RISK FACTORS Form 8 K

RISK FACTORS

The risks described below will update the Trust's previously filed risk factors to the extent applicable. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Prospectus dated July 22, 2024 (File No. 333-278880), filed on July 23, 2024 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Risk Factors Related to the Offering

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

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

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

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

The commencement of a redemption program, in conjunction with the listing of the Shares on the NYSE Arca, may impact whether the Shares trade at a discount or premium to the NAV per Share, and any suspension or other unavailability of the Trust's redemption program may cause the Shares to trade at a discount to the NAV per Share.

Historically, the Shares have traded on OTCQX at both premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, which at times have been substantial. The Sponsor believes that the trading price of the Shares has diverged from the NAV per Share in the past due, in part, to the holding period under Rule 144 for Shares purchased in the private placement and the lack of an ongoing redemption program, as a result of which Authorized Participants have been unable to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities when the market value of the Shares deviated from the NAV per Share. Although the Sponsor cannot predict with certainty what effect the commencement of the Trust's redemption program, in conjunction with the listing of the Shares on NYSE Arca, will have on the trading price of the Shares, it may have the effect of reducing any premium or discount at which the Shares have been trading on the OTCQX immediately prior to the commencement of the redemption program, and there can be no assurance that the Trust's redemption program

will not be suspended or become unavailable again in the future. In addition, if the Sponsor decides to limit Cash Orders at a time when the Shares are trading at a premium or a discount to the NAV per Share, and In-Kind Regulatory Approval has not been obtained as of such time or the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares is otherwise unavailable for any reason, the arbitrage mechanism may fail to effectively function, which could impact the Shares' liquidity and/or cause the Shares to trade at premiums and discounts to the NAV per Share, and otherwise have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

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

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 on NYSE Arca in the future at a premium, investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. In contrast, if the Shares trade on NYSE Arca in the future at a discount, investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca. The premium or discount at which the Shares have traded has fluctuated over time. For example, from June 20, 2019 to June 30, 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 956%, the average premium was 191%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQX below the value of the Trust's NAV per Share was 60%, and the average discount was 24%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQX at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between June 20, 2019 and June 30, 2024, has been quoted at a discount on 771 days. As of June 28, 2024, the last business day of the period, the Trust's Shares were quoted on OTCQX at a discount of 1% to the Trust's NAV per Share. As a result, shareholders who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca at a premium may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the premium has decreased from the premium at which they purchased the Shares even if the NAV per Share remains the same. Likewise, shareholders that purchase Shares directly from the Trust may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the Shares are trading at a discount on NYSE Arca. Furthermore, shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment even if the NAV per Share increases because the decrease in any premium or increase in any discount may offset any increase in the NAV per Share.

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

Although an active market for the Shares had developed on OTCQX and the Shares have begun trading on NYSE Arca, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for the Shares will develop or, to the extent an active market does develop, be maintained or continue to develop on NYSE Arca. In addition, NYSE Arca can halt the trading of the Shares at any time and for a variety of reasons. To the extent that NYSE Arca halts trading in the Shares, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, shareholders 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 develop or continue to exist, the market prices and liquidity of the Shares may be adversely affected.

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

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

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

A validator may face penalties if it fails to take certain actions, such as providing a timely attestation to a block proposed by another validator. Under this scenario, a validator's staked Ether could be burned in an amount equal to the reward to which it would have been entitled for successfully performing the actions.

A more severe sanction (i.e., "slashing") is imposed if a validator commits malicious acts related to the proposal or attestation of blocks with invalid transactions. Slashing can result in the validator having a portion of its staked Ether immediately confiscated, withdrawn, or burned by the Ethereum Network, resulting in losses to them. After this initial slashing, the validator is queued for forceful removal from the Ethereum Network's validator "pool," and more of the validator's stake is burned over a period of approximately 36 days (with the exact amount of Ether burned and time period determined by the protocol) regardless of whether the validator makes any further slashable errors, at which point the validator is automatically removed from the validator pool.

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

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

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

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

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

Validators must deposit 32 Ether to activate a unique validator key pair that is used to sign block proposals and attestations on behalf of its stake (i.e., participate in the proof-of-stake consensus mechanism). For every 32 Ether deposit that is staked, a unique validator key pair is generated. This validator key pair is only used in validation processes (block proposal and attestation, and the staking associated therewith), and is separate from the public-private key pair generated in respect of the blockchain address on the Ethereum Network which is used to hold the Ether. An application built on the Ethereum Network, or a single node operator, can manage many validator key pairs. For example, Lido, an application that provides a so-called "liquid staking" solution that permits holders of Ether to deposit them with Lido, which stakes the Ether while issuing the holder a transferrable token, is reported by some sources to have or have had up to 275,000 validator key pairs (each representing 32 staked Ether) divided across over 30 node operators. At times, Lido has reportedly controlled around or in excess of 33% of the total staked Ether on the Ethereum Network. While it is widely believed that Lido has little incentive to attempt to interfere with transaction finality or block confirmations using its reported 33% stake, since doing so would likely cause its entire stake to be

slashed and thus lost (assuming good actors unaffiliated with Lido controlled the remainder), and also because Lido is believed to not control most of the third party node operators where its Ether is staked, and finally because the occurrence of such manipulation of the Ethereum Network's consensus process by Lido or any other actor would likely cause Ether to lose substantial value (which would hurt Lido economically), it nevertheless poses centralization concerns. If Lido, or a bad actor with a similar sized stake, were to attempt to interfere with transaction finality or block confirmations, it could negatively affect the use and adoption of the Ethereum Network, the value of Ether, and thus the value of the Shares.

Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets

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

Since the fourth quarter of 2021 and to date, digital asset prices have fluctuated widely. This has 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 declared bankruptcy. 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 Trading Ltd. ("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, Digital Currency Group, Inc. ("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 proposed settlement remains subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York.

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

These events have led to a substantial increase in regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of the industry as a whole and of Digital Asset Trading Platforms in particular, including from the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance (the "Binance Complaint") and Coinbase (the "Coinbase Complaint"), two of the largest digital asset trading platforms, alleging that they solicited U.S. investors to buy, sell, and trade "crypto asset securities" through their unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance. US and that it plans to delist its

USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken (the "Kraken Complaint"), alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint have led, and may in the future lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices.

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

Further, in March 2023, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") accepted Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank into receivership. Also, in March 2023, Silvergate Bank announced plans to wind down and liquidate its operations. Following these events, a number of companies that provide digital asset-related services have been unable to find banks that are willing to provide them with bank accounts and banking services. Although these events did not have a material impact on the Trust or the Sponsor, 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.

These events are continuing to develop 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 further declines in the trading prices and liquidity of Ether, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

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

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

Many Digital Asset Trading Platforms are unlicensed, not subject to, or not in compliance with, regulation in relevant jurisdictions, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance. 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 unregulated 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. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and any other

fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of Ether and/or negatively affect the market perception of Ether, which could in turn adversely impact the value of the Shares.

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

In addition, over the past several years, some Digital Asset Trading Platforms have been closed, been subject to criminal and civil litigation and have entered into bankruptcy proceedings due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure and/or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such Digital Asset Trading Platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such Digital Asset Trading Platforms. 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 and their shortcomings or ultimate failures are more likely to have contagion effects on the digital asset ecosystem, and therefore may be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, in February 2014, Mt. Gox, the largest Digital Asset Trading Platform at the time, halted withdrawals of Bitcoin and subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan following a hack that resulted in the loss of several hundred thousand Bitcoin. In the two weeks following the halt of Bitcoin withdrawals from Mt. Gox, the value of one Bitcoin fell on other trading platforms from around $795 to $578. Failure and shortcomings of large Digital Asset Trading Platforms have since continued; in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 Bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or "hot" wallets, and in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 Bitcoin worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex. The value of Bitcoin and other digital assets immediately decreased over 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. Regulatory enforcement actions have followed, such as in July 2017, when FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-E, a now defunct Digital Asset Trading Platform, for facilitating crimes such as drug sales and ransomware attacks. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based digital asset trading platform Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian's assets. In January 2018, the Japanese digital asset trading platform, Coincheck, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $535 million, and in February 2018, the Italian digital asset trading platform, Bitgrail, was hacked, resulting in approximately $170 million in losses. In May 2019, one of the world's largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, Binance, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $40 million. More recently, in November 2022, FTX, another of the world's largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, filed for bankruptcy protection and subsequently halted customer withdrawals as well as trading on its FTX.US platform. While details and events surrounding the failure continue to develop, and it is unclear what the eventual impacts of its bankruptcy will be, it appears that fraud, security failures and operational problems all played a role in FTX's issues. 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.

Negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the Digital Asset Markets and/or the closure or temporary shutdown of Digital Asset Trading Platforms due to fraud, business failure, security breaches or government mandated regulation, and associated losses by customers, may reduce confidence in the Ethereum

Network and result in greater volatility in the prices of Ether. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a Digital Asset Trading Platform used in calculating the Index Price may result in a loss of confidence in the Trust's ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. These potential consequences of such a Digital Asset Trading Platform's failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

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

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be exposed to wash trading.

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

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

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

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

The price of Ether on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms has a very limited history, and during this history, Ether prices on the Digital Asset Markets more generally, and on Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While the Index is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms, the Index Price, and the price of Ether generally, remains subject to volatility experienced by Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and such volatility could adversely affect the value of the Shares. For example, from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2024, the Index Price ranged from $109.83 to $4,776.32, with the average being $1,703.32. In addition, during the twelve months ended June 30, 2024, the Index Price ranged from $1,531.25 to $4,033.10. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually or as a group. The price of Ether more generally has experienced volatility similar to the Index Price during these periods. For additional information on movement of the Index Price and the price of Ether, see "Part I-Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Historical NAV and Ether Prices" in the Q1 2024 Quarterly Report.

Furthermore, because the number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms is limited, the Index will necessarily be comprised of a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms. If a Digital Asset Trading Platform were subjected to regulatory, volatility or other pricing issues, the Index Provider would have limited ability to remove such Digital Asset Trading Platform from the Index, which could skew the price of Ether as represented by the Index. Trading on

a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms may result in less favorable prices and decreased liquidity of Ether and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

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

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

As of June 30, 2024, Ether was the second largest digital asset by market capitalization, as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of June 30, 2024, the alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com had a total market capitalization of approximately $2,313.7 billion (including the approximately $413 billion market cap of Ether), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding tokens pegged to other assets. In addition, many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned smart contracts platforms rather than open platforms like the Ethereum Network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Solana, Avalanche or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, Ether and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

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

Investors may invest in Ether through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in Ether and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to Ether and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust. While the Trust is the largest and most liquid Ether investment vehicle in the world, the Trust and the Sponsor face competition with respect to the creation of competing exchange-traded spot Ether products, among other digital asset vehicles, several of which have applications pending before the SEC. Whether the Trust is successful in maintaining its scale and achieving its intended competitive position may be impacted by a range of factors, including the Trust's timing in entering the market relative to competing spot Ether exchange-traded products and its fee structure relative to those competing products. For example, if the SEC were to approve many or all of the currently pending applications for such exchange-traded spot Ether products, the Trust could fail to continue to acquire substantial assets. The Trust's competitors may also charge a substantially lower fee than the Sponsor Fee in an effort to achieve initial market acceptance and scale, which could cause investors to favor such competing products over the Trust.

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

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

Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares

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

The Trust is currently only able to accept Cash Orders, which means that an Authorized Participant will deposit cash into, or accept cash from, the Cash Account in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets, and a Liquidity Provider will obtain or receive Ether in exchange for cash in connection with such order. However, and in common with other spot digital asset exchange-traded products, the Trust is not at this time able to create and redeem Shares via in-kind transactions with Authorized Participants in exchange for Ether.

Authorized participants must be registered broker-dealers. Registered broker-dealers are subject to various requirements of the federal securities laws and rules, including financial responsibility rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements. There has yet to be definitive regulatory guidance on whether and how registered broker-dealers can comply with these rules with regard to transacting in or holding spot Ether. Until further regulatory clarity emerges regarding whether registered broker-dealers can hold and deal in Ether under such rules, there is a risk that registered broker-dealers participating in the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares for Ether may be unable to demonstrate compliance with such requirements. While compliance with these requirements would be the broker-dealer's responsibility, a national securities exchange is required to enforce compliance by its member broker-dealers with applicable federal securities law and rules. As a result, the SEC is unlikely to permit an exchange to adopt listing rules for a product if it is not clear that the exchange's members would be able to comply with applicable rules when transacting in the product as designed. To the extent further regulatory clarity emerges, the Sponsor expects NYSE Arca to seek the necessary regulatory approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to create and redeem Shares through In-Kind Orders, in which Authorized Participants or their designees would deposit Ether directly with the Trust or receive Ether directly from the Trust. However, there can be no assurance as to when such regulatory clarity will emerge, or when NYSE Arca will seek or obtain this approval, if at all.

To the knowledge of the Sponsor, exchange-traded products for all spot-market commodities other than Bitcoin and Ether, such as gold and silver, employ in-kind creations and redemptions with the underlying asset. The Sponsor believes that it is generally more efficient, and therefore less costly, for spot commodity exchange-traded products to utilize in-kind orders rather than cash orders, because there are fewer steps in the process and therefore there is less operational risk involved when an authorized participant can manage the buying and selling of the underlying asset itself, rather than depend on an unaffiliated party such as the issuer or sponsor of the exchange-traded product. As such, a spot commodity exchange-traded product that only employs cash creations and redemptions and does not permit in-kind creations and redemptions is a novel product that has not been tested, and could be impacted by any resulting operational inefficiencies.

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

Even if In-Kind Regulatory Approval were obtained, there can be no assurance that in-kind creations or redemptions of the Shares will be available in the future, or that broker-dealers would be willing to serve as Authorized Participants with respect to the in-kind creation and redemption of Shares. Any of these factors could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

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

The Ethereum Network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and validators of Ether adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and validators consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and validators consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a "hard fork" of the Ethereum Network, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of Ethereum running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. In addition to forks, a digital asset may become subject to a similar occurrence known as an "airdrop." In an airdrop, the promoters of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that such holders will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset, generally for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. We refer to the right to receive any benefits arising from a fork, airdrop or similar event as an "Incidental Right" and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as "IR Virtual Currency."

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

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

Even if such regulatory approval is sought and obtained, shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Trust is not permitted to engage in Staking, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.

At this time, none of the Trust, the Sponsor, the Custodian, nor any other person associated with the Trust may, directly or indirectly, engage in Staking of the Trust's Ether on behalf of the Trust, meaning no action will be taken pursuant to which any portion of the Trust's Ether becomes used in Ethereum proof-of-stake validation or is used to earn additional Ether or generate income or other earnings, and there can be no assurance that the Trust, the Sponsor, the Custodian or any other person associated with the Trust will ever be permitted to engage in Staking of the Trust's Ether or such income generating activity in the future. To the extent (i) the Trust were to amend its Trust Agreement to permit Staking of the Trust's Ether and (ii) NYSE Arca were to seek and obtain a rule change permitting the listing of a spot Ether investment vehicle engaged in Staking, in the future the Trust may seek to establish a program to use its Ether in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Ethereum Network to receive rewards comprising additional Ether in respect of a portion of its Ether holdings. However, as long as such conditions and requirements have not been satisfied, the Trust will not use its Ether in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Ethereum Network to receive rewards comprising additional Ether in respect of its Ether holdings. The current inability of the Trust to use its Ether in Staking and receive such rewards could place the Shares at a comparative disadvantage relative to an investment in Ether directly or through a vehicle that is not subject to such a prohibition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.

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

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

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

Certain of the Authorized Participants engaged by the Trust serve in a similar capacity for several competing exchange-traded Ether products. As a result, the Authorized Participants may be unable to adequately support all of the exchange-traded Ether products that use their respective services. This risk may also be exacerbated as a consequence of the price and volatility of Ether, as well as the number of Ether that is required to create or redeem Shares of the Trust. See "Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares." Moreover, the Authorized Participants may choose to facilitate creations and redemptions for competing products rather than for the Trust, including as a result of, among other things, how effectively the arbitrage mechanism of the Trust functions, the liquidity for the Shares, the bid/ask spreads in secondary trading of the Shares and the costs associated with creating and redeeming Shares of the Trust, in each case relative to competing products. In addition, given the relatively limited number of market participants that could serve as Authorized Participants of the Trust, the Trust may not be able to engage other providers to serve as Authorized Participants. If any or all of the Authorized Participants were to cease to act in their capacity as Authorized Participants of the Trust, or if any of the Authorized Participants were to favor creating and redeeming shares of competing products over those of the Trust, the Trust may receive inadequate attention or be subject to comparatively unfavorable commercial terms, which could adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism, the Trust's operations, the performance of the Trust and ultimately the value of the Shares. See also "-Risks Related to the Offering-Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets or methods of investing in Ether could have a negative impact on the price of Ether and adversely affect the value of the Shares."

Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of the Trust and the Shares

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

The Sponsor intends to take the position that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust, the Trust will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax. Rather, if the Trust is a grantor trust, each beneficial owner of Shares will be treated as directly owning its pro rata share of the Trust's assets and a pro rata portion of the Trust's income, gain, losses and deductions will "flow through" to each beneficial owner of Shares.

The Trust has taken certain positions with respect to the tax consequences of Incidental Rights and its receipt of IR Virtual Currency. If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge, any of these positions the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices (as defined herein) provide that the Trust will irrevocably abandon, effective immediately prior to each Creation Time or Redemption Time, all Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such time. The Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future. There can be no complete assurance that these abandonments will be treated as effective for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If the Trust were treated as owning any asset other than Ether as of any date on which it creates or redeems Shares, it might cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

In addition, and in common with other spot digital asset exchange-traded products, at this time the Trust is not permitted to create or redeem Shares via in-kind transactions with Authorized Participants. Unless and until In-Kind Regulatory Approval is obtained, Baskets will be created or redeemed only through Cash Orders. In general, investment vehicles intended to be treated as grantor trusts for U.S. federal income tax purposes historically have created additional trust interests only in kind, and there is no authority directly addressing whether a grantor trust may create or redeem trust interests under procedures similar to those that govern Cash Orders. Accordingly, there can be no complete assurance that the creation or redemption of Shares under the procedures governing Cash Orders will not cause the Trust to fail to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

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

If the Trust is not properly classified as a grantor trust, the Trust might be classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, due to the uncertain treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes (as discussed below in "Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences-Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets"), there can be no assurance in this regard. If the Trust were classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the tax consequences of owning Shares generally would not be materially different from the tax consequences described herein, although there might be certain differences, including with respect to timing of the recognition of taxable income or loss. In addition, tax information reports provided to beneficial owners of Shares would be made in a different form. 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).

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.