VanEck Solana ETF: Form 10-Q for the period ended Mar 31, 2026

This information should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes to financial statements included with this Report. The discussion and analysis that follows may contain statements that relate to future events or future performance. In some cases, such forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. All statements (other than statements of historical fact) included in this Report that address activities, events or developments that may occur in the future, including such matters as changes in commodity prices and market conditions (for SOL and the Shares), the operations of the Trust, the plans of the Sponsor and references to the Trust’s future success and other similar matters are forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions. Actual events or results may differ materially. These statements are based upon certain assumptions and analyses made by the Sponsor on the basis of its perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors it believes are appropriate in the circumstances. Whether or not actual results and developments will conform to the Sponsor’s expectations and predictions is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the special considerations discussed in this Report, general economic, market and business conditions, changes in laws or regulations, including those concerning taxes, made by governmental authorities or regulatory bodies, and other world economic and political developments. Consequently, all the forward-looking statements made in this Report are qualified by these cautionary statements, and there can be no assurance that the actual results or developments the Sponsor anticipates will be realized or, even if substantially realized, will result in the expected consequences to, or have the expected effects on, the Trust’s operations or the value of the Shares issued by the Trust. Moreover, neither the Sponsor nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the forward-looking statements. Neither the Trust nor the Sponsor undertakes an obligation to publicly update or conform to actual results any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as required by law.

Introduction

The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust. The Trust does not have directors, officers or employees. The creation and operation of the Trust have been arranged by the Sponsor. The Trust is administered by the Trust Agreement, among the Sponsor and the Trustee. The Trust is managed and controlled by the Sponsor, a wholly-owned subsidiary of VanEck. The Sponsor is not governed by a board of directors.

The Trust’s investment objective is to reflect the performance of the price of SOL and rewards from staking a portion of the Trust’s SOL, to the extent the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines that the Trust may do so without undue legal or regulatory risk, such as, without limitation, by jeopardizing the Trust’s ability to qualify as a grantor trust for tax purposes, less the operating expenses of the Trust. The Trust is a passive investment vehicle that does not seek to pursue any investment strategy beyond tracking the price of SOL. The Trust does not engage in any activities designed to obtain a profit from, or ameliorate losses caused by, changes in the price of SOL.

The Trust issues and redeems Shares only in aggregations of 25,000 Shares, a Basket, or integral multiples thereof, and only in transactions with authorized participants.

Shares of the Trust trade on the Exchange under the ticker symbol “VSOL.”

Computation of Net Asset Value

The Trust’s NAV is calculated based on the Trust’s net asset holdings as reconciled to the SOL Custodians’ accounts on a market approach, determined on a daily basis in accordance with the MarketVectorTM Solana Benchmark Rate price at 4:00 p.m. EST. The Trust’s NAV per Share is calculated by taking the current market value of its total assets, subtracting any liabilities, and then dividing that total by the total number of outstanding Shares. The Trust Agreement gives the Sponsor the exclusive authority to determine the Trust’s NAV and the Trust’s NAV per Share, which it has delegated to the Administrator.

Liquidity

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. In exchange for a 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 that will be incurred will be the Sponsor’s Fee. The Trust’s only source of liquidity will be its sales of SOL.

Significant Accounting Policies

In preparing financial statements in conformity with GAAP, management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amount of revenue and expenses reported during the period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. A description of the valuation of SOL, a critical accounting policy that the Trust believes is important to understanding its results of operations and financial position, is provided in the section entitled “Computation of Net Asset Value” above. In addition, please refer to Note 2 to the Financial Statements included in this Report for further discussion of the Trust’s accounting policies.

Results of Operations

The Quarter Ended March 31, 2026

The Trust’s NAV decreased from $23,539,566 at December 31, 2025 to $14,859,581 at March 31, 2026, a 36.87% decrease. The decrease in the Trust’s NAV resulted primarily from a decrease in the price of SOL, which decreased 33.14% from $124.73 at December 31, 2025 to $83.39 at March 31, 2026. The number of Shares outstanding also decreased from 1,450,000 Shares at December 31, 2025 to 1,350,000 Shares at March 31, 2026, a net result of 325,000 Shares (13 Baskets) being created and 425,000 Shares (17 Baskets) being redeemed during the period.

The 32.16% decrease in the NAV per Share from $16.23 at December 31, 2025 to $11.01 at March 31, 2026 is directly related to the 33.14% decrease in the price of SOL during this period, minimally offset by income from staking activities.

The NAV per Share of $19.21 on January 14, 2026, was the highest during the quarter, compared with a low during the quarter of $10.11 on February 12, 2026.

Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2026, was $9,040,833 resulting from the net change in unrealized depreciation on investment in SOL of $6,060,447, a net realized loss of $1,148,041 on SOL sold for the redemption of Shares, a net realized loss on SOL sold of 2,125,101 for in-kind redemptions, a net realized loss of $978 from SOL sold to pay expenses during the quarter, and net investment income of $293,734 resulting from staking activities. Other than the Net Sponsor Fee of $5,719, the Trust has no other expenses during the quarter.

The duly authorized officers of the Sponsor performing functions equivalent to those a principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Trust would perform if the Trust had any officers, with the participation of the Trustee, have evaluated the effectiveness of the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures, and have concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures of the Trust were effective as of the end of the period covered by this Report to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in the reports that the Trust files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the applicable rules and forms, and that it is accumulated and communicated to the duly authorized officers of the Sponsor performing functions equivalent to those a principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Trust would perform if the Trust had any officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

There are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of any system of disclosure controls and procedures, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of the controls and procedures.

The Regulatory Landscape Surrounding Staking Activities Is Uncertain.

The regulatory landscape surrounding Staking Activities is highly uncertain and may expose the Sponsor, the VSOL Custodian, Staking Services Providers, and the Trust and its shareholders to unforeseen litigation or potential SEC enforcement actions. For example, there is a risk that the agreements for staking services could constitute an “investment contract” under the federal securities laws and therefore be deemed a security, requiring registration or reliance on an exemption from registration. In May 2025, staff of the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement (the “SEC Staking Statement”) expressing the view that certain staking activities do not involve the offer and sale of securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws, and we believe that the Staking Arrangements satisfy the criteria set forth in this statement. However, the SEC Staking Statement is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the SEC, and has no legal force or effect. In addition, on March 17, 2026, the SEC issued an interpretive release (the “Interpretive Release”), in which the SEC reached a similar conclusion with respect to certain staking activities. Although the Interpretive Release represents the official position of the SEC, it is not itself a statute or binding rule, and a court or future administration could take a different view.

Accordingly, there is a risk that a court could disagree with the views expressed in the SEC Staking Statement or the Interpretive Release or that the SEC could withdraw the statement. In that case, or if VSOL were deemed a security, there would also be a risk that a Staking Services Provider could be deemed to be acting as a broker-dealer, on the basis that the Staking Services Provider is receiving a commission for effecting the staking transactions and receipt of staking rewards.

Digital Asset Markets In The United States Exist In A State Of Regulatory Uncertainty, And Adverse Legislative Or Regulatory Developments Could Significantly Harm The Value Of SOL Or The Shares, Such As By Banning, Restricting Or Imposing Onerous Conditions Or Prohibitions On The Use Of SOL, Staking Activity, Digital Wallets, The Provision Of Services Related To Trading And Custodying SOL, The Operation Of The Solana Network Or The Digital Asset Markets Generally.

There is a lack of consensus regarding the regulation of digital assets, including SOL, and their markets. As a result of the growth in the size of the digital asset market, as well as the 2022 Events, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, SEC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”), FINRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS, state financial institution regulators and others) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset markets. Congress is currently considering several bills relating to the regulation of digital assets and stablecoins, which may not pass and be enacted in their present form or at all.

Many state and federal agencies have brought enforcement actions or issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or SOL 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.

The 2022 Events, including among others the bankruptcy filings of FTX and its subsidiaries, Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, Genesis, BlockFi and others, and other developments in the digital asset markets, have resulted in calls for heightened scrutiny and regulation of the digital asset industry, with a specific focus on intermediaries, such as digital asset exchanges, platforms and custodians. Federal and state legislatures and regulatory agencies may introduce and enact new laws and regulations to regulate crypto asset intermediaries, such as digital asset exchanges and custodians. The March 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank, which in some cases provided services to the digital assets industry, may amplify and/or accelerate these trends. On January 3, 2023, the federal banking agencies issued a joint statement on crypto-asset risks to banking organizations following events which exposed vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector, including the risk of fraud and scams, legal uncertainties, significant volatility and contagion risk. Although banking organizations are not prohibited from crypto-asset related activities, the agencies have expressed significant safety and soundness concerns with business models that are concentrated in crypto-asset related activities or have concentrated exposures to the crypto-asset sector.

U.S. federal and state regulators, as well as the White House, have issued reports and releases concerning crypto assets, including SOL and crypto asset markets. Further, in 2023 the House of Representatives formed two new subcommittees: the Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion Subcommittee and the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee, each of which were formed in part to analyze issues concerning crypto assets and demonstrate a legislative intent to develop and consider the adoption of federal legislation designed to address the perceived need for regulation of and concerns surrounding the crypto industry. However, the extent and content of any forthcoming laws and regulations are not yet ascertainable with certainty, and it may not be ascertainable in the near future. A divided Congress makes any prediction difficult. We cannot predict how these and other related events will affect us or the crypto asset business.

There remains substantial uncertainty regarding the regulation of digital assets, including SOL, and their markets, notwithstanding certain recent federal interpretive actions intended to provide additional clarity. On March 17, 2026, the SEC issued the Interpretive Release regarding the application of the federal securities laws to certain types of digital assets and certain transactions involving digital assets., and the CFTC concurrently provided guidance that it and its staff will administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistent with that interpretation. Among other things, the Interpretive Release introduces a taxonomy for crypto addresses how a non-security crypto asset may become subject to, and may cease to be subject to, an investment contract; and clarifies the application of the federal securities laws to airdrops, protocol mining, protocol staking and the wrapping of a non-security crypto asset. Although the March 17, 2026 interpretive guidance may provide greater clarity in certain respects, this guidance is not binding law, may be revised, and does not eliminate uncertainty, particularly with respect to the regulatory treatment of specific activities or transactions involving crypto assets.

In August 2021, the 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 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 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. Moreover, former President Biden’s March 9, 2022 Executive Order, asserting that technological advances and the rapid growth of the digital asset markets “necessitate an evaluation and alignment of the United States Government approach to digital assets,” signals an ongoing focus on digital asset policy and regulation in the United States. A number of reports issued pursuant to the executive order have focused on various risks related to the digital asset ecosystem, and have recommended additional legislation and regulatory oversight. There have also been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets.

It is not possible to predict whether Congress will grant additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how they might impact the ability of digital asset markets to function or how any new regulations that may flow from such authorities might impact the value of digital assets generally and SOL held by the Trust specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Trust and the Shares.

FinCEN requires any administrator or exchanger of convertible digital assets to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters. Entities which fail to comply with such regulations are subject to fines, may be required to cease operations and could have potential criminal liability. For example, in 2015, FinCEN assessed a $700,000 fine against a sponsor of a digital asset for violating several requirements of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, as amended (“BSA”), by acting as an MSB and selling the digital asset without registering with FinCEN and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program. In 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-e, a now defunct digital asset exchange, for similar violations. The requirement that exchangers that do business in the U.S. register with FinCEN and comply with anti-money laundering regulations may increase the cost of buying and selling SOL and therefore may adversely affect the price of SOL and an investment in the Shares.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury Department”) has added digital currency addresses, including on the Solana Blockchain, to the list of Specially Designated Nationals whose assets are blocked, and with whom U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing. Such actions by OFAC, or by similar organizations in other jurisdictions, may introduce uncertainty in the market as to whether SOL that has been associated with such addresses in the past can be easily sold. This “tainted” SOL may trade at a substantial discount to untainted SOL. Reduced fungibility in the SOL markets may reduce the liquidity of SOL and therefore adversely affect their price.

In February 2020, then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated that digital assets were a “crucial area” on which the U.S. Treasury Department has spent significant time. Secretary Mnuchin announced that the U.S. Treasury Department is preparing significant new regulations governing digital asset activities to address concerns regarding the potential use for facilitating money laundering and other illicit activities. In December 2020, FinCEN, a bureau within the U.S. Treasury Department, proposed a rule that would require financial institutions to submit reports, keep records and verify the identity of customers for certain transactions to or from so-called “unhosted” wallets, also commonly referred to as self-hosted wallets. In January 2021, U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Janet Yellen stated her belief that regulators should “look closely at how to encourage the use of digital assets for legitimate activities while curtailing their use for malign and illegal activities.”

Under regulations from NYDFS, businesses involved in digital asset business activity for third parties in or involving New York, excluding merchants and consumers, must apply for a license, commonly known as a “BitLicense,” from the NYDFS and must comply with anti-money laundering, cyber security, consumer protection and financial and reporting requirements, among others. As an alternative to a BitLicense, a firm can apply for a charter to become a limited purpose trust company under New York law qualified to engage in certain digital asset business activities. Other states have considered or approved digital asset business activity statutes or rules, passing, for example, regulations or guidance indicating that certain digital asset business activities constitute money transmission requiring licensure.

The inconsistency in applying money transmitting licensure requirements to certain businesses may make it more difficult for these businesses to provide services, which may affect consumer adoption of SOL and its price. In an attempt to address these issues, the Uniform Law Commission passed a model law in July 2017, the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act, which has many similarities to the BitLicense and features a multistate reciprocity licensure feature, wherein a business licensed in one state could apply for accelerated licensure procedures in other states. It is still unclear, however, how many states, if any, will adopt some or all of the model legislation.

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. If the Solana Network were to adopt any of these features, these features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction-level data. For example, “privacy pools,” zero knowledge proofs and other technologies that could enhance privacy have been discussed by participants in the Solana Network. Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, released a report in October 2017 noting the increased use of privacy-enhancing digital assets like Zcash and Monero in criminal activity on the internet. In August 2022, OFAC banned all U.S. citizens from using Tornado Cash, a digital asset protocol designed to obfuscate blockchain transactions, by adding certain Ethereum wallet addresses associated with the protocol to its Specially Designated Nationals list. On October 19, 2023, FinCEN published a proposed rulemaking to apply the authorities in Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act to impose requirements on financial institutions that engage in convertible virtual currency (“CVC”) transactions with CVC mixers. The proposed rule, if adopted, would require covered financial institutions to report to FinCEN any CVC transactions they process that involves CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States. The term “CVC mixing” covers more than just transactions that involve CVC mixers like Tornado Cash, and seemingly could cover a broader range of conduct involving technologies, services or methods that have the effect of obfuscating the source, destination or amount of a CVC transaction, whether or not the obfuscation was intentional. If the rule were to be adopted as proposed and if the Solana Network were to be deemed to or were to adopt features which come within the rule’s ambit, it could cause covered financial institutions-such as many virtual currency exchanges, or the Trust’s service providers, such as the Cash Custodian-to reduce support for or cease offering services for SOL or to the Trust, which could impair the utility of SOL, the value of the Shares and the Trust’s ability to operate in compliance with new laws and regulation

A Determination That SOL Or Any Other Digital Asset Is A “Security” May Adversely Affect The Value Of SOL And The Value Of The Shares, And Result In Potentially Extraordinary, Nonrecurring Expenses To, Or Termination Of, The Trust.

Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered a “security” 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.

Whether a digital asset is a security under the federal securities laws depends on whether it is included in the lists of instruments making up the definition of “security” in the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act. 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 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 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.

In the Interpretive Release, the SEC stated that, based on its current understanding of the digital asset markets, SOL is a “digital commodity” and not itself a security. Although the Interpretive Release represents the official position of the SEC, it is not itself a statute or binding rule, does not supersede or replace the Howey test, is based on the SEC’s current understanding of the digital asset markets, and may be refined, revised or expanded. In addition, a court, regulator, or future administration could take a different view, and future legislation, rulemaking, enforcement positions, judicial decisions or other developments could result in ether, the Trust, the Shares or transactions involving SOL being treated differently than contemplated by the Interpretive Release. Any such developments could adversely affect the Trust and the value of the Shares. As part of determining whether SOL is a security 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, 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, and other materials relevant to the status of SOL as a security (or not). Finally, the Sponsor discusses the security status of SOL with its external securities lawyers. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in making a good faith determination that it believes SOL is not presently a security under federal law in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests. In light of these uncertainties and the fact-based nature of the analysis, the Sponsor acknowledges that SOL may currently be a security, based on the facts as they exist today, or may in the future be found by the SEC or a federal court to be a security under the federal securities laws notwithstanding the Sponsor’s prior conclusion; and the Sponsor’s prior conclusion, even if reasonable under the circumstances and made in good faith, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on the presence of a security.

The Sponsor may dissolve the Trust if the Sponsor determines SOL is a security under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because the SEC or a federal court subsequently makes that determination. Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset is or is not a security often leave room for interpretation, for so long as the Sponsor believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that the Trust’s SOL is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that SOL could at some future point be determined to be a security.

In June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance and Coinbase Global, 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, including SOL. 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 SOL, 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.

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator finding that SOL is a security, or a court decision to that effect would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of SOL, 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 is determined to be a security, 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. 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. The SEC’s action against XRP’s issuer underscores the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets are securities, and demonstrates that such factors as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is and that it has actual usefulness in commercial transactions, ultimately may have no bearing on whether the SEC or a court will find it to be a security. There is currently legislation that is being proposed and considered that addresses this regulatory uncertainly, but it is unclear if the proposed legislation will be passed.

In addition, if SOL is determined to be a security, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under SEC rules, which could necessitate the Trust’s liquidation. In this case, the Trust and the Sponsor may be deemed to have participated in an illegal offering of securities and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be able to register the Trust under the Investment Company Act at such time or take such other actions as may be necessary to ensure the Trust’s activities comply with applicable law, which could force the Sponsor to liquidate the Trust.

Moreover, whether or not the Sponsor or the Trust were subject to additional regulatory requirements as a result of any SEC or federal court determination that its assets include securities, the Sponsor may nevertheless decide to terminate the Trust, in order, if possible, to liquidate the Trust’s assets while a liquid market still exists. For example, in response to the SEC’s action against the issuer of 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. The sponsor of the Grayscale XRP Trust subsequently dissolved this trust and liquidated its assets. If the SEC or a federal court were to determine that SOL is a security, it is likely that the value of the Shares of the Trust would decline significantly, and that the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.

The SEC is adopting new rules to interpret the statutory definitions of terms including “dealer” under sections 3(a)(5) and 3(a)(44), respectively, of the Exchange Act which are expected to expand the scope of market participants required to register as a dealer with the SEC or become a member of FINRA. The Sponsor is studying the impact these may have on the Trust and its arrangements with Liquidity Providers and other service providers and counterparties. Among others, if and to the extent that SOL is classified as a security, the activities of any Liquidity Provider of the Trust might, under some circumstances, cause it to be deemed as acting as a dealer under the new rules and would thus require registration with the SEC. The Liquidity Provider may instead decide to terminate its role as Liquidity Provider of the Trust and the Trust’s operations in relation to creations and redemptions of Baskets could be significantly impacted, the Trust could dissolve (including at a time that is potentially disadvantageous to Shareholders) and the value of the Shares or an investment in the Trust could be affected. Further, if and to the extent that SOL is classified as a security and the new rules require a broader range of digital asset market participants to register with the SEC or cease operations in the U.S. market, there could be significant negative impacts on the broader digital asset markets, the price of digital assets such as SOL and therefore the value of the Shares.

Future Legal Or Regulatory Developments May Negatively Affect The Value Of SOL Or Require The Trust Or The Sponsor To Become Registered With The SEC Or CFTC, Which May Cause The Trust To Liquidate.

Current and future legislation, SEC and CFTC rulemaking, and other regulatory developments may impact the manner in which SOL are treated for classification and clearing purposes. In particular, although the Interpretive Release classified SOL as a digital commodity and not a security under the federal securities laws, SOL may nonetheless in the future be classified by the CFTC as a “commodity interest” under the CEA. Alternatively, in the future a court or a future SEC administration could conclude that SOL is a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws. The Sponsor and the Trust cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of SOL 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.

The SEC has stated that certain digital assets may be considered “securities” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and the outcome is difficult to predict. If SOL is in the future determined to be a “security” under federal or state securities laws by the SEC or any other agency, or in a proceeding in a court of law or otherwise, it would likely have material adverse consequences for the value of SOL. For example, it may become more difficult or impossible for SOL to be traded, cleared and custodied in the United States as compared to other digital assets that are not considered to be securities, which could in turn negatively affect the liquidity and general acceptance of SOL and cause users to migrate to other digital assets.

To the extent that SOL is determined to be a security, the Trust and the Sponsor may also be subject to additional regulatory requirements, including under the 1940 Act, and the Sponsor may be required to register as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”). 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 SOL at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders.

To the extent that SOL 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. 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 and/or the Trust determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor may terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s SOL at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders.