~ Pursuant to the terms of the Trust ~~will~~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 ofreason to discontinue the ~~following~~affairs ~~events~~of ~~occur:~~the Trust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Trust becomes insolvent or bankrupt;

the Custodian resigns or is removed without replacement;

all of the Trust’s assets are sold;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36If 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 ZEC as promptly as possible while obtaining the best fair value

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 ZEC 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. 32

possible. The proceeds therefrom will be applied and distributed in the following order of priority: (a) to the expenses of liquidation and termination and to creditors, including shareholders who are creditors, to the extent otherwise permitted by law, in satisfaction of liabilities of the Trust other than liabilities for distributions to shareholders and (b) to the holders of Shares pro rata in accordance with the respective percentages of Shares that they hold. It is expected that the Sponsor would be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the Trust, and therefore, the markets available to the Sponsor will be the same markets available to the Trust.

Governing Law

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

Description of the Custodian Agreement

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

Account; Location of ZEC

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

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

Safekeeping of ZEC

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

Insurance

Pursuant to the terms of the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian is required to maintain insurance in such types and amounts as are commercially reasonable for the custodial services provided by the Custodian. The Custodian has advised the Sponsor that it has insurance coverage pursuant to policies held by Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Coinbase”), which procures fidelity (or crime) insurance coverage at commercially reasonable amounts for the custodial services provided. This insurance coverage is limited to losses of the digital assets the Custodian custodies on behalf of its clients, including the Trust’s ZEC, 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.~~

employees of Coinbase and its subsidiaries and theft or fraud by a director of Coinbase if the director is acting in the capacity of an employee of Coinbase or its subsidiaries.

Moreover, while the Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody and to the extent required by applicable law, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Sponsor does not know the amount of such capital reserves, and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor have access to such information. The Trust cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. Furthermore, Coinbase has represented in securities filings that the total value of crypto assets in its possession and control is significantly greater than the total value of insurance coverage that would compensate Coinbase in the event of theft or other loss of funds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Security of the Account

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

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

Record Keeping; Inspection and Auditing

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

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

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

Annual Certificate and Report

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

Once each calendar year, the Trust and the Sponsor will be entitled to request that the Custodian provide a copy of its most recent SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports, which are required to be dated within one year prior to such request. The Custodian reserves the right to combine the SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports into a comprehensive report. In the event that the Custodian does not deliver a SOC 1 Report or SOC 2 Report, as applicable, the Sponsor and the Trust will be entitled to terminate the Agreement. In addition to the review of the SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports, the Trust may also request letters of representation on a quarterly basis between SOC reports regarding any known changes or conclusions to the SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports.

Standard of Care; Limitations of Liability

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

The Custodian’s or Trust’s total liability under the Custodian Agreement will never exceed the value of the ZEC on deposit in the Digital Asset Account at the time of, and directly relating to, the events giving rise to the liability occurred, the value of which will be determined in accordance with the Custodian Agreement. In addition, for as long as a cold storage address holds ZEC with a value in excess of $100 million (the “Cold Storage Threshold”) for a period of five consecutive business days or more without being reduced to the Cold Storage Threshold or lower, the Custodian’s maximum liability for such cold storage address shall be limited to the Cold Storage Threshold. The Sponsor monitors the value of ZEC deposited in cold storage addresses for whether the Cold Storage Threshold has been met by determining the U.S. dollar value of ZEC 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 and not reduced within five business days, the Trust would not have a claim against the Custodian with respect to the digital assets held in such address to the extent the value exceeds the Cold Storage Threshold.

The Custodian and the Trust are not liable to each other for any lost profits or any special, incidental, indirect, intangible, or consequential damages, whether based in contract, tort, negligence, strict liability or otherwise, and whether or not the Custodian has been advised of such losses or the Custodian knew or should have known of the possibility of such damages.

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

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

Indemnity

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

Fees and Expenses

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

Term; Renewal

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

Termination

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

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

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

Governing Law

The Custodian Agreement is governed by New York law.

4137

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

If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge, certain positions the Trust may take, including with respect to Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency, the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Sponsor has delivered the Pre-Creation Abandonment Notice to the Custodian, stating that the Trust is irrevocably abandoning, effective immediately prior to each Creation Time, all Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such time. 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 ZEC as of any date on which it creates Shares, it ~~would~~might ~~likely~~ cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Because of the evolving nature of digital assets, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets, including forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences. Assuming that the Trust is currently a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, certain future developments could render it impossible, or impracticable, for the Trust to continue to be treated as a grantor trust for such purposes.

If the Trust is not properly classified as a grantor trust, the Trust might be classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, due to the uncertain treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the Trust were classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the tax consequences of owning Shares generally would not be materially different from the tax consequences described herein, although there might be certain differences, including with respect to timing of the recognition of taxable income or loss. In addition, tax information reports provided to beneficial owners of Shares would be made in a different form. If the Trust were not classified as either a grantor trust or a partnership for U.S. ~~federal income tax purposes, it would be classified as a corporation for such purposes. In that event, the Trust would be subject to~~

4238

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 ZEC (and any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency) held in the Trust. Due to the new and evolving nature of digital assets and the absence of comprehensive guidance with respect to digital assets, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets are uncertain.

In 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released a notice (the “Notice”) discussing certain aspects of the treatment of “convertible virtual currency” (that is, digital assets that have an equivalent value in fiat currency or that act as substitutes for fiat currency) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In the Notice, the IRS stated that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, such digital assets (i) are “property,” (ii) are not “currency” for purposes of the provisions of the Code relating to foreign currency gain or loss and (iii) may be held as a capital asset. In 2019, the IRS released a revenue ruling and a set of “Frequently Asked Questions” that has been updated from time to time since (the “Ruling & FAQs”). ~~that~~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. However, the Notice and the Ruling & FAQs do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets. Moreover, although the Ruling & FAQs address the treatment of hard forks, there continues to be ~~significant~~ uncertainty with respect to the timing and amount of the income inclusions. While the Ruling & FAQs do not address most situations in which airdrops occur, it is clear from the reasoning of the Ruling & FAQs that the IRS generally would treat an airdrop as a taxable event giving rise to ordinary income.

There can be no assurance that the IRS will not alter its position with respect to digital assets in the future or that a court would uphold the treatment set forth in the Notice and the Ruling & FAQs. It is also unclear what additional guidance on the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued in the future. Any such alteration of the current IRS positions or additional guidance could result in adverse tax consequences for shareholders and could have an adverse effect on the prices of digital assets, including the price of ZEC 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, athe Trust ~~will~~could hold certain types of digital assets that are not within the scope of the Notice.

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

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

Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency

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

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

4339

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

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

Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

As discussed in the section entitled “Description of Creation of Shares,” a U.S. Holder may be able to acquire Shares of the Trust by contributing ZEC 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 ZEC held in the Trust and will be treated as directly realizing its pro rata share of the Trust’s income, gains, losses and deductions. When a U.S. Holder purchases Shares solely for cash, (i) the U.S. Holder’s initial tax basis in its pro rata share of the ZEC 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 ZEC will begin on the date of such purchase. When a U.S. Holder acquires Shares in exchange for ZEC, (i) the U.S. Holder’s initial tax basis in its pro rata share of the ZEC held in the Trust will be equal to the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in the ZEC 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 ZEC generally will include the period during which the U.S. Holder held the ZEC 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 ZEC contributes a portion of its ZEC to the Trust in exchange for Shares, the U.S. Holder may designate the lot(s) from which such contribution will be made, provided that the U.S. Holder is able to identify specifically which ZEC it is contributing and to substantiate its tax basis in those ZEC. 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 ZEC or (iii) in exchange for a contribution of ZEC with different tax bases, the U.S. Holder’s share of the Trust’s ZEC 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, the IR Virtual Currency that the Trust acquires in a hard fork or airdrop that is treated as a taxable event will constitute a separate lot with a separate tax basis and holding period.

When the Trust transfers ZEC to the Sponsor as payment of the Sponsor’s Fee, or sells ZEC to fund payment of any Additional Trust Expenses, each U.S. Holder will be treated as having sold its pro rata share of those ZEC for their fair market value at that time (which, in the case of ZEC 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 ZEC transferred and (ii) the U.S. Holder’s tax basis for its pro rata share of the ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC is more than one year. A

4440

U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its pro rata share of any ZEC 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 ZEC held in the Trust immediately prior to the transfer by a fraction the numerator of which is the amount of ZEC transferred and the denominator of which is the total amount of ZEC 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 ZEC remaining in the Trust will be equal to the tax basis of its pro rata share of the ZEC held in the Trust immediately prior to the transfer, less the portion of that tax basis allocable to its pro rata share of the ZEC transferred.

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

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

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

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

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

In the absence of guidance to the contrary, it is possible that any income recognized by a U.S. tax-exempt shareholder as a consequence of a hard fork, airdrop or similar ~~occurrence~~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 ZEC in payment of the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expense or on the Trust’s sale or other disposition of ZEC. In addition, assuming that the Trust holds no asset other than ZEC, 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.

45Provided that it does not constitute income that is treated as “effectively connected” with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” (“FDAP”) income received, or treated as received, by a non-U.S. Holder will generally be subject to U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30% (subject to possible reduction or elimination pursuant to an applicable tax treaty and to statutory exemptions such as the portfolio interest exemption). Although there is no guidance on point,

Provided that it does not constitute income that is treated as “effectively connected” with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” (“FDAP”) income received, or treated as received, by a non-U.S. Holder will generally be subject to U.S. withholding tax at the rate of 30% (subject to possible reduction or elimination pursuant to an applicable tax treaty and to statutory exemptions such as the portfolio interest exemption). Although there is no guidance on point, it is likely that any ordinary income recognized by a non-U.S. Holder as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence would constitute FDAP income. It is unclear, however, whether any such FDAP income would be properly treated as U.S.-source or foreign-source FDAP income. Non-U.S. Holders should assume that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including the Sponsor) is likely to withhold 30% from a non-U.S. Holder’s pro rata share of any such income, including by deducting such withheld amounts from proceeds that such non-U.S. Holder would otherwise be entitled to receive in connection with a distribution of Incidental Rights, IR Virtual Currency or proceeds from the disposition of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. A non-U.S. Holder that is a resident of a country that maintains an income tax treaty with the United States may be eligible to claim the benefits of that treaty to reduce or eliminate, or to obtain a partial or full refund of, the 30% U.S. withholding tax on its share of any such income, but only if the non-U.S. Holder’s home country treats the Trust as “fiscally transparent,” as defined in applicable Treasury regulations. 41

it is likely that any ordinary income recognized by a non-U.S. Holder as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence would constitute FDAP income. It is unclear, however, whether any such FDAP income would be properly treated as U.S.-source or foreign-source FDAP income. Non-U.S. Holders should be aware that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including a broker through which Shares are held) may withhold 30% from a non-U.S. Holder’s pro rata share of any such income, including by deducting such withheld amounts from proceeds that such non-U.S. Holder would otherwise be entitled to receive in connection with a distribution of Incidental Rights, IR Virtual Currency or proceeds from the disposition of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency.

A non-U.S. Holder that is a resident of a country that maintains an income tax treaty with the United States may be eligible to claim the benefits of that treaty to reduce or eliminate, or to obtain a partial or full refund of, the 30% U.S. withholding tax on its share of any 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.

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

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

U.S. Information Reporting and Backup Withholding

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

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

FATCA

As discussed above, it is unclear whether any ordinary income recognized by a non-U.S. Holder as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence would constitute U.S.-source FDAP income. Provisions of the Code commonly referred to as “FATCA” require withholding of 30% on payments of U.S.-source FDAP income and, subject to the discussion of proposed ~~U.S.~~ Treasury ~~regulations~~Regulations below, of gross proceeds of dispositions of certain types of property that produce U.S.-source FDAP income to, “foreign financial institutions” (which is broadly defined for this purpose and in general includes investment vehicles) and certain other non-U.S. entities unless various U.S. information reporting and due diligence requirements (generally relating to ownership by U.S. persons of interests in or accounts with those entities) have been satisfied, or an exemption applies. An intergovernmental agreement between the United States and an applicable foreign country may modify these requirements. In addition, regulations proposed by the U.S. ~~Treasury~~ Department 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.

4642

ERISA and Related Considerations

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

Restrictions on Investments by Benefit Plan Investors

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

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

Ineligible Purchasers

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

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

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

Item 1A. Risk Factors

~~Summary~~The following risks, some of ~~Risk~~which ~~Factors~~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.

Below is a summary of the principal factors that make an investment in the Shares speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found below and should be read in conjunction with the other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the Trust’s financial statements and related notes thereto, and our other filings with the SEC, before making an investment decision regarding the Shares. See “Glossary of Defined Terms” for the definition of certain capitalized terms used in this Annual Report. All other capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein have the meanings given to them in the Trust Agreement.

Extreme volatility of trading prices that many digital assets, including ZEC, have experienced in recent periods and may continue to experience, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value;

The medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets;

The value of the Shares is dependent on the acceptance of digital assets, such as ZEC, which represent a new and rapidly evolving industry;

Digital assets may have concentrated ownership and large sales or distributions by holders of such digital assets could have an adverse effect on the market price of such digital assets;

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

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

Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program, and the Trust’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share;

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

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

The limited history of the Index;

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

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

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

A determination that ZEC or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of ZEC 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 ZEC, mining activity or the operation of the Zcash Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares;

Changes in the policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) could adversely impact the value of the Shares;

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

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;

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

The Sponsor’s services may be discontinued, which could be detrimental to the Trust; and

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

The following risks, some of which have occurred and any of which may occur in the future, can have a material adverse effect on our business or financial performance, which in turn can affect the price of the Shares. These are not the only risks we face. There may be other risks we are not currently aware of or that we currently deem not to be material but may become material in the future.

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ZEC, have experienced extreme volatility ~~in recent periods~~ and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including declines in the trading prices of ZEC, 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 ZEC, have experienced extreme volatility throughout their existence, ~~including in recent periods~~ and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including ZEC, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022. This volatility became extreme in November 2022 when FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), ~~then~~halted acustomer ~~major~~withdrawals. ~~Digital~~Additionally, ~~Asset~~on ~~Trading~~October ~~Platform~~10, ~~halted~~2025, ~~customer~~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 ZEC, have continued to fluctuate widely through the date of this Annual Report.

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

Furthermore, changes in U.S. political leadership and economic policies may create uncertainty that materially affects the price of ZEC 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 certain digital assets in the expectation of the U.S. government acquiring such digital assets to fund such reserve, and the market price of such digital assets decreased significantly as a result of the ultimate content of the Executive Order. Any similar action or omission by the U.S. federal administration or other government authorities with respect to ZEC or other digital assets may negatively and significantly impact the price of ZEC and the Trust’s Shares.

Digital assets such as ZEC were only introduced within the past two decades, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the ~~recentness~~recency of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and miners 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 Zcash Network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including ZEC, 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 miners in a digital asset network, such as the Zcash Network, could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate blockchain networks.

•

Digital asset mining operations can consume significant amounts of electricity, which may have a negative environmental impact and give rise to public opinion against allowing, or government regulations restricting, the use of electricity for mining operations. Additionally, miners may be forced to cease operations during an electricity shortage or power outage.

•

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

•

The open-source structure of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Zcash Network, means that developers and other contributors are ~~generally~~often not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols. As a result, the developers and other contributors of a particular digital asset may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the network or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies whose interests are at odds with other participants in a particular digital asset network. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the protocol of the Zcash 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 ~~ZEC~~the Zcash 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 Zcash 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 Zcash. If quantum computing is able to advance in that way, there is a risk that quantum computing could materially reduce the security assumptions underlying Zcash’s protocol and result in the cryptography underlying the Zcash Network becoming ineffective. If such is realized,it could compromise the security of the Zcash Network or allow a malicious actor to compromise the wallets holding Zcash owned by the Trust or others on the Zcash 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 Zcash. 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 Zcash 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 Zcash 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 ZEC, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Zcash Network may be negatively affected by such an exploit such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for ZEC. Even if another digital asset other than ZEC were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital asset networks and related protocols generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Moreover, because digital assets, including ZEC, have existed for a short period of time and are continuing to be developed, there may be additional risks to ~~the~~ 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 ZEC.

The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. ZEC launched in 2016. In general, digital asset networks, including the Zcash 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:~~

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:

•

ZEC is only selectively accepted as a means of payment by retail and commercial outlets, and use of ZEC by consumers remains limited. Banks and other established financial institutions, whether voluntarily or in response to regulatory feedback, may refuse to process funds for ZEC transactions; process wire transfers to or from Digital Asset Trading Platforms, ZEC-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in ZEC. As a result, the prices of ZEC are largely determined by speculators and miners, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept ZEC 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, ZEC 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 ZEC, and their or its utility as a payment system, which could decrease the price of digital assets generally or individually.

•

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

•

Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to a number of digital asset networks. If any such features are introduced to the Zcash Network, any trading platforms or businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEC 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. As of the date of this Annual Report, the Sponsor is not aware of any ongoing efforts to introduce further privacy-preserving features to the Zcash Network.

•

Users, developers and miners 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 Zcash Network.

Changes in the governance of a digital asset network or protocol may not receive sufficient support from users and miners, 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 Zcash 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 Zcash 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 miners 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, 2024, the Zcash Network was capable of handling approximately 5 transactions per second, or approximately 40% of the daily transaction volume of the Bitcoin network. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. For example, in August 2017, the Bitcoin Network was upgraded with a technical feature known as “Segregated Witness” that potentially doubles the transactions per second that can be handled on-chain. More importantly, Segregated Witness also enables so-called second layer solutions, such as the Lightning Network, or payment channels that greatly increase transaction throughput (i.e., millions of transactions per second). Wallets and “intermediaries,” or connecting nodes that facilitate payment channels, that support Segregated Witness or Lightning Network-like technologies have not seen wide-scale use as of December 31, 2024. Additionally, questions remain regarding Lightning Network services, such as its cost and who will serve as intermediaries. 45

52As of December 31, 2025, the Zcash Network was capable of handling approximately 5 transactions per second, or approximately 40% of the daily transaction volume of the Bitcoin Network. 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.

As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average transaction fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Bitcoin ~~network~~Network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, ~~2022~~2023, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.3831 per transaction on ~~September~~December 87, ~~2024~~2025, to as high as $124.17 per transaction, on April 20, 2024. As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, Bitcoin average daily transaction fees stood at $10.7965 per transaction. Since January 1, ~~2021~~2023, Zcash Network average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.001 per transaction on February 26, 2023, to as high as $0.29.15 per transaction, on ~~March~~September 614, ~~2024~~2025. As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, Zcash Network average daily transaction fees stood at $0.0531 per transaction. Notwithstanding the increase in throughput on the Zcash Network as compared to the Bitcoin ~~network~~Network, settlement speeds on the Zcash Network have remained relatively constant since December 2019, when a network upgrade halved the target block interval to 1.3 minutes, although they can vary depending on the size of the number of pending transactions waiting to be included in a block. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ZEC (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ZEC, 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 Zcash 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 Zcash Network is perceived as no longer contributing to the Zcash Network due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of ZEC, 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 the date of this Annual Report, the largest unshielded 100 ZEC wallets held approximately 5346% of the ZEC in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of ZEC, 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. Furthermore, because of Zcash’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that some persons or entities have accumulated large positions of ZEC using shielded transactions, which would not be reflected in available token concentration data, and therefore ownership of ZEC may be more concentrated than is currently known. 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 ZEC.

5346

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

If the digital asset ~~awards~~rewards for mining blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Zcash Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expending processing power to mine blocks and the security of the Zcash Blockchain could be compromised. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

•

Over the past several years, digital asset mining operations have evolved from individual users mining with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit machines to “professionalized” mining operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of digital asset mining operations are not sufficiently high, including due to an increase in electricity costs, digital asset miners are more likely to immediately sell digital assets earned by mining, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of that digital asset, which would generally tend to reduce that digital asset’s market price.

•

A reduction in the processing power expended by miners on the Zcash Network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet obtaining control on the Zcash Network. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Zcash Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Zcash Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.”

•

Miners have historically accepted relatively low transaction confirmation fees on most digital asset networks. If miners demand higher transaction fees for recording transactions in the Zcash Blockchain or a software upgrade automatically charges fees for all transactions on the Zcash Network, the cost of using ZEC may increase and the marketplace may be reluctant to accept ZEC as a means of payment. Miners may demand higher transaction fees for a variety of reasons, including to compensate for reductions in the reward received for validating a block as a result of a portion of each block reward going to the Electric Coin Company, the Zcash Foundation and to the Foundation or as a result of the halving of ZEC creation every four years in accordance with ZEC’s protocol.

•

Alternatively, miners could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Zcash Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Zcash Network. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting ~~through~~from collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Zcash Network, the value of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

•

To the extent that any miners cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in mined blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Zcash Blockchain until a block is mined by a miner who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee. Any widespread delays in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the digital asset network.

•

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Zcash Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Zcash Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

If a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a majority of the processing power on the Zcash Network, it may be able to alter the Blockchain on which transactions in ZEC rely by constructing fraudulent blocks or preventing certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all. The malicious actor or botnet could also control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions. Although the malicious actor or botnet may not be able to generate new digital assets or transactions using such control, it may be able to “double-spend” its own digital assets (i.e., spend the same tokens in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control. To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the processing power on the Zcash Network or the ZEC community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the Blockchain may not be possible. Further, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the Zcash Network.

Moreover, because of the Zcash Network’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that certain pools have exceeded in the past, or may exceed now or in Zcash’s future, the 50% threshold on the Zcash Network. As of the date of this Annual Report, there are no known reports of malicious activity on, or control of, the Zcash Network, and while historically there have been mining pools that reportedly exceeded the 50% hashrate threshold, no mining pools on the Zcash Network are currently believed to have exceeded the threshold. Further, because of Zcash’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that certain mining pools have exceeded in the past, or

5447

~~have exceeded the 50% hashrate threshold. However, because of Zcash’s privacy-preserving features, it is possible that certain mining pools have exceeded in the past, or~~ may exceed now or in the future, the 50% threshold on the Zcash Network. The possible crossing of the 50% threshold indicates a greater risk that a single mining pool or small group of mining pools, for example, could exert authority over the validation of ZEC transactions, and this risk is heightened if over 50% of the processing power on the network falls within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority. If network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of mining pools, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of ZEC mining processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the processing power on the Zcash Network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

For example, in August 2020, the Ethereum Classic Network was the target of two double-spend attacks by an unknown actor or actors that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Ethereum Classic Network. The attacks resulted in reorganizations of the Ethereum Classic Blockchain that allowed the attacker or attackers to reverse previously recorded transactions in excess of $5.0 million and $1.0 million. Furthermore, on June 2, 2018, the Horizen ~~Network~~network, another zk-SNARKs-based protocol, was the target of a double-spend attack by an unknown actor that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Horizen ~~Network~~network. The attack was the result of delayed submission of blocks to the Horizen ~~Network~~network. Any similar attacks on the Zcash Network could negatively impact the value of ZEC and the value of the Shares.

A malicious actor may also obtain control over the Zcash Network through its influence over core developers by gaining direct control over a core developer or an otherwise influential programmer. The less that the ZEC ecosystem grows, the greater the possibility that a malicious actor may be able to maliciously influence the Zcash Network in this manner will remain heightened.

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

The Zcash Network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and miners of ZEC adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and miners’ consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and miners’ consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Zcash Network, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of ~~Bitcoin~~the Zcash Network running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in August 2017, Bitcoin “forked” into Bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin ~~network~~Network can process. Some users of the original network may harbor ill will toward the ~~Bitcoin~~new ~~Cash~~ network, and vice versa. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the ~~Bitcoin~~new ~~Cash~~ network. A fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of otherwise compatible software that users run. Such a fork could lead to users and miners abandoning the digital asset with the flawed software. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and miners could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This could result in a permanent fork.

Forks may also occur as a digital asset network 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~~network community’s response to a significant security breach. In June 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to syphon approximately $60 million of Ether held by The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the exploit, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a “fork” that effectively reversed the exploit. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, referred to as “Ethereum Classic” with the digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as ETC. ETC now trades on several Digital Asset Trading Platforms. A fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of otherwise compatible software that users run. Such a fork could lead to users and miners abandoning the digital asset with the flawed software. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and miners could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This could result in a permanent fork, as in the case of Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.

In addition, many developers have previously initiated hard forks in the Bitcoin blockchain to launch new digital assets, such as Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Silver and Bitcoin Diamond, as well as the Bitcoin Cash blockchain to launch a new digital asset, Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision. To the extent such digital assets compete with ZEC, such competition could impact demand for ZEC and could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Furthermore, a hard fork can lead to new security concerns. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks 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 mining power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual miner or mining pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less mining power, thereby making digital asset networks that rely on proof-of-work more susceptible to attack.

55Digital 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”

~~exceed 50% of the processing power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less mining power, thereby making digital asset networks that rely on proof-of-work more susceptible to attack.~~48

~~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 ZEC 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 Zcash Network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork. Either of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares. As an illustrative example of a digital asset hard fork, on November 15, 2020, certain Bitcoin Cash developers enacted a proposed update to the Bitcoin Cash network requiring 8% of mined tokens to be redistributed to the developer pool, causing a hard fork, and created a network with a token labeled BCHA. For the days following the fork, the price of BCH fluctuated from $246.15 on November 15, 2020 to $256.55 on November 20, 2020. A clone may also adversely affect the price of ZEC 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 ZEC at the time of announcement or adoption.

A future fork in or clone of the Zcash 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 Zcash 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 Zcash 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 Zcash Network, is generally accepted as the Zcash 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 ZEC, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Zcash 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 ZEC and should therefore be considered “ZEC” 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 ZEC may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of ZEC 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 Zcash Network or ZEC. 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 ZEC and the value of the Shares.

5649

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

The Zcash Network uses zk-SNARKs, which provide additional layers of confidentiality to transactions on the Zcash Network by protecting the amount and the recipient in ZEC transactions. This cryptography is new and could ultimately fail, resulting in less privacy than believed or no privacy at all, and could adversely affect one’s ability to complete transactions on any such digital asset network or otherwise adversely interfere with the integrity of the relevant blockchain. Digital asset networks have in the past been, and may continue to be, used to facilitate illicit activities. Because ZEC is a privacy-preserving digital asset, it is also subject to certain types of attacks that may go undetected. For example, on February 5, 2019, the team behind Zcash announced that it discovered a vulnerability in its zk-SNARK implementation on March 1, 2018 that was subsequently patched in connection with a network upgrade called “Sapling” in October 2018.

Moreover, law enforcement agencies and other market participants have often relied on the transparency of blockchains to facilitate investigations and comply with laws, such as anti-money laundering and economic sanctions laws. Because of the privacy-enhancing features of the Zcash Network, law enforcement agencies and other market participants may have less visibility into transaction-level data, which may encourage bad actors to misuse the Zcash Network for such illicit purposes. As a result, businesses that facilitate transactions in ZEC may be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking or other services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks. Since 2019, ZEC, along with several other privacy tokens including Monero, Dash, and Horizen have been delisted from multiple exchanges, including Coinbase UK, Bittrex, and OKX. In another example, in June 2023 Binance announced it would delist Zcash as well as other privacy coins including Monero, Dash, and Horizen in France, Spain, Italy and Poland, though retracted that announcement later that month, and in January 2024 announced that it would extend the “monitoring tag” to multiple privacy coins including ZEC, indicating those tokens are “at risk” of being delisted from the exchange globally. Although these digital asset trading platforms did not disclose the reasons for such delisting, and some digital asset trading platforms subsequently relisted ZEC, it is believed that they were the result of the privacy-enhancing features of the digital assets, and there is a risk that other digital asset trading platforms may remove ZEC 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 Zcash Network is being used to facilitate crime. Any of the aforementioned occurrences could increase regulatory scrutiny of the Zcash Network and/or adversely affect the price of ZEC, the attractiveness of the Zcash 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, ZEC, 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 ZEC in connection with the creation of the Shares or facilitates transactions in ZEC 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.

5750

Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets

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

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

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 asignificant ~~substantial~~negative ~~increase~~publicity inaround ~~regulatory~~digital ~~and~~asset ~~enforcement~~market ~~scrutiny~~participants ofincluding ~~the~~DCG, ~~industry~~Genesis ~~as a whole~~ and ofDCG’s ~~Digital~~other ~~Asset~~affiliated ~~Trading~~entities. ~~Platforms~~This inpublicity ~~particular,~~could ~~including~~negatively ~~from~~impact the ~~Department~~reputation of ~~Justice,~~ the ~~SEC,~~Sponsor ~~the CFTC, the White House~~ and ~~Congress.~~have ~~For~~an ~~example,~~adverse ineffect ~~June~~on ~~2023,~~ the ~~SEC~~trading ~~brought~~price ~~charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”)~~ and/or ~~Coinbase (~~the ~~“Coinbase~~value ~~Complaint”), two~~ of the ~~largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, alleging that they solicited U~~Shares.S. ~~investors to buy~~Moreover, ~~sell,~~sales ~~and~~of ~~trade~~a ~~“crypto~~significant ~~asset~~number ~~securities”~~of ~~through~~Shares ~~their~~of unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance.US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the ~~SEC~~Trust ~~brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated~~ as ana ~~unregistered~~result ~~securities~~of ~~exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. Binance and Kraken continue to litigate~~ these ~~charges~~events ~~against~~could ~~the~~have ~~SEC; in February 2025, the SEC announced it had filed~~ a ~~joint~~negative ~~stipulation~~impact ~~with~~on ~~Coinbase to dismiss~~ the ~~enforcement~~trading ~~action~~price ~~against~~of ~~it. The Binance Complaint and~~ the ~~Kraken Complaint have led, and may in the future lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices~~Shares.

These events have also led to ~~significant~~a ~~negative~~substantial ~~publicity~~increase ~~around~~in ~~digital~~regulatory ~~asset~~and ~~market~~enforcement ~~participants~~scrutiny ~~including~~of ~~DCG,~~the ~~Genesis~~industry as a whole and ~~DCG’s~~of ~~other~~Digital ~~affiliated~~Asset ~~entities.~~Trading ~~This~~Platforms ~~publicity~~in ~~could~~particular, ~~negatively~~including ~~impact~~from the ~~reputation~~Department of Justice, the ~~Sponsor~~SEC, the CFTC, the White House and ~~have~~Congress. anFor ~~adverse~~example, ~~effect~~in onJune 2023, the ~~trading~~SEC ~~price~~brought ~~and/or~~charges against Binance (the ~~value~~“Binance ofComplaint”) and Coinbase (the ~~Shares~~“Coinbase Complaint”), alleging that they solicited U.S. ~~Moreover~~investors to buy, ~~sales~~sell, ofand atrade ~~significant~~“crypto ~~number~~asset ofsecurities” ~~Shares~~through oftheir unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance. US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the ~~Trust~~SEC brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated as aan ~~result~~unregistered ofsecurities ~~these~~exchange, ~~events~~brokerage ~~could~~and clearing agency. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint have aled, ~~negative~~and ~~impact~~may onin the ~~trading~~future ~~price~~lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the ~~Shares~~Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants including the Zcash Foundation in January 2026.

~~Digital~~In ~~asset~~January ~~markets~~2025, ~~have also been negatively impacted by~~ the ~~failure~~SEC oflaunched ~~entities~~a ~~perceived~~crypto totask beforce ~~integral~~dedicated to ~~the~~developing ~~digital~~a ~~asset~~comprehensive ~~ecosystem. For example, in March 2023, state banking regulators placed Silicon Valley Bank~~ and ~~Signature~~clear ~~Bank~~regulatory ~~into~~framework 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~~assets ~~ecosystem~~led inby ~~the~~Commissioner ~~United~~Hester ~~States, their failures may impact the willingness of banks (based on regulatory pressure or otherwise) to provide banking services to digital asset market participants~~Peirce. ~~In addition~~Subsequently, ~~because~~Commissioner ~~these~~Peirce ~~banks~~announced ~~were perceived to be the banks most open to providing services for the digital asset ecosystem, their failure has caused~~ a ~~number~~list of ~~companies~~specific ~~that~~priorities ~~provide digital asset-related services~~ to befurther ~~unable to find banks that are willing to provide them with such banking services. The inability to access banking services could negatively impact~~

5851

~~digital~~that ~~asset market participants and therefore the value of digital assets~~initiative, ~~including~~which ~~ZEC,~~included ~~and~~pursuing ~~thus~~final ~~the~~rules ~~Shares.~~related Into ~~addition,~~a ~~although~~digital ~~these~~asset’s ~~events~~security ~~did not have an impact directly on the Trust or the Sponsor when these bank failures occurred~~status, ~~it is possible that~~ a ~~future~~revised ~~closing~~path ~~of a bank with which the Trust or the Sponsor has a financial relationship could subject the Trust or the Sponsor~~ to ~~adverse~~registered ~~conditions~~offerings and ~~pose~~listings ~~challenges~~for indigital ~~finding~~asset-based aninvestment ~~alternative~~vehicles, ~~suitable~~and ~~bank~~clarity toregarding ~~provide~~digital ~~the~~asset ~~Trust~~custody, orlending ~~the Sponsor with bank accounts~~ and ~~banking services~~staking.

InDigital ~~January~~asset ~~2025,~~markets have also been negatively impacted by the ~~SEC~~failure ~~launched~~of aentities ~~crypto~~perceived ~~task~~to ~~force~~be ~~dedicated~~integral to ~~developing~~the adigital ~~comprehensive~~asset ~~and~~ecosystem. ~~clear~~For ~~regulatory~~example, ~~framework~~in ~~for~~March ~~digital~~2023, ~~assets~~state ~~led~~banking byregulators ~~Commissioner~~placed ~~Hester~~Silicon ~~Peirce~~Valley Bank and Signature Bank into Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) receiverships. ~~Subsequently~~Also, ~~Commissioner~~in ~~Peirce~~March 2023, Silvergate Bank announced aplans ~~list~~to ofwind ~~specific~~down ~~priorities~~and liquidate its operations. Because these banks were perceived to ~~further~~be ~~that~~the ~~initiative~~banks most open to providing services for the digital asset ecosystem in the United States, ~~which~~their ~~included~~failures ~~pursuing~~may ~~final~~impact ~~rules~~the ~~related~~willingness of banks (based on regulatory pressure or otherwise) to aprovide banking services to digital asset's ~~security~~market ~~status~~participants. In addition, abecause ~~revised~~these ~~path~~banks were perceived to ~~registered~~be ~~offerings~~the ~~and~~banks ~~listings~~most open to providing services for the digital asset ecosystem, their failure has caused a number of companies that provide digital asset-~~based~~related ~~investment~~services ~~vehicles,~~to ~~and~~be ~~clarity~~unable ~~regarding~~to find banks that are willing to provide them with such banking services. The inability to access banking services could negatively impact digital asset ~~custody~~market participants and therefore the value of digital assets, ~~lending~~including ZEC, and ~~staking~~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 ZEC, 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 ZEC, 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 ZEC held by the Trust and fluctuations in the price of ZEC could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The market price of ZEC may be highly volatile, and subject to a number of factors, including:

•

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

•

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

•

~~The~~the adoption of ZEC 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 Zcash Network;

•

~~Forks~~forks in the Zcash Network;

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

~~Fees~~fees associated with processing a ZEC transaction and the speed at which ZEC transactions are settled on the Zcash Network;

•

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

•

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

~~Increased competition from other forms of digital assets or payment services; and~~ 52

•

~~The~~increased ~~Trust’s~~competition ~~own~~from ~~acquisitions~~other orforms ~~dispositions~~ of ~~ZEC,~~digital ~~since~~assets ~~there~~or ispayment noservices; ~~limit~~and ~~on the amount of ZEC that the Trust may acquire.~~

•

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

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

The value of a ZEC 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 ZEC has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of ZEC, inflating and making the Index Price more volatile. As a result, ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC and/or negatively affect the market perception of ZEC, 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 ZEC present in the Digital Asset Markets or cause distortions in the price of ZEC, 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 ZEC 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.~~

60in 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 ZEC, 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 including the Zcash Foundation in January 2026.

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 Zcash Network and result in greater volatility in the prices of ZEC. 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 ZEC and/or negatively affect the market perception of ZEC.

To the extent that wash-trading either occurs or appears to occur in Digital Asset Trading Platforms, investors may develop negative perceptions about ZEC and the digital assets industry more broadly, which could adversely impact the price of ZEC 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. For example, on July 28, 2024, the Index Provider added Bitfinex to the Index due to the trading platform meeting the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement as part of its scheduled quarterly review, and removed Gemini from the Index due to the trading platform failing to meet the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement. On December 22, 2024, the Index Provider added back Gemini to the Index due to the trading platform meeting the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement, and did not remove any Constituent Trading Platforms as part of its scheduled quarterly review. 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 ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

6154

at prices materially higher or lower than the Index Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of ZEC 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 732.9350% 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 511.0198%. 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 0.0667%. 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 ZEC, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

The price of ZEC on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms has a very limited history, and during this history, ZEC 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 ZEC 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 January 1, ~~2020~~2021 through December 31, ~~2024~~2025, the Index Price ranged from $18.14 to $~~365~~685.9096, with the straight average being $7287.0908. In addition, during the year ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025, the Index Price ranged from $1829.1450 to $76685.2096. 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 ZEC 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 ZEC, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Historical NAV and ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

Purchasing activity associated with acquiring ZEC required for the creation of Baskets may increase the market price of ZEC on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Increases in the market price of ZEC may also occur as a result of the purchasing activity of other market participants. Other market participants may attempt to benefit from an increase in the market price of ZEC that may result from increased purchasing activity of ZEC connected with the issuance of Baskets. Consequently, the market price of ZEC may decline immediately after Baskets are created. Decreases in the market price of ZEC 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 ZEC and adversely affect the value of the Shares.

As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, ZEC was the ~~104~~15th largest digital asset by market capitalization as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, the alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com, had a total market capitalization of approximately $32,~~291~~678.90 billion (including the approximately $~~916~~8.4 million market cap of ZEC), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding stablecoins and tokens pegged to other assets. ZEC faces competition from a wide range of digital assets. For example, ~~Monero~~XMR, ~~Dash~~DASH, and ~~Oasis~~ROSE ~~Network~~ are all focused on enhancing privacy. Many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms rather than open platforms like the Zcash Network. In addition, ZEC is currently supported by fewer trading platforms than more established digital assets, such as Bitcoin and Ether, which could impact its liquidity. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ZEC 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 Zcash Network, which could negatively impact Zcash’s market demand and the value of the Shares.

Investors may also invest in ZEC through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in ZEC and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to ZEC and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Sponsor’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles or to invest in ZEC directly, which could limit the market for, and reduce the liquidity of, the Shares. In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of ZEC are formed and represent a significant proportion of the demand for ZEC, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding ZEC, 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. Moreover, any reduced demand for Shares of the Trust may cause the Shares of the Trust to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share.~~

6255

~~The~~Principal ~~SEC~~Market ~~may~~NAV ~~approve~~per ~~applications~~Share. ~~under~~Moreover, ~~Rule~~any ~~19b-4~~reduced ofdemand ~~the~~for ~~Exchange~~Shares ~~Act~~of tothe ~~list~~Trust ~~competing~~may ~~digital~~cause ~~assets~~the asShares ~~exchange-traded~~of ~~products, which could reduce demand for, and~~ the ~~price~~Trust ~~of,~~to ~~ZEC~~trade ~~and~~at ~~adversely~~a ~~impact~~discount to the ~~value~~NAV ofper ~~the Shares~~Share.

ToCongestion ~~date,~~or ~~the~~delay ~~SEC~~on ~~has only approved applications under Rule 19b-4 of~~ the ~~Exchange~~Zcash ~~Act~~Network tomay ~~list~~delay ~~spot~~purchases ~~digital~~or ~~asset~~sales exchange-traded products which hold Bitcoin and Ether. However, applications for competing digital assets have been filed and are currently pending, and there can be no guarantee the SEC will not one day approve any such application. If applications to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products are approved, to the extent such competing digital asset exchange-traded products come to represent a significant proportion of ~~the demand for digital assets generally, demand for, and the price of,~~ ZEC ~~could~~by ~~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~~.

~~Prices~~Increased transaction volume could result in delays in the recording of ~~ZEC~~transactions due to congestion in the Blockchain. Moreover, unforeseen system failures, disruptions in operations, or poor connectivity may bealso ~~affected~~result ~~due~~in delays in the recording of transactions on the Blockchain. Any delay in the Blockchain could affect an Authorized Participant’s ability to ~~stablecoins~~buy ~~(including~~or ~~Tether~~sell ~~and~~ZEC Uat an advantageous price resulting in decreased confidence in the Blockchain.S. ~~Dollar~~Over ~~Coin~~the ~~(“USDC”))~~longer term, delays in confirming transactions could reduce the ~~activities~~attractiveness to merchants and other commercial parties as a means of ~~stablecoin~~payment. ~~issuers~~As a result, the Zcash Network and ~~their~~the ~~regulatory~~value ~~treatment~~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, ZEC 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 asset exchange-traded products come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for digital assets generally, demand for, and the price of, ZEC 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 ZEC 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, ZEC 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, ZEC. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the price of ZEC could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Prices of ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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.

Some stablecoins have been asserted to be securities under the federal securities laws. For example, on June 5, 2023, the SEC alleged in a complaint that the stablecoin BUSD, a U.S. dollar stablecoin issued by Binance, was a “crypto asset security” and that Binance “offered and sold to U.S. investors as part of a profit-earning scheme within the Binance ecosystem,” although the court dismissed this claim. In another example, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the stablecoin UST, an algorithmic stablecoin intended to maintain a value of one U.S. dollar and issued by Terraform Labs, is a security. Further public concern about the possible security status of stablecoins manifested in November 2023, when the financial technology company PayPal disclosed in a filing that it had received a subpoena from the SEC relating to the PayPal USD stablecoin that requested the production of documents. A determination that a popular stablecoin is a security could lead to outsized redemption requests, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares. 56

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 ZEC. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in, and/or materially and adversely affect the prices of, digital assets more broadly.

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

63In 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, which could reduce the use of Zcash for transactional purposes and thereby adversely affect the price of Zcash and the value of the Shares.

Failure of funds that hold digital assets or that have exposure to digital assets through derivatives to receive SEC approval to list their shares on exchanges could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

Moreover, even though NYSE Arca’s requests with respect to Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF, Grayscale Ethereum Trust ETF and Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF were approved, there is no guarantee that a similar application to list Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca, or another national securities exchange, would be approved. In particular, Bitcoin is the only digital asset that the SEC has publicly indicated it does not currently view as a security, although the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based exchange-traded products, has implicitly taken the view that Ether is not a security. The Sponsor believes that the SEC is unlikely to approve a request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product that holds a digital asset that the SEC believes is a security. Moreover, even if the SEC took the view that a digital asset was not a security, based on prior spot exchange-traded product disapprovals, the existence of a CFTC-regulated futures market for the relevant digital asset would be central to the SEC’s approval of any request to list the shares of a spot exchange-traded product holding such digital asset. As of the date hereof, there are only CFTC-regulated futures markets for a limited number of digital assets, including Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash and Dogecoin. As such, there exist significant barriers to obtaining regulatory approval to list the shares of other digital asset investment vehicles, including the Shares of the Trust. Investors should not assume that recent approvals of spot Bitcoin and spot Ether exchange-traded products will subsequently lead to approval of spot exchange-traded products holding other digital assets, such as the Trust. Accordingly, there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be successful in listing the Shares of the Trust on NYSE Arca even if the Sponsor decides to do so.

The exchange listing of shares of digital asset funds would create more opportunities for institutional and retail investors to invest in the digital asset market. If exchange-listing requests beyond those for funds holding Bitcoin or Ether continue to be denied by the SEC, increased investment interest by institutional or retail investors could fail to materialize, which could reduce the demand for digital assets generally and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares

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

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

64Moreover, the legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by a third-party custodian, such as the Custodian, in insolvency proceedings are currently uncertain. The Custodian Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Digital Asset Account as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. The Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc., has stated in its public securities filings that in light of the inclusion in its custody agreements of provisions relating to Article 8 it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate in the event the Custodian were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. If the Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied digital assets were part of the Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust would be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets.

~~Moreover~~In addition, the ~~legal~~Custodian ~~rights~~is ofa ~~customers~~fiduciary ~~with~~under ~~respect~~§ to100 ~~digital~~of ~~assets~~the ~~held~~New onYork ~~their~~Banking ~~behalf~~Law byand a ~~third-party~~qualified custodian, ~~such~~for aspurposes ~~the~~of ~~Custodian,~~Rule in206(4)-2(d)(6) ~~insolvency~~under ~~proceedings~~the ~~are~~Investment ~~currently~~Advisers ~~uncertain.~~Act ~~The~~and ~~Custodian~~is ~~Agreement~~licensed ~~contains an agreement by the parties~~ to ~~treat~~custody the ~~digital assets credited to the~~ Trust’s ~~Digital~~ZEC ~~Asset Account as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”),~~ in ~~addition~~trust ~~to stating that the Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian~~ on the Trust’s behalf. ~~The Custodian’s parent~~However, ~~Coinbase~~the ~~Global~~SEC previously ~~Inc.,~~released ~~has~~proposed ~~stated~~amendments in ~~its~~February ~~public~~2023 ~~securities~~to ~~filings~~Rule 206(4)-2 that, inif ~~light~~enacted ofas ~~the~~proposed, ~~inclusion~~would inamend ~~its~~the ~~custody~~definition ~~agreements~~ of ~~provisions~~a ~~relating~~“qualified tocustodian” ~~Article~~under 8Rule it206(4)-2(d)(6). ~~believes~~Executive ~~that~~officers aof ~~court~~the ~~would~~Custodian’s ~~not~~parent ~~treat~~company ~~custodied~~have ~~digital~~made ~~assets~~public asstatements ~~part~~indicating ofthat ~~its general estate in~~ the ~~event the~~ Custodian ~~were~~would toremain ~~experience~~a ~~insolvency.~~qualified ~~However,~~custodian ~~due~~under to the ~~novelty~~proposed ofSEC ~~digital~~rule, ~~asset~~if ~~custodial~~enacted ~~arrangements~~as proposed. ~~courts~~In ~~have~~June ~~not~~2025, ~~yet~~however, ~~considered~~the ~~this~~SEC ~~type~~formally ofwithdrew ~~treatment~~that ~~for~~proposed ~~custodied~~rulemaking ~~digital~~and ~~assets~~stated ~~and~~that it isdoes not ~~possible~~intend to ~~predict~~issue ~~with~~final ~~certainty~~rules ~~how~~based ~~they~~on ~~would~~the ~~rule in such a scenario~~proposal. IfHowever, ~~the~~there ~~Custodian~~can ~~became~~be ~~subject~~no toassurance ~~insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule~~ that the ~~custodied digital assets were part of the~~ Custodian’s ~~general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust~~ would becontinue ~~treated~~to qualify as a ~~general~~“qualified ~~unsecured~~custodian” ~~creditor~~under ina ~~the~~future ~~Custodian’s~~final ~~insolvency~~rule ~~proceedings~~that ~~and~~may ~~the Trust could~~ be ~~subject~~proposed ~~to the loss of all~~ or aadopted ~~significant~~by ~~portion~~the ofSEC ~~its~~in ~~assets~~the future.

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

capacity in a timely manner or at all. If the Sponsor decides, or is required, to replace the Authorized Participant and/or if a Liquidity Provider is replaced or required to be replaced, this could negatively impact the Trust’s ability to create new Shares, which would impact the Shares’ liquidity and could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

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

The Trust is an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and intends to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in its periodic reports and exemptions from the requirement of shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. The Trust intends to take advantage of these reporting exemptions until it is no longer an emerging growth company. The Sponsor and the Trust cannot predict if investors will find the Shares less attractive because the Trust will rely on these exemptions. The Trust will remain an emerging growth company for up to five years after its initial public offering, although it will lose that status sooner if the Trust has more than $1.235 billion of revenues in a fiscal year, has more than $700 million in market value of Shares held by non-affiliates as of any June 30 or issues more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a rolling three-year period. If some investors find the Shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for the Shares and the price of the Shares may be more volatile.

Because of the holding period under Rule 144, the lack of an ongoing redemption program and the Trust’s ability to halt creations from time to time, there is no arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price and the Shares have historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.

Shares purchased in a private placement are subject to a holding period under Rule 144. Pursuant to Rule 144, the minimum holding period for Shares purchased in a private placement is six months. In addition, the Trust does not currently operate an ongoing redemption program and may halt creations from time to time. As a result, the Trust cannot rely on arbitrage opportunities resulting from differences between the value of the Shares and the price of ZEC to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price. As a result, the value of the Shares of the Trust may not approximate the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share or meet the Trust’s investment objective, and may trade at a substantial premium over, or substantial discount to, the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share. For example, in the past, the price of the Shares as quoted on OTCQX varied significantly from the NAV per Share due to these factors, among others, and has historically traded at a substantial premium over, or a substantial discount to, the NAV per Share.

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

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

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

Historically, the Shares have traded at both premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, which at times have been substantial. If the Shares trade at a premium, investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. In contrast, if the Shares trade on OTCQX at a discount, investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares on OTCQX. The premium or discount at which the Shares have traded has fluctuated over time. From October 18, 2021 to December 31, ~~2024~~2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 240%, the average premium was 7253%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 55% and the average discount was 2220%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between October 18, 2021 to December 31, 2025, has been quoted at a discount on 583 days. As of December 31, 2025, the last business day of the period, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a discount of 24% to the Trust’s NAV per Share. As a

6558

business day between October 18, 2021 to December 31, 2024, has been quoted at a discount on 482 days. As of December 31, 2024, the last business day of the period, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a premium of 22% to the Trust’s NAV per Share. As a result, shareholders who purchase Shares on OTCQX may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the premium has decreased from the premium at which they purchased the Shares even if the NAV per Share remains the same. Likewise, shareholders that purchase Shares directly from the Trust may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the Shares are trading at a discount on OTCQX. Furthermore, shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment even if the NAV per Share increases because the decrease in any premium or increase in any discount may offset any increase in the NAV per Share.

The amount of the Trust’s assets represented by each Share will decline over time as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses, and as a result, the value of the Shares may decrease over time.

The Sponsor’s Fee accrues daily in U.S. dollars at an annual rate based on the NAV Fee Basis Amount, which is based on the NAV of the Trust, and is paid to the Sponsor in ZEC. See “Item 1. Business—Valuation of ZEC and Determination of NAV—Disposition of ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency” ~~and “Item 1~~. ~~Business—Activities of the Trust—Hypothetical Expense Example.”~~ As a result, the amount of Trust’s assets represented by each Share declines as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee (or sells ZEC 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 ZEC.

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of ZEC 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 ZEC have been developed specifically for this product;

•

The Trust could experience difficulties in operating and maintaining its technical infrastructure, including in connection with expansions or updates to such infrastructure, which are likely to be complex and could lead to unanticipated delays, unforeseen expenses and security vulnerabilities;

•

The Trust could experience unforeseen issues relating to the performance and effectiveness of the security procedures used to protect the Digital Asset Account, or the security procedures may not protect against all errors, software flaws or other vulnerabilities in the Trust’s technical infrastructure, which could result in theft, loss or damage of its assets; or

•

Service providers may decide to terminate their relationships with the Trust due to concerns that the introduction of privacy enhancing features to the Zcash Network may increase the potential for ZEC 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.

The restrictions on transfer and redemption may result in losses on the value of the Shares.

Shares purchased in a private placement may not be resold except in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act and state securities laws, and any such transaction must be approved in advance by the Sponsor. In determining whether to grant approval, the Sponsor will specifically look at whether the conditions of Rule 144 under the Securities Act and any other applicable laws have been met. Any attempt to sell Shares without the approval of the Sponsor in its sole discretion will be void ab initio. See “Item 1. Business—Description of the Shares—Transfer Restrictions” for more information.

At this time the Sponsor is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. Because the Sponsor does not believe that the SEC would, at this time, entertain an application for the waiver of rules needed in order to operate an ongoing redemption program, the Sponsor currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval from the SEC for the Trust to operate an ongoing redemption program and significant barriers to regulatory approval for any request to list the shares of other digital asset investment vehicles, including the Shares of the Trust, remain. Absent the institution of such redemption program, the Shares may trade at a discount in the future, and may do so indefinitely. Therefore, unless the Trust is permitted to, and does, establish a Share redemption program, shareholders will be unable to (or could be significantly impeded in attempting to) sell or otherwise liquidate investments in the Shares, which could have a material adverse impact on demand for the Shares and their value.59

laws have been met. Any attempt to sell Shares without the approval of the Sponsor in its sole discretion will be void ab initio. See “Item 1. Business—Description of the Shares—Transfer Restrictions” for more information.

At this time the Sponsor is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. Absent the institution of such redemption program, the Shares may trade at a discount in the future, and may do so indefinitely. Therefore, unless the Trust is permitted to, and does, establish a Share redemption program, shareholders will be unable to (or could be significantly impeded in attempting to) sell or otherwise liquidate investments in the Shares, which could have a material adverse impact on demand for the Shares and their value.

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

On April 1, 2014, Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF, an affiliate of the Trust, launched a program pursuant to which its shareholders could request redemptions from Genesis, an affiliate of the Trust and the sole Authorized Participant of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF at that time. On September 23, 2014, Genesis received a letter from the staff of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations summarizing the staff’s findings from an onsite review of Genesis’s broker-dealer activities conducted in June 2014. In its exit report, the staff stated that it had concluded that Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF’s redemption program, in which its shareholders were permitted to request the redemption of their shares through Genesis, appeared to violate Regulation M under the Exchange Act because such redemptions of shares took place at the same time Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF was in the process of creating shares. On July 11, 2016, Genesis and Grayscale Bitcoin Trust ETF entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC whereby they agreed to a cease-and-desist order against future violations of Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M under the Exchange Act. Genesis also agreed to pay disgorgement of $51,650.11 in redemption fees it collected, plus prejudgment interest of $2,105.68, for a total of $53,755.79. ~~The Trust currently has no intention of seeking an exemption from the SEC under Regulation M in order to instate a redemption program.~~

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

The Shares are qualified for public trading on OTCQX and an active trading market for the Shares has developed. However, there can be no assurance that such trading market will be maintained or continue to develop. In addition, OTCQX can halt the trading of the Shares for a variety of reasons. To the extent that OTCQX halts trading in the Shares, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, investors may not be able to buy or sell Shares, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares. If an active trading market for the Shares does not continue to exist, the market prices and liquidity of the Shares may be adversely affected.

~~The~~In ~~Sponsor~~November ~~may~~2025, ~~also~~the ~~seek~~Sponsor tocaused ~~list~~ the ~~Shares~~Trust onto ~~NYSE~~file ~~Arca~~a ~~sometime~~registration instatement ~~the~~on ~~future,~~Form ~~and~~S-3 ~~NYSE~~under ~~Arca~~the ~~must~~Securities ~~receive~~Act ~~approval~~of ~~from~~1933 ~~the~~in ~~SEC~~connection inwith ~~order~~a toproposed ~~list~~listing of the Shares, ~~but~~on isNYSE ~~not~~Arca. ~~currently~~The ~~seeking~~registration ~~approval~~statement ~~for~~has ~~required~~not ~~rule~~been ~~changes~~declared ~~and~~effective ~~currently~~by ~~has~~the noSEC, ~~intention~~and toNYSE doArca ~~so.~~has ~~Even~~not ifyet ~~such~~approved ~~approval~~the ~~were~~Shares ~~sought~~for inlisting. ~~the~~There ~~future, there~~ can be no ~~guarantee~~assurance that the ~~Shares~~SEC will ~~ever~~declare bethe ~~listed~~registration onstatement ~~NYSE~~effective ~~Arca.~~or ~~See~~that ~~“—Failure~~the ofShares ~~funds~~will ~~that~~be ~~hold~~listed ~~digital~~or ~~assets~~commence ortrading ~~that~~on ~~have~~NYSE ~~exposure~~Arca. toEven ~~digital~~if ~~assets~~the ~~through~~Shares ~~derivatives~~are tolisted, ~~receive~~there ~~SEC~~can ~~approval~~be tono ~~list~~assurance ~~their~~that ~~shares~~an onactive ~~exchanges~~trading ~~could~~market ~~adversely~~on ~~affect~~NYSE ~~the~~Arca ~~value~~will ofdevelop ~~the~~or ~~Shares~~be sustained.”

As the Sponsor and its management have limited history of operating investment vehicles like the Trust, their experience may be inadequate or unsuitable to manage the Trust.

The past performances of the Sponsor’s management in other investment vehicles, including their experiences in the digital asset and venture capital industries, are no indication of their ability to manage an investment vehicle such as the Trust. If the experience of the Sponsor and its management is inadequate or unsuitable to manage an investment vehicle such as the Trust, the operations of the Trust may be adversely affected.

Furthermore, the Sponsor is currently engaged in the management of other investment vehicles which could divert their attention and resources. If the Sponsor were to experience difficulties in the management of such other investment vehicles that damaged the Sponsor or its reputation, it could have an adverse impact on the Sponsor’s ability to continue to serve as Sponsor for the Trust.

Security threats to the Digital Asset Account could result in the halting of Trust operations and a loss of Trust assets or damage to the reputation of the Trust, each of which could result in a reduction in the value of the Shares.

Security breaches, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in relation to digital assets. The Sponsor believes that the Trust’s ZEC held in the Digital Asset Account will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s ZEC and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. To the extent that the Trust, the Sponsor or the Custodian is unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats or otherwise adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, the Trust’s ZEC may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack.

The Sponsor believes that the security procedures in place for the Trust, including, but not limited to, offline storage, or “cold storage”, multiple encrypted private key “shards”, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification, are reasonably designed to safeguard the Trust’s ZEC. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Trust.

The security procedures and operational infrastructure may be breached due to the actions of outside parties, error or malfeasance of an employee of the Sponsor, the Custodian, or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to a Digital Asset Account, the relevant private keys (and therefore ZEC) or other data of the Trust. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor or the Custodian to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to the Trust’s infrastructure. As the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently, or may be designed to remain dormant until a predetermined event and often are not recognized until launched against a target, the Sponsor and the Custodian may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures.

fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor or the Custodian to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to the Trust’s infrastructure. As the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently, or may be designed to remain dormant until a predetermined event and often are not recognized until launched against a target, the Sponsor and the Custodian may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures.

An actual or perceived breach of a Digital Asset Account could harm the Trust’s operations, result in loss of the Trust’s assets, damage the Trust’s reputation and negatively affect the market perception of the effectiveness of the Trust, all of which could in turn reduce demand for the Shares, resulting in a reduction in the value of the Shares. The Trust may also cease operations, the occurrence of which could similarly result in a reduction in the value of the Shares.

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

ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC will regularly be made to or from the Digital Asset Account, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s ZEC could be transferred from the Trust’s Digital Asset Account in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties, or to uncontrolled accounts.

Such events have occurred in connection with digital assets in the past. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek a corrective transaction with such third party or is incapable of identifying the third party which has received the Trust’s ZEC through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred ZEC. The Trust will also be unable to convert or recover its ZEC transferred to uncontrolled accounts. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek redress for such error or theft, such loss could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The lack of full insurance and shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Transfer Agent and Custodian expose the Trust and its shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s ZEC 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 ~~insures~~insure the Trust’s ZEC.

While the Custodian is required under the Custodian Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that is commercially reasonable for the custodial services it provides, and the Custodian has advised the Sponsor that it maintains insurance coverage at commercially reasonable amounts for the digital assets custodied on behalf of clients, including the Trust’s ZEC, resulting from theft, shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s ZEC. Moreover, while the Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody and to the extent required by applicable law, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Sponsor does not know the amount of such capital reserves, and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor have access to such information. The Trust cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. Furthermore, Coinbase has represented in securities filings that the total value of crypto assets in its possession and control is significantly greater than the total value of insurance coverage that would compensate Coinbase in the event of theft or other loss of funds.

Furthermore, under the Custodian Agreement, the Custodian’s liability with respect to the Trust will never exceed the value of the ZEC on deposit in the Digital Asset Account at the time of, and directly relating to, the events giving rise to the liability occurred, as determined in accordance with the Custodian Agreement. In addition, for as long as a cold storage address holds ZEC with a value in excess of the Cold Storage Threshold for a period of five consecutive business days or more without being reduced to the Cold Storage Threshold or lower, the Custodian’s maximum liability for such cold storage address shall be limited to the Cold Storage Threshold. The Sponsor monitors the value of ZEC deposited in cold storage addresses for whether the Cold Storage Threshold has been met by determining the U.S. dollar value of ZEC deposited in each cold storage address on business days. The Custodian is not liable for any lost profits or any special, incidental, indirect, intangible, or consequential damages, whether based in contract, tort, negligence, strict liability or otherwise, and whether or not the Custodian has been advised of such losses or the Custodian knew or should have known of the possibility of such damages. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Custodian is liable to the Sponsor and the Trust for the loss of any ZEC to the extent that the Custodian directly caused such loss through a breach of the Custodian Agreement, even if the Custodian meets its duty of exercising best efforts, and the Custodian is required to return to the Trust a quantity equal to the quantity of any such lost ZEC. Although the Cold Storage Threshold has never been met for a given cold storage address, to the extent it is met and not reduced within five business days, the Trust would not have a claim against the Custodian with respect to the digital assets held in such address to the extent the value exceeds the Cold Storage Threshold.

The shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including those relating to the provision of instructions relating to the movement of ZEC, is limited. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s ZEC 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.

with respect to the Trust’s ZEC 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 ZEC is lower than the Index Price was at the time when shareholders purchased their Shares. In such a case, when the Trust’s ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC price, the Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Index Price.

accurate ZEC 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 ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC. 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 ZEC.” Extraordinary expenses incurred by the Trust, such as taxes and governmental charges; expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust or the interests of shareholders (including in connection with any Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency); or extraordinary legal fees and expenses are not assumed by the Sponsor and are borne by the Trust. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to either (i) sell ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency held by the Trust or (ii) deliver ZEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in-kind to the Sponsor to pay Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor on an as-needed basis. Accordingly, the Trust may be required to sell or otherwise dispose of ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency at a time when the trading prices for those assets are depressed.

The sale or other disposition of assets of the Trust in order to pay extraordinary expenses could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares for several reasons. These include the following factors:

•

The Trust is not actively managed and no attempt will be made to protect against or to take advantage of fluctuations in the prices of ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Consequently, if the Trust incurs expenses in U.S. dollars, the Trust’s ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency may be sold at a time when the values of the disposed assets are low, resulting in a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

•

Because the Trust does not generate any income, every time that the Trust pays expenses, it will deliver ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to the Sponsor or sell ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Any sales of the Trust’s assets in connection with the payment of expenses will decrease the amount of the Trust’s assets represented by each Share each time its assets are sold or transferred to the Sponsor.

•

Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery or sale of ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and/or Additional Trust Expenses will be a taxable event to beneficial owners of Shares. Thus, the Trust’s payment of expenses could result in beneficial owners of Shares incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust. Any such tax liability could adversely affect an investment in the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

The Trust’s delivery or sale of ZEC 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 ZEC by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses and each sale of ZEC 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 ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. However, third parties may assert intellectual property rights claims relating to the operation of the Trust and the mechanics instituted for the investment in, holding of and transfer of ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Regardless of the merit of an intellectual property or other legal action, any legal expenses to defend or payments to settle such claims would be extraordinary expenses that would be borne by the Trust through the sale or transfer of its ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property rights claim could prevent the Trust from operating and force the Sponsor to terminate the Trust and liquidate its ZEC, Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. As a result, an intellectual property rights claim against the Trust could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

Pandemics, epidemics and other natural and man-made disasters could negatively impact demand for digital assets, including ZEC, 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 ZEC 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.

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

In addition to forks, a digital asset may become subject to a similar occurrence known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promoters of a new digital asset announce to some group of users, such as the group that are holders of another digital asset, that such group will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they are part of that group.

Shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. We refer to the right to receive any such benefit as an “Incidental Right” and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.” There are likely to be operational, tax, securities law, regulatory, legal and practical issues that significantly limit, or prevent entirely, shareholders’ ability to realize a benefit, through their Shares in the Trust, from any such Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. For instance, the Custodian may not agree to provide access to the IR Virtual Currency. In addition, the Sponsor may determine that there is no safe or practical way to custody the IR Virtual Currency, or that trying to do so may pose an unacceptable risk to the Trust’s holdings in ZEC, or that the costs of taking possession and/or maintaining ownership of the IR Virtual Currency exceed the benefits of owning the IR Virtual Currency. Additionally, laws, regulation or other factors may prevent shareholders from benefiting from the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency even if there is a safe and practical way to custody and secure the IR Virtual Currency. For example, it may be illegal to sell or otherwise dispose of the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, or there may not be a suitable market into which the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency can be sold (immediately after the fork or airdrop, or ever). The Sponsor may also determine, in consultation with its legal advisers, that the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency is, or is likely to be deemed, a security under federal or state securities laws. In such a case, the Sponsor would irrevocably abandon, as of any date on which the Trust creates Shares, such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency if holding it would have an adverse effect on the Trust and it would not be practicable to avoid such effect by disposing of the Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency in a manner that would result in shareholders receiving more than insignificant value thereof. In making such a determination, the Sponsor expects to take into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of a “security” under the federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security for purposes of the federal securities laws.

The Trust has informed the Custodian that it is irrevocably abandoning, as of any date on which the Trust creates Shares, any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such date and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such date. In order to avert abandonment of an Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency, the Trust will send a notice to the Custodian of its intention to retain such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor intends to evaluate each future fork or airdrop on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Trust’s legal advisers, tax consultants and Custodian. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency.”

7264

Trust will send a notice to the Custodian of its intention to retain such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency. The Sponsor intends to evaluate each future fork or airdrop on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Trust’s legal advisers, tax consultants and Custodian. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency.”

The Sponsor may implement restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that may not necessarily align with shareholder interests.

There can be no assurance that the Sponsor will implement restatements, amendments or supplements that align with the interests of shareholders. To the extent shareholders do not agree with future amendments to the Trust Agreement, shareholders will not have any ability to consent or object to such amendments, and the shareholders’ sole recourse will be to divest or, through an Authorized Participant, redeem their Shares prior to the effective date of such amendments.

The Sponsor may implement restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that may increase risk to the Trust’s intended tax treatment.

It is possible that, in the future, the Sponsor will implement restatements, amendments, or supplements to the Trust Agreement that could adversely affect the intended tax treatment of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, including on the receipt of an opinion of counsel to the effect that doing so should not cause the Trust to fail to qualify as a grantor trust for those purposes. There can be no assurance that the IRS or any court will agree with any such position, or that the Trust will not cease to qualify as grantor trust as result of any such restatement, amendment or supplement.

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

~~Depending~~The onSEC, ~~its~~at ~~characteristics~~least under the prior administration, ahas stated that certain digital ~~asset~~assets may be considered a “~~security~~securities” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. ~~Public~~A number of SEC and SEC staff actions with respect to a variety of digital assets demonstrate this difficulty. For example, public, though non-binding, statements by senior officials at the SEC have indicated that the SEC ~~does~~did not consider Bitcoin or Ether to be securities., and does not currently consider Bitcoin to be a security. In addition, the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving the exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based ETPs, appears to have implicitly taken the view that Ether is not a security. The SEC staff has also provided informal assurances via no-action letter to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. OnMoreover, the ~~other~~SEC’s ~~hand~~Division of Corporation Finance has published statements that it does not consider, under certain circumstances, “meme coins” or some stablecoins to be securities. However, such statements may be withdrawn at any time without notice and comment by the Division of Corporation Finance at the SEC ~~has~~or the SEC itself. In addition, the SEC under former SEC Chair Gensler’s leadership brought enforcement actions against the issuers and promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities. ~~More~~The ~~recently,~~SEC ~~the~~under former SEC ~~has~~Chair ~~also~~Gensler’s leadership brought enforcement actions against Digital Asset Trading Platforms for allegedly operating unregistered securities exchanges on the basis that certain of the digital assets traded on their platforms are securities.

Whether a digital asset is a security, or offers and sales of a digital asset are securities transactions, under the federal securities laws depends on whether it is included in the lists of instruments making up the definition of “security” in ~~the~~such ~~Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act~~laws. Digital assets as such do not appear in any of these lists, although each list includes the terms “investment contract” and “note,” and the SEC has typically analyzed whether a particular digital asset is a security or the offer and sale of a digital asset is a securities transaction by reference to whether it meets the tests developed by the federal courts interpreting these terms, known as the Howey and Reves tests, respectively. For many digital assets, whether or not the Howey or Reves tests are met is difficult to resolve definitively, and substantial legal arguments can often be made both in favor of and against a particular digital asset qualifying as a security, or a particular offer and sale of a digital asset qualifying as a securities transaction under one or both of the Howey and Reves tests. Adding to the complexity, the SEC staff has indicated that the security status of a particular digital asset can change over time as the relevant facts evolve, though ~~recent~~ arguments advanced in ~~ongoing~~some ~~litigation~~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 ZEC is a security or a transaction in ZEC 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 ZEC and the Sponsor’s transactions in ZEC with external counsel, and has received a memorandum regarding the status of ZEC and the Sponsor’s transactions in ZEC under the federal securities laws from external counsel and has discussed the status of ZEC with external counsel and continues to believe that ZEC is not a security. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that ZEC is not a security in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests. The Sponsor has been contacted by staff from the SEC’s Divisions of Corporation Finance and Enforcement with respect to securities law compliance matters involving ZEC and has responded to the SEC staff. The Sponsor subsequently received a termination notice from the SEC staff with respect to this inquiry.

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. Any such conclusions are risk-based judgments made by the Sponsor and not a legal standard or determination binding on any regulatory body or court.

As is the case with ZEC, 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 ZEC or any other particular digital asset.

73As such, notwithstanding the Sponsor’s receipt of a memorandum regarding the status of ZEC under the federal securities laws from external counsel and the Sponsor’s view that ZEC is not a security and the Sponsor’s transactions in ZEC are not securities transactions, the SEC or a federal court may in the future take a different view as to the security status of ZEC.

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 ZEC or any other particular digital asset.

As such, notwithstanding the Sponsor’s receipt of a memorandum regarding the status of ZEC under the federal securities laws from external counsel and the Sponsor’s view that ZEC 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 ZEC.

If the Sponsor determines that ZEC, or transactions in ZEC, 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 ZEC is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding ZEC 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 ZEC is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that ZEC 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 ZEC, or transactions in ZEC, 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 ZEC, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset or transactions in that digital asset 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.66

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that ZEC, or transactions in ZEC, 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 ZEC, 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. Onand ~~January 15, 2025~~ the ~~SEC~~parties ~~filed~~each andismissed ~~appeal~~their ~~against~~appeals ~~the~~to ~~judgment with~~ the ~~United~~Second ~~States~~Circuit ~~Court~~on ofAugust ~~Appeals~~7, ~~for the Second Circuit~~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 toor no bearing on whether the SEC, a state securities regulator or any particular court will find it to be a security.

In addition, if ZEC, or transactions in ZEC, 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.

74Moreover, 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 ZEC is a security or transactions in ZEC 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 ZEC is a security or transactions in ZEC are securities transactions, the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.

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. If the SEC or a federal court were to determine that ZEC is a security or transactions in ZEC 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 ZEC is a security or transactions in ZEC are securities transactions, the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.

As digital assets have grown in both popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, OFAC, SEC, CFTC, FINRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and state financial institution and securities regulators) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the Digital Asset Markets, with particular focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities, evade sanctions, or fund criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness of trading platforms and other service providers that hold or custody digital assets for users. Many of these state and federal agencies have issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or ZEC in particular may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate.

In August 2021, the former chair of the SEC stated that he believed investors using Digital Asset Trading Platforms are not adequately protected, and that activities on the platforms can implicate the securities laws, commodities laws and banking laws, raising a number of issues related to protecting investors and consumers, guarding against illicit activity, and ensuring financial stability. The former chair expressed a need for the SEC to have additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from “falling between regulatory cracks,” as well as for more resources to protect investors in “this growing and volatile sector.” The former chair called for federal legislation centering on digital asset trading, lending, and decentralized finance platforms, seeking “additional plenary authority” to write rules for digital asset trading and lending. There have also been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets. In connection with these developments, the SEC has taken a number of actions. For example, in February 2023, the SEC proposed amendments to the custody rules under Rule 206(4)-2 of the Investment Advisers Act. The proposed rule changes would amend the definition of a “qualified custodian” under Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6) and expand the current custody rule in 206(4)-2 to cover digital assets and related advisory activities. If enacted as proposed, these rules would likely impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to the custody and storage of digital assets and could lead to additional regulatory oversight of the digital asset ecosystem more broadly. It is also possible that a new Administration and a new Congress in the United States propose new laws and regulations related to digital assets. Moreover, the failure of FTX in November 2022 and the resulting market turmoil substantially increased regulatory scrutiny in the United States and globally and led to SEC and criminal investigations, enforcement actions and other regulatory activity across the digital asset ecosystem. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought enforcement actions against Binance and Coinbase, two of the largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, alleging that Binance and Coinbase operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken, alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. 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.”67

Itand isfederal ~~difficult~~agencies tohave ~~predict~~issued ~~whether,~~consumer oradvisories ~~when,~~regarding ~~any~~the ofrisks ~~these~~posed ~~developments~~by ~~will~~digital ~~lead~~assets to ~~Congress~~investors. ~~granting~~Ongoing ~~additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation~~ and~~/or~~ future regulatory ~~oversight~~actions ~~might~~with ~~impact~~respect ~~the~~to ~~ability~~digital ofassets ~~Digital~~generally ~~Asset Markets to function~~ or ~~how~~ZEC ~~any~~in ~~new~~particular ~~regulations~~may oralter, ~~changes~~perhaps to ~~existing~~a ~~regulations~~materially ~~might~~adverse ~~impact~~extent, the ~~value~~nature of ~~digital~~an ~~assets~~investment ~~generally~~in ~~and~~the ~~ZEC~~Shares ~~held~~or by the ~~Trust~~ability ~~specifically. The consequences~~ of ~~increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on~~ the Trust ~~and~~to ~~the~~continue ~~Shares~~to operate.

75On 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.

~~Law~~There ~~enforcement agencies~~ have ~~often~~also ~~relied~~been onseveral ~~the~~bills ~~transparency~~introduced ofin ~~blockchains~~Congress tothat ~~facilitate~~propose ~~investigations. However, certain privacy-enhancing features have been, or are expected~~ to ~~be,~~establish ~~introduced~~additional toregulation aand ~~number~~oversight of the digital asset ~~networks, and these features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction-level data~~markets. ~~Europol~~For example, the ~~European~~CLARITY ~~Union’s~~Act ~~law~~was ~~enforcement~~passed ~~agency,~~by ~~released a report in October 2017 noting~~ the ~~increased~~House ~~use~~ of ~~privacy-enhancing~~Representatives ~~digital assets like Zcash and Monero~~ in ~~criminal~~July ~~activity~~2025, onwhich ~~the~~would, ~~internet.~~if ~~In August 2022~~enacted, ~~OFAC~~regulate ~~banned~~digital ~~all~~asset ~~transactions~~markets byand ~~U.S.~~digital ~~persons~~asset ortrading platforms in the United States. ~~involving~~In ~~Tornado Cash~~addition, aalso ~~digital~~in ~~asset~~July ~~protocol designed to obfuscate blockchain transactions~~2025, bythe ~~adding~~Guiding ~~Tornado Cash~~ and ~~certain~~Establishing ~~Ethereum~~National ~~wallet~~Innovation ~~addresses~~for ~~associated with the protocol to its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List~~U.S. AStablecoins ~~large~~Act ~~portion~~ of ~~validators~~2025 ~~globally,~~(the as“GENIUS ~~well~~Act”) asbecame ~~notable~~the ~~industry~~first ~~participants~~federal ~~such~~law asspecifically ~~Centre,~~regulating the ~~issuer~~issuance, ofcustody ~~the~~and ~~USDC~~other stablecoin,-related ~~have~~matters ~~reportedly~~in ~~complied with~~ the ~~sanctions~~United ~~and~~States. ~~blacklisted~~It ~~the~~is ~~sanctioned~~difficult ~~addresses~~to ~~from~~predict ~~interacting~~whether, ~~with~~or ~~their networks. In October 2023~~when, ~~FinCEN~~the ~~issued~~CLARITY aAct ~~notice~~or ofanother ~~proposed~~bill ~~rulemaking~~ that ~~identified~~would ~~convertible~~regulate ~~virtual~~digital ~~currency~~asset ~~(CVC)~~markets ~~mixing as a class of transactions of primary money laundering concern~~ and ~~proposed~~digital ~~requiring~~asset ~~covered~~trading ~~financial~~platforms ~~institutions~~may tobecome ~~implement~~law ~~certain~~or ~~recordkeeping~~what ~~and~~any ~~reporting~~such ~~requirements~~bill onmay ~~transactions~~entail. ~~that~~It ~~covered~~is ~~financial~~difficult ~~institutions~~to ~~know,~~predict ~~suspect~~whether, or ~~have~~when, ~~reason~~any toof ~~suspect~~these ~~involve~~developments ~~CVC~~will ~~mixing~~lead ~~within~~to orCongress ~~involving~~granting ~~jurisdictions~~additional ~~outside~~authorities to the ~~United~~SEC ~~States.~~or Inother ~~April 2024~~regulators, ~~the~~what ~~DOJ arrested and charged~~ the ~~developers~~nature of ~~the~~such ~~Samourai~~additional ~~Wallet~~authorities ~~mixing~~might ~~service~~be, ~~with~~how ~~conspiracy~~additional tolegislation ~~commit money laundering~~ and/or ~~conspiracy~~regulatory tooversight ~~operate~~might animpact ~~unlicensed~~the ~~money~~ability ~~transmitting~~of ~~business.~~Digital InAsset ~~May~~Markets ~~2024,~~to afunction ~~co-founder~~or ofhow ~~Tornado~~any ~~Cash~~new ~~was~~regulations ~~sentenced~~or changes to ~~more~~existing ~~than~~regulations ~~five~~might ~~years~~impact ~~imprisonment in~~ the ~~Netherlands~~value ~~for~~of ~~developing~~digital ~~Tornado~~assets ~~Cash~~generally onand ~~the~~ZEC ~~basis~~held ~~that~~by hethe ~~had~~Trust ~~helped~~specifically. ~~launder~~The ~~more~~consequences ~~than~~of $2increased ~~billion~~federal ~~worth~~regulation of digital assets ~~through~~and ~~Tornado~~digital ~~Cash.~~asset ~~Additional~~activities ~~regulatory~~could ~~action~~have ~~with~~a ~~respect~~material toadverse ~~privacy-enhancing~~effect ~~digital~~on ~~assets~~the isTrust ~~possible~~and in the ~~future~~Shares.

~~Changes~~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, and these features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction-level data. Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, released a report in ~~SEC~~October ~~policy~~2017 ~~could~~noting ~~adversely~~the ~~impact~~increased use of privacy-enhancing digital assets like Zcash and Monero in criminal activity on the ~~value~~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 ~~Shares~~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.

The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or the digital assets held by the Trust is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares. In particular, with the exception of funds that hold Bitcoin, Ether and certain Bitcoin-based derivatives or Ether-based derivatives, the SEC has not yet approved the listing on a national securities exchange of any non-futures based digital-asset focused exchange-traded fund or exchange-traded product (such product, an “ETP”). If the SEC were to approve any such ETF other than ours in the future, such an ETF may be perceived to be a superior investment product offering exposure to digital assets compared to the Trust because the value of the shares issued by such an ETF would be expected to more closely track the ETF’s net asset value than do Shares of the Trust, and investors may therefore favor investments in such ETFs over investments in the Trust. Any weakening in demand for the Shares compared to digital asset ETF shares could cause the value of the Shares to decline.

Competing industries may have more influence with policymakers than the digital asset industry, which could lead to the adoption of laws and regulations that are harmful to the digital asset industry.

The digital asset industry is relatively new, although its influence over public policy is increasing, and it ~~does~~may not have the same access to policymakers and lobbying organizations in many jurisdictions compared to industries with which digital assets may be seen to compete, such as banking, payments and consumer finance. Competitors from other, more established industries may have greater access to and influence with governmental officials and regulators and may be successful in persuading these policymakers that digital assets require heightened levels of regulation compared to the regulation of traditional financial services. As a result, new laws and regulations may be proposed and adopted in the United States and elsewhere, or existing laws and regulations may be interpreted in new ways, that disfavor or impose compliance burdens on the digital asset industry or digital asset platforms, which could adversely impact the value of ZEC and therefore the value of the Shares.

Various foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the digital asset network, the Digital Asset Markets, and their users, particularly Digital Asset Trading Platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example, if foreign jurisdictions in addition to China were to ban or otherwise restrict mining activity, including by regulating or limiting manufacturers’ ability to produce or sell semiconductors or hard drives in connection with mining, it would have a material adverse effect on digital asset networks (including the Zcash 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 ZEC Industry and Market—Government Oversight.”

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 ZEC 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 ZEC. 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 ZEC is impossible to predict, and such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.

If regulators or public utilities take actions that restrict or otherwise impact mining activities, there may be a significant decline in such activities, which could adversely affect the Zcash Network and the value of the Shares.

Concerns have been raised about the electricity required to secure and maintain digital asset networks. For example, as of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, over ~~703~~980 million tera hashes are performed every second in connection with mining on the Bitcoin Network. Although measuring the electricity consumed by this process is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. The operations of the Zcash Network and other digital asset networks may also consume significant amounts of energy. Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a network’s total energy consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations.

Driven by concerns around energy consumption and the impact on public utility companies, various states and cities have implemented, or are considering implementing, moratoriums on mining activity in their jurisdictions. For example, in November 2022, New York imposed a two-year moratorium on new proof-of-work mining permits at fossil fuel plants in the state. A significant reduction in mining activity as a result of such actions could adversely affect the security of the Zcash Network by making it easier for a malicious actor or botnet to manipulate the Blockchain. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power on the Zcash Network, or otherwise obtains control over the Zcash Network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.” If regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Zcash Network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares.

If regulators subject an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to regulation as a money service business or money transmitter, this could result in extraordinary expenses to the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares.

To the extent that the activities of any Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor cause it to be deemed a “money services business” under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN, such Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to implement anti-money laundering programs, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain certain records. Similarly, the activities of an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may require it to be licensed as a money transmitter or as a digital asset business, such as under the NYDFS’ BitLicense regulations or California’s Digital Financial Assets Law, once effective.

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.

77Statutory 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.

~~Regulatory~~Current ~~changes~~and orfuture ~~interpretations~~legislation, ~~could~~CFTC ~~obligate~~and SEC rulemaking and other regulatory developments may impact the ~~Trust~~manner in which ZEC is treated. In particular, ZEC may be classified by the CFTC as a “commodity interest” under the CEA or may be classified by the ~~Sponsor~~SEC toas ~~register~~a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws. It is also possible that a new Administration and ~~comply~~Congress ~~with~~in the United States creates a new ~~regulations~~classification for digital assets. For example, ~~resulting~~the incurrent ~~potentially~~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 ZEC 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.

~~Current~~To ~~and future legislation, CFTC and SEC rulemaking and other regulatory developments may impact~~ the ~~manner~~extent inthat ~~which~~ ZEC is ~~treated.~~deemed Into ~~particular,~~fall ~~ZEC~~within ~~may be classified by~~ the ~~CFTC~~definition asof a “commodity interest” under the CEA, ordue ~~may~~to bethe ~~classified~~passage byof the ~~SEC~~CLARITY asAct aor ~~“security”~~otherwise, ~~under~~the ~~U.S.~~Trust ~~federal~~and ~~securities~~the ~~laws.~~Sponsor Itmay isbe ~~possible~~subject ~~that~~to aadditional ~~new~~regulation ~~Administration~~under ~~and~~the ~~Congress~~CEA inand ~~the~~CFTC ~~United~~regulations. ~~States~~The ~~creates~~Sponsor amay ~~new~~be ~~classification~~required ~~for~~to ~~digital~~register ~~assets.~~as ~~The~~a ~~Sponsor~~commodity ~~and~~pool ~~the~~operator ~~Trust~~or ~~cannot~~commodity betrading ~~certain~~adviser aswith tothe ~~how~~CFTC ~~future~~and ~~regulatory~~become ~~developments~~a ~~will~~member ~~impact~~of the ~~treatment~~National ofFutures ~~ZEC~~Association ~~under~~and ~~the~~may ~~law.~~be Insubject ~~the~~to ~~face~~additional ofregulatory ~~such~~requirements ~~developments,~~with respect to the ~~required~~Trust, ~~registrations~~including disclosure and ~~compliance~~reporting ~~steps~~requirements. These additional requirements may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or nonrecurring expenses toof the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor ~~decides~~determines not to ~~terminate~~comply ~~the~~with ~~Trust~~such inadditional ~~response~~regulatory toand registration requirements, the ~~changed~~Sponsor ~~regulatory~~will ~~circumstances,~~terminate the Trust. ~~may~~Any besuch ~~dissolved~~termination orcould ~~liquidated~~result in the liquidation of the Trust’s ZEC at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

To the extent that ZEC is deemed to fall within the definition of a “commodity interest” under the CEA, the Trust and the Sponsor may be subject to additional regulation under the CEA and CFTC regulations. The Sponsor may be required to register as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading adviser with the CFTC and become a member of the National Futures Association and may be subject to additional regulatory requirements with respect to the Trust, including disclosure and reporting requirements. These additional requirements may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or nonrecurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s ZEC at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

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

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

If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge certain positions the Trust may take, including with respect to Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency, the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Sponsor has delivered the Pre-Creation Abandonment Notice to the Custodian stating that the Trust is irrevocably abandoning, effective immediately prior to each Creation Time, all Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such time. 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 ZEC as of any date on which it creates Shares, it ~~would~~might ~~likely~~ cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Because of the evolving nature of digital assets, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets, including forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences. Assuming that the Trust is currently a grantor trust for ~~U.S. federal income tax purposes, certain future developments could render it impossible, or impracticable, for the Trust to continue to be treated as a grantor trust for such purposes.~~

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 (as discussed above in “Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets”), there can be no assurance in this regard. If the Trust were classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the tax consequences of owning Shares generally would not be materially different from the tax consequences described herein, although there might be certain differences, including with respect to timing of the recognition of taxable income or loss. In addition, tax information reports provided to beneficial owners of Shares would be made in a different form. If the Trust were not classified as either a grantor trust or a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it would be classified as a corporation for such purposes. In that event, the Trust would be subject to entity-level U.S. federal income tax (currently at the rate of 21%) on its net taxable income and certain distributions made by the Trust to shareholders would be treated as taxable dividends to the extent of the Trust’s current and accumulated earnings and profits. Any such dividend distributed to a beneficial owner of Shares that is a non-U.S. person for U.S. federal income tax purposes would be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax at a rate of 30% (or such lower rate as provided in an applicable tax treaty).

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

As discussed in the section entitled “Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets” above, assuming that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each beneficial owner of Shares will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of an undivided interest in the ZEC (and, if applicable, any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency) held in the Trust. Due to the new and evolving nature of digital assets and the absence of comprehensive guidance with respect to digital assets, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets are uncertain.

In 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released a notice (the “Notice”) discussing certain aspects of “convertible virtual currency” (that is, digital assets that have an equivalent value in fiat currency or that act as substitutes for fiat currency) for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, in particular, stating that such digital assets (i) are “property” (ii) are not “currency” for purposes of the rules relating to foreign currency gain or loss and (iii) may be held as a capital asset. In 2019, the IRS released a revenue ruling and a set of “Frequently Asked Questions” that has been updated from time to time since (the “Ruling & FAQs”). ~~that~~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. However, the Notice and the Ruling & FAQs do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets. Moreover, although the Ruling & FAQs address the treatment of hard forks, there continues to be uncertainty with respect to the timing and amount of the income inclusions. While the Ruling & FAQs do not address most situations in which airdrops occur, it is clear from the reasoning of the Ruling & FAQs that the IRS generally would treat an airdrop as a taxable event giving rise to ordinary income.

There can be no assurance that the IRS will not alter its position with respect to digital assets in the future or that a court would uphold the treatment set forth in the Notice and the Ruling & FAQs. It is also unclear what additional guidance on the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued in the future. Any such alteration of the current IRS positions or additional guidance could result in adverse tax consequences for shareholders and could have an adverse effect on the value of ZEC. Future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For example, the Notice addresses only digital assets that are “convertible virtual currency,” and it is conceivable that, as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence, the Trust ~~will~~could hold certain types of digital assets that are not within the scope of the Notice.

Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisers regarding the tax consequences of owning and disposing of Shares and digital assets in general.

Future developments regarding the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

As discussed above, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets, such as ZEC, 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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC in the Digital Asset Markets. As a result, any such future guidance could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

79The tax treatment of ZEC and transactions involving ZEC for state and local tax purposes is not settled.

Because ZEC is a new technological innovation, the tax treatment of ZEC 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 ZEC for state and local tax purposes may be issued in the future. A state or local government authority’s treatment of ZEC may have negative consequences, including the imposition of a greater tax burden on investors in ZEC or the imposition of a greater cost on the acquisition and disposition of ZEC generally. Any such treatment may have a negative effect on prices of ZEC 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. In the absence of guidance to the contrary, it is possible that any such income recognized by a U.S. tax-exempt shareholder would constitute “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”). A tax-exempt shareholder should consult its tax adviser regarding whether such shareholder may recognize UBTI as a consequence of an investment in Shares. See “Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

Non-U.S. Holders may be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax on income derived from forks, airdrops and similar occurrences.

The Ruling & FAQs do not address whether income recognized by a non-U.S. person as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence could be subject to the 30% withholding tax imposed on U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” income. Non-U.S. Holders (as defined under “Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders” above) should ~~assume~~be aware that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including ~~the~~a ~~Sponsor)~~broker isthrough ~~likely~~which toa 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 or IR Virtual Currency. See “Item 1. Business—Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

Risk Factors Related to Potential Conflicts of Interest

Potential conflicts of interest may arise among the Sponsor or its affiliates and the Trust. The Sponsor and its affiliates have no fiduciary duties to the Trust and its shareholders other than as provided in the Trust Agreement, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of the Trust and its shareholders.

The Sponsor will manage the affairs of the Trust. Conflicts of interest may arise among the Sponsor and its affiliates, including the Authorized Participants, on the one hand, and the Trust and its shareholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, the Sponsor may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the Trust and its shareholders. These potential conflicts include, among others, the following:

•

The Sponsor has no fiduciary duties to, and is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than, the Trust and its shareholders in resolving conflicts of interest, provided the Sponsor does not act in bad faith;

•

The Trust has agreed to indemnify the Sponsor and its affiliates pursuant to the Trust Agreement;

•

The Sponsor is responsible for allocating its own limited resources among different clients and potential future business ventures, to each of which it owes fiduciary duties;

•

The Sponsor and its staff also service affiliates of the Sponsor, including several other digital asset investment vehicles, and their respective clients and cannot devote all of its, or their, respective time or resources to the management of the affairs of the Trust;

•

The Sponsor, its affiliates and their respective officers and employees are not prohibited from engaging in other businesses or activities, including those that might be in direct competition with the Trust;

•

Affiliates of the Sponsor have substantial direct investments in ZEC 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;

•

The Sponsor’s indirect parent company, DCG, and certain of its subsidiaries, including Grayscale Securities, LLC, ~~hold 12~~hold10.6578% of the Shares representing ownership in the Trust, as of March 36, ~~2025~~2026. On March 2, 2022, the board of directors of the Sponsor (the “Board”) approved the purchase by DCG, the indirect parent company of the Sponsor, of up to $10 million worth of Shares of the Trust. From March 2, 2022 through June 30, 2022, DCG purchased a total of $2.0 million worth of Shares of the Trust under this authorization. From July 1, 2022 through March 36, ~~2025~~2026, DCG did not purchase any Shares of the Trust under this authorization. However, in the event DCG chooses to purchase additional Shares of the Trust, such ~~purchase~~purchases would further increase DCG’s ownership interest in the Trust, which could ultimately result in DCG holding a majority of the Shares representing ownership in the Trust, and its interests as a shareholder may conflict with the interests of the Trust’s other shareholders;

•

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

•

80DCG is (i) the indirect parent company of the Sponsor (ii) the indirect parent company of Grayscale Securities, the only acting Authorized Participant as of the date of this Annual Report; and (iii) 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 is (i) the sole equity holder and indirect parent company of the Sponsor (ii) the indirect parent company of Grayscale Securities, the only acting Authorized Participant as of the date of this Annual Report; and (iii) 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 Zcash Network could be adverse to positions that would benefit the Trust or its shareholders. Additionally, before or after a hard fork on the Zcash Network, DCG’s position regarding which fork among a group of incompatible forks of the Zcash Network should be considered the “true” Zcash 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 ZEC. Any investments in, or public positions taken on, digital assets other than ZEC by DCG could have an adverse impact on the price of ZEC;

•

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

•

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

•

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, including in connection with the distribution of any Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, and such agent may be the Sponsor or an affiliate of the Sponsor; and

•

The Sponsor has historically, and may again select 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.”

Because the Sponsor and the Trust’s sole Authorized Participant are affiliated with each other, the Trust’s Baskets will not be exchanged for ZEC in arm’s-length transactions.

The Sponsor is an affiliate of Grayscale Securities, LLC, a registered broker-dealer currently acting as the sole Authorized Participant, distributor and marketer for the Shares. The Trust issues Creation Baskets in exchange for deposits of ZEC. See “Item 1. Business—Description of Creation of Shares.” As the sole Authorized Participant, Grayscale Securities is currently the only entity that may place orders to create Creation Baskets. As a result, the issuance of Creation Baskets does not occur on an arm’s-length basis.

While additional Authorized Participants may be added at any time, subject to the discretion of the Sponsor, the Sponsor may be disincentivized from replacing affiliated service providers due to its affiliated status. In connection with this conflict of interest, shareholders should understand that affiliated service providers will receive fees for providing services to the Trust. Clients of the affiliated service providers may pay commissions at negotiated rates that are greater or less than the rate paid by the Trust. The Sponsor may have an incentive to resolve questions between Grayscale Securities, on the one hand, and the Trust and shareholders, on the other hand, in favor of Grayscale Securities (including, but not limited to, questions as to the calculation of the Basket Amount).

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

DCG, the ~~sole equity holder and~~ 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 a ZEC 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 ~~such~~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 ZEC 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 ZEC.

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 ZEC in trust on the Trust’s behalf. However, the SEC has released proposed amendments 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 currently proposed. However, there can be no assurance that the Custodian would continue to qualify as a “qualified custodian” under a final rule.

Furthermore, during the initial term, the Custodian may terminate the Custodian Agreement for Cause (as defined in “Description of the Custodian Agreement—Termination”) at any time, and after the initial term, the Custodian can terminate the Agreement for any reason upon the notice period provided under the Custodian Agreement. If the Custodian resigns or is removed by the Sponsor or otherwise, without replacement, the Trust will dissolve in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement.

Shareholders may be adversely affected by the lack of independent advisers representing investors in the Trust.

The Sponsor has consulted with counsel, accountants and other advisers regarding the formation and operation of the Trust. No counsel was appointed to represent investors in connection with the formation of the Trust or the establishment of the terms of the Trust Agreement and the Shares. Moreover, no counsel has been appointed to represent an investor in connection with the offering of the Shares. Accordingly, an investor should consult his, her or its own legal, tax and financial advisers regarding the desirability of the value of the Shares. Lack of such consultation may lead to an undesirable investment decision with respect to investment in the Shares.

8274

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

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

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

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

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

Cybersecurity Breaches:

During the year ended December 31, ~~2024~~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.

8375

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

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

On ~~January~~May 3019, ~~2023~~2025, ~~Osprey~~Genesis ~~Funds~~Global Capital, LLC (“~~Osprey~~Genesis Capital”) ~~filed a suit in Connecticut Superior Court against the Sponsor alleging that statements the Sponsor made in its advertising~~ and ~~promotion~~Genesis ofAsia ~~Grayscale~~Pacific ~~Bitcoin~~Pte. ~~Trust~~Ltd. ~~violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act~~ (“~~CUTPA~~Genesis Asia”), ~~and seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief. On April 17, 2023, the Sponsor~~ filed a ~~motion~~complaint toin ~~dismiss~~ the ~~complaint~~United ~~and,~~States ~~following~~Bankruptcy ~~briefing,~~Court afor ~~hearing on~~ the ~~motion~~Southern toDistrict ~~dismiss~~of ~~was~~New ~~held~~York on(“SDNY ~~June~~Bankruptcy ~~26,~~Court”) ~~2023.~~against OnDigital ~~October~~Currency 23Group, ~~2023, the Court denied the Sponsor’s motion to dismiss~~Inc. On(“DCG”) ~~November~~and 6,certain ~~2023, the Sponsor filed a motion for reargument~~ of ~~the~~its ~~Court’s~~affiliates ~~order~~including ~~denying~~GSO ~~the~~alleging ~~Sponsor’s~~that ~~motion~~Genesis toCapital ~~dismiss.~~made Oncertain ~~November~~preferential ~~16,~~transfers ~~2023, Osprey filed an opposition~~ to ~~the Sponsor’s motion for reargument~~GSI, ~~and on November 30, 2023,~~ the ~~Sponsor~~predecessor ~~filed a reply~~ in ~~further~~interest ~~support~~to ofGSO ~~its~~prior ~~motion~~to ~~for reargument. On March 11, 2024,~~ the ~~Court denied the Sponsor’s motion for reargument. On March 25~~Merger, ~~2024,~~during the ~~Sponsor~~preference ~~filed~~period anprior ~~application for interlocutory appeal. On March 28, 2024, Osprey filed an opposition~~ to ~~the~~Genesis ~~Sponsor~~Capital’s ~~application~~filing ~~for~~of ~~interlocutory~~a ~~appeal.~~bankruptcy Onpetition ~~April~~in 1,SDNY ~~2024,~~Bankruptcy ~~the~~ Court ~~denied~~while ~~the~~GSI ~~Sponsor’s~~was ~~application~~allegedly ~~for~~an ~~interlocutory~~insider ~~appeal.~~to OnGenesis ~~April~~Capital ~~10,~~pursuant ~~2024, Osprey filed a motion~~ to ~~amend~~11 ~~the complaint~~U.S.C. ~~The~~§ ~~amended complaint went into effect on April 25, 2024~~101(31). AGenesis ~~scheduling~~Capital ~~order~~seeks ~~was~~to ~~entered~~avoid by the ~~Court~~alleged ~~with~~preferential ~~trial~~transfers ~~scheduled~~pursuant to ~~begin~~11 ~~on July 15, 2025~~U.S.C. On§ ~~July 31~~547(b), ~~2024,~~as ~~the~~well ~~Sponsor~~as ~~filed~~recovery aof ~~motion~~property toand ~~strike~~disallowance ~~the~~of ~~amended complaint~~claims. OnGenesis ~~August~~Capital ~~30,~~is ~~2024,~~seeking ~~Osprey filed an opposition~~ to ~~the~~avoid ~~Sponsor’s~~transfers ~~motion~~ to ~~strike the amended complaint. On October 11~~GSI, ~~2024,~~ the ~~Court~~predecessor ~~denied~~in ~~the~~interest ~~Sponsor’s motion~~ to ~~strike.~~GSO Onprior ~~November 22, 2024, the Sponsor filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that CUTPA does not apply~~ to ~~practices undertaken in connection with~~ the ~~purchase~~Merger, ~~and sale~~ of ~~securities,~~105 Bitcoin and ~~the Court granted the Sponsor’s motion for summary judgment on February 7~~37, ~~2025~~647.06 OnEthereum ~~February~~Classic ~~10, 2025, Osprey filed a motion for reargument~~tokens. ~~The~~GSO ~~Sponsor~~believes ~~and~~this ~~Grayscale~~lawsuit ~~Bitcoin~~is ~~Trust~~without ~~believe~~merit ~~that judgment was properly granted in their favor~~ and ~~intend~~intends to vigorously defend against ~~any attempts to overturn the judgment~~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.

8476

PART II

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

Market Information

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

Holders of Record

As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, there were approximately 4424 holders of record. This includes Cede & Co. as nominee for DTC for the Shares traded on OTCQX, but not its direct participants. Therefore, this number does not include the individual holders who have bought Shares on OTCQX or transferred their eligible Shares to their brokerage accounts. Because most of the Trust’s Shares are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of shareholders, we are unable to estimate the total number of shareholders represented by these record holders.

Dividends

The Trust made no distributions to shareholders during the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024. The Trust has no obligation to make periodic distributions to shareholders.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Shares

As of December 31, ~~2024~~2025, the Registrant has distributed 4,~~700~~829,~~500~~300 Shares at varying prices determined by reference to the NAV per Share to selected “accredited investors,” within the meaning of Rule 501 of Regulation D under the Securities Act. The Shares were sold in connection with an ongoing offering pursuant to Rule 506(c) of Regulation D under the Securities Act. Grayscale Securities acted as the Authorized Participant with respect to these distributions beginning October 3, 2022. For all such distributions prior to October 3, 2022, Genesis acted as the Authorized Participant with respect to these distributions. In exchange for these sales, the Trust received an aggregate of ~~437~~448,~~428~~065.~~03254882~~24387192 ZEC. Because Shares have been, and continue to be, created and issued on a periodic basis, a “distribution,” as such term is used in the Securities Act, may be occurring from time to time. As a result, the Authorized Participant facilitating the creation of Shares and acting as a distributor and marketer during any such period may be deemed an “underwriter” under Section 2(a)(11) of the Securities Act. No underwriting discounts or commissions were paid to the Authorized Participant with respect to such sales.

Purchases of Equity Securities

Purchases of equity securities by the issuer and affiliated purchasers —The table below sets forth information regarding open market purchases of Shares of Grayscale Zcash Trust (ZEC) (OTCQX: ZCSH) by DCG, the indirect parent company of the Sponsor, on a monthly basis during the three months ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025:

Period	(a) Total Number of Shares of ZCSH Purchased		(b) Average Price Paid per Share of ZCSH		(c) Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs(1)		(d) Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs(1)
							(in millions)
October 1, 2024 - October 31, 2024		-	$	-		-	$	8.0
October 1, 2025 - October 31, 2025		-	$	-		-	$	8.0
November 1, 2024 - November 30, 2024		-		-		-		8.0
November 1, 2025 - November 30, 2025		-		-		-		8.0
December 1, 2024 - December 31, 2024		-		-		-		8.0
December 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025		-		-		-		8.0
Total		-	$	-		-	$	8.0

(1)

On March 2, 2022, the Board approved the purchase by DCG, the indirect parent company of the Sponsor, of up to $10 million worth of Shares of the Trust. Subsequently, DCG authorized such purchase. The Share purchase authorization does not obligate DCG to acquire any specific number of Shares in any period, and may be expanded, extended, modified, or discontinued at any time. From March 2, 2022 through June, 30, 2022, DCG purchased a total of $2.0 million worth of Shares of the Trust. From July 1, 2022 through March 36, ~~2025~~2026, DCG had not purchased any Shares of the Trust under this authorization.

Item 6. [Reserved]

8577

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 ZEC and, from time to time on a periodic basis, issues Creation Baskets in exchange for deposits of ZEC. As a passive investment vehicle, the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on ZEC per Share) to reflect the value of the ZEC held by the Trust, 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 ZEC, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to ZEC. To date, the Trust has not met its investment objective and the Shares quoted on OTCQX have not reflected the value of the ZEC held by the Trust, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, but instead have traded at both premiums and discounts to such value, which at times have been substantial. The Trust is not managed like a business corporation or an active investment vehicle. The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

	As of December 31,
	2024		2023		2022
Number of Shares authorized	Unlimited		Unlimited		Unlimited
Number of Shares outstanding		4,700,500		3,777,700		3,777,700
Number of Shares freely tradable(1)		3,892,425		3,068,959		3,068,959
Number of beneficial holders owning at least 100 Shares(2)		44		40		44
Number of holders of record(2)		44		40		44

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

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

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Investment Transactions and Revenue Recognition

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

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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC 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 ZEC received by the Trust in connection with a creation order is recorded by the Trust at the fair value of ZEC 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 ZEC 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 Years ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025, ~~2023~~2024 and ~~2022~~2023

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

	For the Years Ended December 31,
	2024		2023			2022
	2025		2024			2023
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investment	$	11179,~~248~~067	$	(311,~~312~~248	)	$	(353,~~439~~312	)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations	$	10177,~~952~~767	$	(310,~~582~~952	)	$	(363,~~178~~582	)
Net assets(1)	$	22200,~~040~~441	$	822,~~961~~040		$	128,~~543~~961

(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 ZEC 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.

87Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEC for the year ended December 31, 2025 was $179,067, which includes a realized gain of $97 on the transfer of ZEC to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, and $178,970 net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investment in ZEC. Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEC for the year was driven by ZEC price appreciation from $56.12 per ZEC as of December 31, 2024, to $509.35 per ZEC as of December 31, 2025. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was $177,767 for the year ended December 31, 2025, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEC, less the Sponsor’s Fee of $1,300. Net assets increased to $200,441 at December 31, 2025, an 809% increase for the year. The increase in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ZEC price appreciation and the contribution of approximately 10,637 ZEC with a value of $634 to the Trust in connection with Share creations during the period, partially offset by the withdrawal of approximately 9,839 ZEC to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEC for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $11,248, which includes a realized loss of ($906) on the transfer of ZEC to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, and $12,154 net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investment in ZEC. Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEC for the year was driven by ZEC price appreciation from $27.69 per ZEC as of December 31, 2023, to $56.12 per ZEC as of December 31, 2024. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was $10,952 for the year ended December 31, 2024, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ZEC, less the Sponsor’s Fee of $296. Net assets increased to $22,040 at December 31, 2024, a 146% increase for the year. The increase in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ZEC price appreciation and the contribution of approximately 78,192 ZEC with a value of $2,127 to the Trust in connection with Share creations during the period, partially offset by the withdrawal of approximately 9,083 ZEC to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEC for the year ended December 31, 2023 was ($3,312), which includes a realized loss of ($934) on the transfer of ZEC to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, and ($2,378) net change in unrealized depreciation on investment in ZEC. Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEC for the year was driven by ZEC price depreciation from $37.80 per ZEC as of December 31, 2022, to $27.69 per ZEC as of December 31, 2023. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($3,582) for the year ended December 31, 2023, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEC, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $270. Net assets decreased to $8,961 at December 31, 2023, a 29% decrease for the year. The decrease in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ZEC price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 8,192 ZEC to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEC for the year ended December 31, 2022 was ($35,439), which includes a realized loss of ($495) on the transfer of ZEC to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, and ($34,944) net change in unrealized depreciation on investment in ZEC. Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEC for the year was driven by ZEC price depreciation from $143.21 per ZEC as of December 31, 2021, to $37.80 per ZEC as of December 31, 2022. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($36,178) for the year ended December 31, 2022, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ZEC, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $739. Net assets decreased to $12,543 at December 31, 2022, a 74% decrease for the year. The decrease in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ZEC price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 8,400 ZEC to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Cash Resources and Liquidity

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

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

Selected Operating Data

	For the Years Ended December 31,
	As of December 31,
	2024			2023			2022
	2025			2024			2023
	(All ZEC balances are rounded to the nearest whole ZEC)
Price of ZEC on principal market	$	509.35		$	56.12		$	27.69
ZEC:
Principal Market NAV per Share(1)	$	41.51		$	4.69		$	2.37
Opening balance		323,615			331,807			340,207
Principal Market NAV(1)	$	200,440,599		$	22,039,648		$	8,960,889
Creations		78,192			-			-
Index Price	$	509.71		$	56.31		$	27.74
Sponsor’s Fee, related party		(9,083	)		(8,192	)		(8,400	)
NAV per Share(2)	$	41.53		$	4.70		$	2.38
Closing balance		392,724			323,615			331,807
NAV (Non-GAAP)(2)	$	200,582,268		$	22,114,265		$	8,977,069
Accrued but unpaid Sponsor’s Fee, related party		-			-			-
Net closing balance		392,724			323,615			331,807
Number of Shares:
Opening balance		3,777,700			3,777,700			3,777,700
Creations		922,800			-			-
Closing balance		4,700,500			3,777,700			3,777,700

(1)

	As of December 31,
	2024		2023		2022
Price of ZEC on principal market(1)	$	56.12	$	27.69	$	37.80
Principal Market NAV per Share(2)	$	4.69	$	2.37	$	3.32
Index Price(3)	$	56.31	$	27.74	$	37.80
NAV per Share(3)	$	4.70	$	2.38	$	3.32

The Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share are calculated using the fair value of ZEC 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

(2)

The Trust’s ~~performed~~NAV anper ~~assessment~~Share ofis derived from the ~~principal~~Index ~~market~~Price atas ~~December~~represented 31by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., ~~2024~~New York time, ~~2023~~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 ZEC Industry and ~~2022,~~Market—ZEC Value—The Index and ~~identified~~the Index Price” for a description of the ~~principal~~Index ~~market~~and asthe ~~Coinbase~~Index Price.

AsFor ofaccounting ~~December 31~~purposes, ~~2024,~~the ~~2023~~Trust ~~and~~reflects ~~2022,~~creations and the ~~Principal~~ZEC ~~Market~~receivable ~~NAV~~with ~~per~~respect ~~Share~~to ~~was~~such ~~calculated~~creations ~~using~~on the ~~fair~~date ~~value~~ of ~~ZEC~~receipt ~~based~~of ona ~~the~~notification ~~price~~of ~~provided~~a bycreation ~~Coinbase,~~but ~~the~~does ~~Digital~~not ~~Asset~~issue ~~Trading~~Shares ~~Platform~~until ~~that~~ the ~~Trust~~requisite ~~considered~~amount ~~its~~of ~~principal~~ZEC ~~market,~~is asreceived. ofAt ~~4:00~~this ~~p.m.~~time, ~~New~~the ~~York~~Trust ~~time,~~is onnot ~~the~~accepting ~~valuation~~redemption ~~date~~requests from shareholders. ~~Prior~~Subject to ~~February~~receipt ~~23,~~of ~~2024,~~regulatory ~~Principal~~approval ~~Market~~from ~~NAV~~the ~~was~~SEC ~~referred~~and toapproval asby ~~NAV~~the ~~and~~Sponsor ~~Principal~~in ~~Market~~its ~~NAV~~sole ~~per~~discretion, ~~Share~~the ~~was~~Trust ~~referred~~may toin asthe ~~NAV~~future ~~per~~operate ~~Share~~a redemption program.

The Trust’s NAV per Share 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. Prior to February 23, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings and NAV per Share was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings per Share. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price” for a description of the Index and the Index Price. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2024 were Coinbase, Kraken, Bitfinex and Gemini. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2023 were Coinbase, Kraken and Gemini. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2022 were Coinbase, Kraken, and Binance.US. 80

For accounting purposes, the Trust reflects creations and the ZEC receivable with respect to such creations on the date of receipt of a notification of a creation but does not issue Shares until the requisite amount of ZEC is received. At this time, the Trust is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. Subject to receipt of regulatory approval from the SEC and approval by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, the Trust may in the future operate a redemption program. The Trust currently has no intention of seeking regulatory approval to operate an ongoing redemption program.

As of December 31, 2024, the Trust had a net closing balance with a value of $22,114,265, based on the Index Price (non-GAAP methodology). As of December 31, 2024, the Trust had a total market value of $22,039,648, based on the Digital Asset Market price of ZEC on the Trust’s principal market (Coinbase).

As of December 31, 2023, the Trust had a net closing balance with a value of $8,977,069, based on the Index Price (non-GAAP methodology). As of December 31, 2023, the Trust had a total market value of $8,960,889, based on the Digital Asset Market price of ZEC on the Trust’s principal market (Coinbase).

As of December 31, 2022, the Trust had a net closing balance with a value of $12,542,314, based on the Index Price (non-GAAP methodology). As of December 31, 2022, the Trust had a total market value of $12,542,314, based on the Digital Asset Market price of ZEC on the Trust’s principal market (Coinbase).

Historical NAV and ZEC Prices

As movements in the price of ZEC will directly affect the price of the Shares, investors should understand recent movements in the price of ZEC. Investors, however, should also be aware that past movements in the ZEC 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 versus the Index Price and the Trust’s Principal Market NAV per Share from December 6, 2018 (the inception of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, ~~2024~~2025. For more information on the determination of the Trust’s NAV, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

9081

The following table illustrates the movements in the Index Price from January 1, ~~2020~~2021 to December 31, ~~2024~~2025. ~~During such period, the Index Price has ranged from $18.14 to $365.90, with the straight average being $72.09 through December 31, 2024.~~ 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 ofperiod		Last businessday
Twelve months ended December 31, 2020	$	56.99	$	99.10	8/6/2020	$	23.70	3/16/2020	$	63.28	$	63.28
Twelve months ended December 31, 2021	$	150.80	$	365.90	5/12/2021	$	56.06	1/2/2021	$	143.28	$	143.28
Twelve months ended December 31, 2022	$	87.78	$	204.94	3/26/2022	$	36.18	11/9/2022	$	37.80	$	37.65
Twelve months ended December 31, 2023	$	32.94	$	49.94	2/20/2023	$	24.07	9/11/2023	$	27.74	$	28.52
Twelve months ended December 31, 2024	$	32.08	$	76.20	12/2/2024	$	18.14	7/5/2024	$	56.31	$	56.31
January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2024	$	72.09	$	365.90	5/12/2021	$	18.14	7/5/2024	$	56.31	$	56.31
Twelve months ended December 31, 2025	$	131.97	$	685.96	11/7/2025	$	29.50	3/10/2025	$	509.71	$	509.71
January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2025	$	87.08	$	685.96	11/7/2025	$	18.14	7/5/2024	$	509.71	$	509.71

The following table illustrates the movements in the Digital Asset Market price of ZEC, as reported on the Trust’s principal market, from January 1, ~~2020~~2021 to December 31, ~~2024~~2025. ~~During such period, the price of ZEC has ranged from $18.13 to $365.90, with the straight average being $72.10 through December 31, 2024:~~

			High			Low
Period	Average		Digital Asset Market Price		Date	Digital Asset Market Price		Date	End ofperiod		Last businessday
Twelve months ended December 31, 2020	$	57.00	$	99.00	8/6/2020	$	23.59	3/16/2020	$	62.99	$	62.99
Twelve months ended December 31, 2021	$	150.82	$	365.90	5/12/2021	$	56.20	1/2/2021	$	143.21	$	143.21
Twelve months ended December 31, 2022	$	87.80	$	205.00	3/26/2022	$	36.28	11/9/2022	$	37.80	$	37.65
Twelve months ended December 31, 2023	$	32.95	$	49.91	2/20/2023	$	24.07	9/11/2023	$	27.69	$	28.53
Twelve months ended December 31, 2024	$	32.08	$	76.12	12/2/2024	$	18.13	7/5/2024	$	56.12	$	56.12
January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2024	$	72.10	$	365.90	5/12/2021	$	18.13	7/5/2024	$	56.12	$	56.12
Twelve months ended December 31, 2025	$	131.99	$	686.27	11/7/2025	$	29.55	3/10/2025	$	509.35	$	509.35
January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2025	$	87.10	$	686.27	11/7/2025	$	18.13	7/5/2024	$	509.35	$	509.35

~~Secondary Market Trading~~ 82

The ~~Trust’s~~following ~~Shares~~chart ~~have~~sets ~~been~~out ~~quoted on OTCQX under~~ the ~~symbol~~historical ~~“ZCSH”~~closing ~~since~~prices ~~October~~for ~~18, 2021. The price of~~ the Shares as ~~quoted~~reported onby OTCQX ~~has~~and ~~varied significantly from~~ the ~~NAV per Share. From October 18, 2021 to December 31, 2024, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX over the value of the~~ Trust’s NAV per Share ~~was~~from 240%, the average premium was 72%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 55%, and the average discount was 22%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between October 18, 2021 ~~and~~to December 31, ~~2024, has been quoted at a discount on 482 days~~2025. ~~As of December 31, 2024, the last business day of the period, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a premium of 22% to the Trust’s NAV per Share.~~

The following table sets out the range of high and low closing prices for the Shares as reported by OTCQX, the Trust’s Principal Market NAV per Share calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP and the Trust’s NAV per Share for each of the quarters of the prior three years.

	High						Low
	OTCQX		Principal Market NAV perShare(1)		NAV per Share(2)		OTCQX		Principal Market NAV perShare(1)		NAV per Share(2)
2022
First quarter	$	16.49	$	18.35	$	18.35	$	5.52	$	7.66	$	7.66
Second quarter	$	14.89	$	17.29	$	17.28	$	4.57	$	4.73	$	4.72
Third quarter	$	7.30	$	7.07	$	7.06	$	3.85	$	4.68	$	4.68
Fourth quarter	$	4.10	$	5.02	$	5.02	$	1.66	$	3.20	$	3.19
2023
First quarter	$	2.60	$	4.37	$	4.37	$	1.57	$	2.75	$	2.75
Second quarter	$	2.65	$	3.72	$	3.72	$	1.70	$	2.09	$	2.09
Third quarter	$	3.05	$	2.99	$	2.98	$	1.66	$	2.08	$	2.08
Fourth quarter	$	3.21	$	2.91	$	2.90	$	1.63	$	2.12	$	2.12
2024
First quarter	$	9.08	$	2.99	$	2.98	$	2.10	$	1.63	$	1.62
Second quarter	$	7.87	$	2.43	$	2.43	$	3.69	$	1.64	$	1.64
Third quarter	$	5.65	$	3.72	$	3.72	$	3.27	$	1.53	$	1.53
Fourth quarter	$	7.57	$	6.37	$	6.38	$	3.55	$	2.16	$	2.16

The Principal Market NAV is calculated using the fair value of ZEC based on the price provided by the Digital Asset Market that the Trust considers its principal market, which is Coinbase. Prior to February 23, 2024, Principal Market NAV was referred to as NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share was referred to as NAV per Share. 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.”

The Trust’s NAV per Share 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 Index Price is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements. Prior to February 23, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings and NAV per Share was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings per Share. See “Item 1. Business—Valuation of ZEC and Determination of NAV.”

The following chart sets out the historical closing prices for the Shares as reported by OTCQX and the Trust’s NAV per Share from October 18, 2021 to December 31, 2024.

ZCSH Premium/(Discount): ZCSH 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 OTCQX and the Trust’s NAV per Share from October 18, 2021 to December 31, ~~2024~~2025.

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

9383

Recent Developments

On January 1, 2025, Grayscale Investments, LLC (“GSI”) consummated an internal corporate reorganization (the “Reorganization”), pursuant to which Grayscale Investments, LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust prior to the Reorganization, merged with and into Grayscale Operating, LLC (“GSO”), a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of DCG, with GSO continuing as the surviving company (the “Merger”). As a result of the Merger, GSO succeeded by operation of law to all the rights, powers, privileges and franchises and became subject to all of the obligations, liabilities, restrictions and disabilities of GSI, including with respect to the Sponsor Contracts (as defined below), all as provided under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act. The Reorganization is not expected to have any material impact on the operations of the Trust.

In connection with the Reorganization, on January 1, 2025, and promptly following the effectiveness of the Merger, GSO assigned certain contracts pertaining to its role as Sponsor (as such term is defined in the Trust Agreement) of the Trust (such contracts, the “Sponsor Contracts”) to Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned direct subsidiary of GSO (“GSIS”), whereby GSIS assumed all of the rights and obligations of GSO under the Sponsor Contracts. Other than the assumption of the Sponsor Contracts by GSIS, the Reorganization does not alter the rights or obligations under any of the Sponsor Contracts.

In connection with the Reorganization, on January 1, 2025, and promptly following the effectiveness of the Merger, GSO and GSIS executed a Certificate of Admission, pursuant to which GSIS was admitted as an additional Sponsor of the Trust under the Trust Agreement, by and among GSO (as successor in interest to GSI), the Trustee, and the shareholders from time to time thereunder, as amended from time to time. GSIS shall be subject to the rights and obligations of a Sponsor under the Trust Agreement.

On January 3, 2025, GSO voluntarily withdrew as a Sponsor of the Trust pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, and, effective May 3, 2025, GSIS shall be the sole remaining Sponsor of the Trust.

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, ~~2024~~2025.

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, ~~2024~~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, ~~2024~~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, ~~2024~~2025. Because we are an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for so long as we are an emerging growth company.

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, ~~2024~~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.

9585

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 ~~and after~~ January 1, 2025 to October 22, 2025, GSO Intermediate Holdings Corporation (“GSOIH”), a Delaware corporation formed in connection with the Reorganization, which iswas the sole managing member of GSO and an indirect subsidiary of DCG, ~~has~~had a board of directors ~~(each~~which ~~such~~was ~~board~~responsible offor ~~directors,~~managing ~~the “Board”). The Board consists of Mark Shifke, Matthew Kummell, Mr. Mintzberg,~~ and ~~Mr.~~directing ~~McGee. Mr. Mintzberg and Mr. McGee also retain~~ the ~~authority~~affairs ~~granted to them as officers under the limited liability company agreement~~ of the Sponsor.

~~The~~On ~~Sponsor~~October ~~has~~22, an2025, ~~Audit~~GSOIH ~~Committee.~~consummated ~~The~~an ~~Audit~~internal ~~Committee~~corporate ~~has~~reorganization (the ~~responsibility~~“Management ~~for~~Reorganization”), ~~overseeing~~pursuant ~~the~~to ~~financial~~which ~~reporting~~GSOIH ~~process~~transferred a portion of ~~the~~its ~~Trust,~~common ~~including~~membership ~~the~~units ~~risks~~of ~~and~~GSO ~~controls~~for Class A shares of ~~that~~Grayscale ~~process~~Investments, Inc. (“Grayscale Investments”), a Delaware corporation incorporated in connection with the Management Reorganization, and ~~such~~ceded ~~other~~its ~~oversight~~managing ~~functions~~member asrights ~~are~~in ~~typically~~GSO ~~performed~~to byGrayscale anInvestments. ~~audit~~As ~~committee~~a result of athe ~~public~~Management ~~company.~~Reorganization, ~~The~~Grayscale ~~Audit~~Investments ~~Committee~~is ~~consists~~now ofthe ~~Mr.~~sole ~~McGee~~managing ~~and~~member ~~Hugh~~of ~~Ross~~GSO, ~~Chief~~the ~~Operating~~sole ~~Officer~~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.

~~During~~Prior ~~the~~to ~~year~~January ~~ended December 31~~1, ~~2024~~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., ~~The~~and ~~members~~in ofconnection ~~the~~with ~~Board of GSOIH are~~ the ~~same~~Management ~~as the members of the Board of GSI prior to the~~ Reorganization~~. Additionally~~, the former ~~Audit~~board ~~Committee~~ of ~~GSI~~GSOIH was reconstituted at ~~GSIS~~Grayscale Investments. ~~The~~Prior ~~members~~to ofJanuary ~~the~~1, ~~Audit~~2025, ~~Committee~~any ofreferences ~~GSIS~~to ~~are~~ the ~~same~~“Board” asrefer to the ~~members~~board of ~~the~~directors ~~Audit~~of ~~Committee~~Grayscale ofInvestments, ~~GSI~~LLC, ~~prior~~the toformer sponsor of the ~~Reorganization~~Trust. From ~~and after~~ January 1, 2025 to October 22, 2025, any references to the “Board” ~~in this section~~ refer to the ~~Board~~board of directors of GSOIH. From and after October 22, 2025, any references to the ~~Audit~~“Board” ~~Committee in this section~~ refer to the ~~Audit~~board ~~Committee~~of directors of ~~GSIS~~Grayscale Investments.

~~Mark~~Barry ~~Shifke~~Silbert, Chairman of the Board

~~Mark~~Barry ~~Shifke~~Silbert, 6549, is the Founder and Chief ~~Financial~~Executive Officer of DCG and has served as chairman of the Board since ~~January~~August ~~2024.~~2025 ~~Since~~(previously ~~March~~served ~~2021,~~as ~~Mr.~~a ~~Shifke~~director ~~has~~and ~~served~~chairman onof the ~~board~~Board offrom ~~directors~~February of2020 ~~Dock~~through ~~Ltd~~December 2023). Until January 2021, aMr. ~~full-stack~~Silbert ~~payments~~was ~~and~~the ~~digital~~Chief ~~banking~~Executive ~~platform~~Officer of the Sponsor. ~~Since~~A ~~September~~pioneer ~~2023~~in blockchain investing, Mr. ~~Shifke~~Silbert ~~has~~established ~~served~~himself onin ~~the~~2012 ~~board~~as one of ~~directors~~the ofearliest ~~Luno,~~and amost ~~cryptocurrency~~active ~~platform~~investors in the industry. Mr. ~~Shifke~~Silbert ~~has~~founded ~~nearly~~DCG ~~four~~in ~~decades~~2015 ofand ~~financial~~today, ~~and~~it ~~fintech~~is ~~experience,~~one ~~and~~of ~~more~~the ~~than~~world’s ~~eight~~most ~~years~~prolific ofinvestors ~~CFO~~in ~~experience~~decentralized ~~leading~~technologies, ~~two~~backing ~~publicly~~over 250 early-~~traded~~stage companies. ~~Prior~~in tomore ~~joining~~than ~~DCG,~~40 countries. Mr. ~~Shifke~~Silbert ~~served~~founded asYuma, ~~CFO~~a decentralized AI-focused subsidiary of ~~Billtrust~~DCG, awhere ~~company~~he ~~focused~~also onserves ~~providing~~as ARCEO. ~~and~~Yuma ~~cloud-based~~invests ~~solutions~~in, ~~around payments~~builds, and asscales ~~CFO~~the ofBittensor ~~Green~~network. ~~Dot~~The ~~(NYSE:~~Sponsor ~~GDOT),~~is a ~~mobile~~consolidated ~~banking~~subsidiary ~~company~~of ~~and~~DCG. ~~payments~~DCG ~~platform.~~also ~~Previously~~owns Foundry, MrFortitude, Luno and Yuma. ~~Shifke~~DCG ~~led~~also ~~teams~~invests atdirectly ~~JPMorgan~~in ~~Chase~~digital currencies and ~~Goldman~~other ~~Sachs~~digital assets. Prior to leading DCG, ~~specializing~~Mr. inSilbert ~~M&A~~was ~~Structuring~~the founder and ~~Advisory~~CEO of SecondMarket, asa ~~well~~venture-backed astechnology ~~Tax~~company ~~Asset~~that ~~Investments~~was acquired by Nasdaq. Mr. ~~Shifke~~Silbert ~~also~~has ~~served~~received asnumerous ~~the~~awards ~~Head~~and ofaccolades, ~~International~~including ~~Structured~~being ~~Finance~~named ~~Group~~“Entrepreneur atof ~~KPMG.~~the ~~Mr.~~Year” ~~Shifke~~by ~~began~~both ~~his~~Ernst ~~career~~& atYoung ~~Davis~~and ~~Polk~~Crain’s, ~~where~~and hebeing ~~was~~selected ato ~~partner~~Fortune’s prestigious “40 under 40” list. HeBefore isbecoming aan ~~graduate~~entrepreneur, ofMr. ~~Tulane~~Silbert ~~University~~worked (Bas an investment banker.~~A./J.D.)~~ ~~and~~He ~~the~~graduated ~~New~~with ~~York~~honors ~~University~~from the Goizueta Business School of ~~Law~~Emory ~~(LL~~University.M. ~~in Taxation).~~

9686

~~Matthew~~Mark ~~Kummell~~Shifke, Board Member

~~Matt~~Mark ~~Kummell~~Shifke, 4966, is ~~Senior~~the ~~Vice~~Chief ~~President~~Financial Officer of ~~Strategy & Operations at~~ DCG and has served as a director of the ~~Sponsor~~Board since January 2024. InSince ~~his~~March ~~role at DCG~~2021, Mr. ~~Kummell~~Shifke ~~leads~~has ~~the~~served ~~business’s~~on ~~post-investment~~the ~~efforts,~~board ~~including~~of ~~investment~~directors ~~operations~~of ~~and~~Dock ~~value~~Ltd., ~~creation~~a ~~with~~full-stack ~~regard~~payments toand ~~DCG’s~~digital ~~portfolio~~banking ~~companies~~platform. Since ~~December~~September 2023, Mr. ~~Kummell~~Shifke has served ason ~~a member of~~ the board of directors of ~~Foundry~~Luno, a ~~digital~~cryptocurrency ~~asset mining and staking company~~platform. ~~Until November 2023,~~ Mr. ~~Kummell~~Shifke ~~served~~has onnearly ~~the~~four ~~board~~decades of ~~directors~~financial ofand ~~CoinDesk,~~fintech ~~Inc.~~experience, ~~a digital media, events~~ and ~~information~~more ~~services~~than ~~company~~eight ~~for~~years ~~the~~of ~~crypto~~CFO ~~asset~~experience ~~and~~leading ~~blockchain~~two ~~technology~~publicly-traded ~~community~~companies. ~~Until~~Prior ~~January~~to ~~2012~~joining DCG, Mr. ~~Kummell~~Shifke served onas ~~the~~CFO ~~board~~ of ~~directors of Derivix Corporation~~Billtrust, a ~~financial~~company ~~services~~focused ~~software~~on ~~company.~~providing ~~Prior~~AR toand ~~joining~~cloud-based ~~DCG,~~solutions ~~Mr.~~around ~~Kummell~~payments, ~~was~~and ~~the~~as ~~Head~~CFO of ~~North~~Green ~~America~~Dot ~~for~~(NYSE: ~~Citi’s Business Advisory Services team~~GDOT), a ~~strategic~~mobile ~~consulting~~banking ~~practice~~company ~~focused~~and onpayments ~~institutional investor clients in Citi’s Markets division~~platform. Previously, Mr. ~~Kummell~~Shifke ~~has~~led ~~also~~teams ~~held~~at ~~strategic~~JPMorgan Chase and ~~front-office~~Goldman ~~leadership roles at Citadel~~Sachs, ~~Balyasny~~specializing ~~Asset~~in ~~Management, and S.~~M&A~~.C.~~ ~~Capital~~Structuring ~~Advisors~~and Advisory, ~~the~~as ~~predecessor~~well toas ~~Point~~Tax 72 Asset ~~Management~~Investments. ~~Previously,~~ Mr. ~~Kummell~~Shifke also served as athe ~~case~~Head ~~team~~of ~~leader~~International atStructured ~~Bain~~Finance &Group ~~Company~~at ~~in its Boston headquarters~~KPMG. Mr. ~~Kummell~~Shifke isbegan anhis ~~Adjunct~~career ~~Professor~~ at ~~the~~Davis ~~Tuck~~Polk, ~~School~~where ofhe ~~Business~~was ata ~~Dartmouth College~~partner. He is a graduate of ~~the~~Tulane University ~~of California, Los Angeles~~ (B.A./J.D.) and the ~~Tuck~~New York University School of ~~Business~~Law at(LL.M. ~~Dartmouth~~in ~~College (MBA~~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, 5657, has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Sponsor and has served as a director of the ~~Sponsor~~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, 4142, 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.

Hugh Ross, Chief Operating Officer

Hugh Ross, 57, has been the Chief Operating Officer of the Sponsor since February 2021. Prior to joining the Sponsor, Mr. Ross served twelve years as Chief Operating Officer of Horizon Kinetics LLC, a New York-based investment manager where he was responsible for the operating infrastructure and various digital asset initiatives. During the ten years immediately preceding his tenure at Horizon Kinetics, Mr. Ross was a Vice President with Goldman Sachs & Co. where he served as Chief Operating Officer of the long-only investment manager research team then-known as Global Manager Strategies (“GMS”), within Goldman Sachs Asset Management (“GSAM”). Mr. Ross also served as a compliance officer for both GSAM and Goldman’s Private Wealth Management business. Prior to joining Goldman Sachs, Mr. Ross worked as an in-house counsel for a transfer agent and started his career as a securities industry attorney representing broker-dealers and investment advisers. Mr. Ross is a graduate of the Goizueta Business School at Emory University (B.B.A.) and New York Law School (J.D.).

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.

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 March 3, 2025.~~ 87

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 March 6, 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 andNature ofBeneficialOwnership		Percentage ofBeneficialOwnership
Significant Shareholders:
Digital Currency Group, Inc.(1)(2)		597,689		12.65	%
Digital Currency Group, Inc.(1)(2)(3)		520,673		10.78	%
Directors & Executive Officers of the Sponsor:(3)
Directors & Executive Officers of the Sponsor:(4)
Barry Silbert(5)		165,034		3.42	%
Mark Shifke	*		* %
Matthew Kummell	*		* %
Simon Koster	*		* %
Peter Mintzberg	*		* %
Edward McGee	*		* %
Hugh Ross	*		* %
Directors & Executive Officers of the Sponsor as a group		165,034		3.42	%
Directors & Executive Officers of the Sponsor as a group	*		* %

(1)

Includes ~~342~~298,~~380~~053 Shares held by Digital Currency Group, Inc., ~~254~~221,~~401~~465 Shares held by DCG International Investments Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, Inc., and ~~908~~1,155 Shares held by Grayscale Securities, LLC, the Authorized Participant of the Trust and a wholly owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, Inc.

(2)

OnBarry ~~March~~Silbert 2,is ~~2022,~~ the ~~Board~~Chief ~~approved~~Executive ~~the~~Officer ~~purchase by DCG, the indirect parent company~~ of ~~the Sponsor, of up to $10 million worth of Shares of the Trust. Subsequently,~~ DCG ~~authorized~~and ~~such purchase. The Share purchase authorization does not obligate DCG to acquire any specific number of Shares~~ in ~~any~~such ~~period,~~capacity ~~and~~ may be ~~expanded,~~deemed ~~extended,~~to ~~modified,~~have orvoting ~~discontinued~~and atdispositive ~~any~~power ~~time.~~over ~~From March 2, 2022 through June 30, 2022, DCG has purchased a total of $2.0 million worth of Shares of~~ the ~~Trust.~~securities ~~From July 1~~held, ~~2022~~directly ~~through~~or ~~March 3~~indirectly, ~~2025,~~by ~~DCG~~such ~~did not purchase any Shares of the Trust under this authorization~~entity.

(3)

On March 2, 2022, the Board approved the purchase by DCG, the indirect parent company of the Sponsor, of up to $10 million worth of Shares of the Trust. Subsequently, DCG authorized such purchase. The Share purchase authorization does not obligate DCG to acquire any specific number of Shares in any period, and may be expanded, extended, modified, or discontinued at any time. From March 2, 2022 through June 30, 2022, DCG has purchased a total of $2.0 million worth of Shares of the Trust. From July 1, 2022 through March 6, 2026, DCG did not purchase any Shares of the Trust under this authorization.

(4)

(5)

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 ~~sole equity holder and~~ indirect parent company of the Sponsor, (ii) the indirect parent company of Grayscale Securities, the only acting Authorized Participant as of the date of this Annual Report, and (iii) 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 Zcash 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 Zcash Network should be considered the “true” Zcash Network could be adverse to positions that would most benefit the Trust.

9888

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.

The Authorized Participant

Prior to October 3, 2022, Genesis, an affiliate of the Trust and the Sponsor, was the only Authorized Participant and was party to a participant agreement with the Sponsor and the Trust. Since October 3, 2022, the only Authorized Participant is Grayscale Securities, an affiliate of the Trust and the Sponsor. As a result of this affiliation, the Sponsor has an incentive to resolve questions between Grayscale Securities, on the one hand, and the Trust and shareholders, on the other hand, in favor of Grayscale Securities (including, but not limited to, questions as to the calculation of the Basket Amount). Lastly, several employees of the Sponsor and Digital Currency Group, Inc. are FINRA-registered representatives who maintain their licenses through Grayscale Securities.

Proprietary Trading/Other Clients

Because the officers of the Sponsor may trade ZEC 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 ~~year~~years ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025, and ~~Marcum LLP (“Marcum”), for the year ended December 31, 2023~~2024.

	Years Ended December 31,
	2024		2023
	2025		2024
Audit fees	$	~~107~~130,~~500~~000	$	84107,~~000~~500
Total	$	~~107~~130,~~500~~000	$	84107,~~000~~500

In the table above, in accordance with the SEC’s definitions and rules, Audit Fees are fees paid to KPMG, ~~and previously Marcum,~~ 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, ~~2024~~2025, are made by the Sponsor’s Board of Directors and Audit Committee. ~~From~~Prior ~~and~~to ~~after~~ January 1, 2025, ~~such~~“Board” ~~determinations~~refers ~~are~~to ~~made~~the byboard 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~~directors of GSOIH. From and after October 22, 2025, “Board” refers to the ~~Audit~~board ~~Committee~~of directors of ~~GSIS~~Grayscale Investments.

9989

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statements Schedules

Financial Statements

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

Financial Statement Schedules

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

Exhibits

ExhibitNumber		Exhibit Description
4.1		Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by the Registrant on May 5, 2022).
3.1*		Certificate of Trust.
4.2		Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by the Registrant on May 5, 2022).
3.2*		Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust.
4.3		Amendment No. 2 to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 of the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by the Registrant on June 29, 2022).
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 March 10, 2026).
4.4		Amendment No. 3 to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the current report on Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on March 25, 2024).
4.2		Participant Agreement, dated October 3, 2022, between the Sponsor and Grayscale Securities, LLC, as an Authorized Participant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on October 3, 2022).
4.5		Certificate of Amendment to Certificate of Trust (attached as Exhibit A to Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust and Trust Agreement).
4.3		Description of Registrant’s Securities.
4.6		Participant Agreement, dated October 3, 2022, between the Sponsor and Grayscale Securities, LLC, as an Authorized Participant (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the current report on Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on October 3, 2022).
4.7		Description of Registrant’s Securities (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.6 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by the Registrant on March 1, 2023).
10.1†		Amended and Restated Custodian Agreement, dated June 29, 2022, between the Sponsor and the Custodian (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by the Registrant on August 5, 2022).
10.2		Distribution and Marketing Agreement, dated October 3, 2022, between the Sponsor and Grayscale Securities, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the ~~current report on~~ Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on October 3, 2022).
10.3†		Index License Agreement, dated February 1, 2022, between the Sponsor and the Index Provider (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by the Registrant on May 5, 2022).
10.4†		Amendment No. 1 to the Index License Agreement, dated June 20, 2023, between the Sponsor and Index Provider (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the ~~current report on~~ Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on June 23, 2023).
10.5†*		Amendment No. 6 to the Index License Agreement, dated March 1, 2025, between the Sponsor and Index Provider.
10.5†		Amendment No. 6 to the Index License Agreement, dated March 1, 2025, between the Sponsor and Index Provider (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by the Registrant on March 7, 2025).
10.6		Transfer Agency and Service Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of the Registration Statement on Form 10 filed by the Registrant on May 5, 2022).
10.7		Assignment and Assumption Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the current report on Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 3, 2025).
10.7†		Assignment and Assumption Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the current report on Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 3, 2025).
10.8		Coinbase Assignment Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the current report on Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 3, 2025).
10.8†		Coinbase Assignment Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the current report on Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on January 3, 2025).
10.9†*		Master Services Agreement, dated August 6, 2020, between 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.
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.

~~100~~90

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.
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.

~~101~~91

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.

“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 (including in connection with any Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency), (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 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 of Shares.

“Agent”—A Person appointed by the Trust to act on behalf of the shareholders in connection with any distribution of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency.

“AML”—Anti-money laundering.

“Authorized Participant”—Certain eligible financial institutions that have entered into an agreement with the Trust and the Sponsor concerning the creation of Shares. Each Authorized Participant (i) is a registered broker-dealer, (ii) has entered into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor and (iii) owns a digital wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant or a Liquidity Provider.

“Basket”—A block of 100 Shares.

“Basket Amount”—On any trade date, the amount of ZEC required as of such trade date for each Creation Basket, as determined by dividing (x) the amount of ZEC owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such trade date, after deducting the amount of ZEC 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 ZEC (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 100.

“Binance”—Binance Holdings Ltd.

“Bitcoin”—A type of digital asset based on an open-source cryptographic protocol existing on the Bitcoin Network.

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

“Blockchain”—The public transaction ledger of the Zcash Network on which transactions in ZEC 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.

“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.

102

“CME”—The Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

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

“Coinbase”—Coinbase, Inc.

“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 inupon ~~exchange~~deposit ~~for deposits~~ 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 Services”—The Custodian’s services that (i) allow ZEC to be deposited from a public blockchain address to the Trust’s Digital Asset Account and (ii) allow the Trust and the Sponsor to withdraw ZEC from the Trust’s Digital Asset Account to a public blockchain address the Trust or the Sponsor controls pursuant to instructions the Trust or the Sponsor provides to the Custodian.

“Custodian”—Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC.

“Custodian Agreement”—The Amended and Restated Custodial Services Agreement, dated as of June 29, 2022, by and between the Trust and the Sponsor and Custodian that governs the Trust’s and the Sponsor’s use of the Custodial Services provided by the Custodian as a fiduciary with respect to the Trust’s assets.

“Custodian Fee”—Fee payable to the Custodian for services it provides to the Trust, which the Sponsor shall pay to the Custodian as a Sponsor-paid Expense.

“DCG”—Digital Currency Group, Inc.

“DCG Holdco”—DCG Grayscale Holdco, LLC.

“Digital Asset Account”—A segregated custody account controlled and secured by the Custodian to store private keys, which allow for the transfer of ownership or control of the Trust’s ZEC on the Trust’s behalf.

“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 ZEC 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 ZEC, which consists of transactions on electronic Digital Asset Trading Platforms.

“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.

“Exchange Act”—The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

“FDIC”—The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

“FinCEN”—The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

“FINRA”—The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., which is the primary regulator in the United States for broker-dealers, including Authorized Participants.

103

“FSMA”—The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.

“FTX”—FTX Trading Ltd.

“Genesis”—Genesis Global Trading, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, Inc.

“Grayscale ~~Securities~~Investments”—Grayscale ~~Securities~~Investments, ~~LLC~~Inc., a ~~wholly~~Delaware ~~owned~~corporation ~~subsidiary~~and ofa ~~the~~consolidated ~~Sponsor,~~subsidiary ~~which as~~ of ~~the date of this Annual Report, is the only acting Authorized Participant~~DCG.

“Grayscale Securities”—Grayscale Securities, LLC, a consolidated subsidiary of Grayscale Operating, LLC, which as of the date of this Annual Report, is the only acting Authorized Participant.

“GSI”—Grayscale Investments, LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, until December 31, 2024.

“GSIS”—Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ~~the Sponsor of the Trust from~~ and ~~after January 1, 2025 and~~ a ~~wholly~~consolidated ~~owned direct~~ subsidiary of Grayscale Operating, LLC.

“GSO”—Grayscale Operating, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a ~~wholly~~consolidated ~~owned indirect~~ subsidiary of ~~Digital Currency Group, Inc~~DCG.

“GSOIH”—GSO Intermediate Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation ~~formed in connection with the Reorganization which is the sole managing member of GSO,~~ and ana ~~indirect~~consolidated subsidiary of DCG.

“ICE”—Intercontinental Exchange.

“Incidental Rights”—Rights to acquire, or otherwise establish dominion and control over, any virtual currency or other asset or right, which rights are incident to the Trust’s ownership of ZEC and arise without any action of the Trust, or of the Sponsor or Trustee on behalf of the Trust.

“Index”—The CoinDesk Zcash Price Index (ZCX).

“Index License Agreement”—The license agreement, dated as of February 1, 2022, between the Index Provider and the Sponsor governing the Sponsor’s use of the Index for calculation of the Index Price, as amended from time to time.

“Index Price”—The U.S. dollar value of a ZEC derived from the Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are reflected in the Index, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ZEC Industry and Market—ZEC Value—The Index and the Index Price” for a description of how the Index Price is calculated. For purposes of the Trust Agreement, the term ZEC Index Price shall mean the Index Price as defined herein.

“Index Provider”—CoinDesk Indices, Inc., a Delaware corporation that publishes the Index.

“Investment Advisers Act”—Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended.

“Investment Company Act”—Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.

“Investor”—Any investor that has entered into a subscription agreement with an Authorized Participant, pursuant to which such Authorized Participant will act as agent for the investor.

“IR Virtual Currency”—Any virtual currency tokens, or other asset or right, acquired by the Trust through the exercise (subject to the applicable provisions of the Trust Agreement) of any Incidental Right.

“IRAs”—Individual retirement accounts.

“IRS”—The U.S. Internal Revenue Service, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

“KYC”—Know-your-customer.

“Layer 1”—The underlying smart contract platform blockchain on which a digital asset functions.

“Layer 2”—Protocols built on top of an underlying smart contract platform blockchain intended to provide scalability to the underlying blockchain by increasing transaction efficiency.

104

“Liquidity Provider”—A service provider that facilitates the purchase of ZEC in connection with the creation of Baskets.

“Management Reorganization”—An internal corporate reorganization consummated on October 22, 2025. As a result of the Management Reorganization, Grayscale Investments is now the sole managing member of GSO, the sole member of the Sponsor, and the Board of Grayscale Investments is responsible for managing and directing the affairs of the Sponsor.

“Marketing Fee”—Fee payable to the marketer for services it provides to the Trust, which the Sponsor will pay to the marketer as a Sponsor-paid Expense.

“Merger”—The merger of Grayscale Investments, LLC with and into Grayscale Operating, LLC, with Grayscale Operating, LLC continuing as the surviving company.

“MiCA”—The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, which was approved by the Parliament of the European Union in 2023.

“MSB”—A money services business.

“NAV”—The aggregate value, expressed in U.S. dollars, of the Trust’s assets (other than U.S. dollars or other fiat currency), less its liabilities (which include estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses), a non-GAAP metric, calculated in the manner set forth under “Item 1. Business—Valuation of ZEC and Determination of NAV.” See also “Item 1. Business—Investment Objective” for a description of the Trust’s Principal Market NAV, as calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Prior to February 23, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings. For purposes of the Trust Agreement, the term ZEC Holdings shall mean the NAV as defined herein.

“NAV Fee Basis Amount”—The amount on which the Sponsor’s Fee for the Trust is based, as calculated in the manner set forth under “Item 1. Business—Valuation of ZEC and Determination of NAV.” For purposes of the Trust Agreement, the term ZEC Holdings Fee Basis Amount shall mean the NAV Fee Basis Amount as defined herein.

“Non-ERISA Arrangements”—Government plans, non-U.S. plans and certain church plans, which are not subject to the fiduciary responsibility or prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code, but may be subject to similar rules under Similar Laws.

“NYSE Arca”—NYSE Arca, Inc.

“OTCQX”—The OTCQX Best Market® of OTC Markets Group Inc.

“Participant Agreement”—An agreement entered into by an Authorized Participant with the Sponsor that provides the procedures for the creation of Baskets and for the delivery of ZEC required for Creation Baskets.

“Plans”—Employee benefit plans and certain other plans and arrangements, including IRAs and annuities, Keogh plans, and certain collective investment funds or insurance company general or separate accounts in which such plans or arrangements are invested, that are subject to ERISA and/or the Section 4975 of the Code.

“Pre-Creation Abandonment”—The abandonment by the Trust, irrevocably for no direct or indirect consideration, all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust would otherwise be entitled, effective immediately prior to a Creation Time for the Trust.

“Pre-Creation Abandonment Notice”—A notice delivered by the Sponsor to the Custodian, on behalf of the Trust, stating that the Trust is abandoning irrevocably for no direct or indirect consideration, effective immediately prior to each Creation Time, all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time and with respect to which the Trust has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such time.

“Principal Market NAV”—The net asset value of the Trust determined on a U.S. GAAP basis. Prior to February 23, 2024, Principal Market NAV was referred to as NAV.

Filing Compare · Grayscale Zcash Trust (ZEC)