Franklin Ethereum Trust: Form 10-Q for the period ended Dec 31, 2025

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

This quarterly report on Form 10-Q, including this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. All statements (other than statements of historical fact) included in this Form 10-Q that address activities, events or developments that may occur in the future, the Trust’s and the Fund’s operations, the Sponsor’s plans and references to the Trust’s and the Fund’s future success and other similar matters are forward-looking statements. Words such as “could,” “would,” “may,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “predict,” and variations on such words or negatives thereof, and similar expressions that reflect our current views with respect to future events and Fund performance, are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are only predictions, subject to risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control, and actual results could differ materially from those discussed. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed therein. We express our estimates, expectations, beliefs, and projections in good faith and believe them to have a reasonable basis. However, we make no assurances that management’s estimates, expectations, beliefs, or projections will be achieved or accomplished. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions about many important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. We do not intend to update any forward-looking statements even if new information becomes available or other events occur in the future, except as required by the federal securities laws.

Organization and Trust Overview

The Franklin Ethereum Trust (the “Trust”) was formed as a Delaware statutory trust on February 8, 2024, and is governed by the provisions of an Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust dated as of May 30, 2024. The Trust is not registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) and is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). The Trust currently offers a single series, the Franklin Ethereum ETF (the “Fund”), which is the sole series of the Trust. The Sponsor of the Trust and the Fund (the “Sponsor”) is Franklin Holdings, LLC. The Sponsor is not subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as a commodity pool operator with respect to the Fund, or a commodity trading advisor with respect to the Fund. The Fund issues shares (the “Shares”), which represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the Fund. The Shares of the Fund are listed on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX Exchange” or the “Exchange”). The Shares were first listed for trading and the Fund commenced operations on July 23, 2024.

The Fund seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of ether before payment of the Fund's expenses. The Shares are intended to offer a convenient means of making an investment similar to an investment in ether relative to acquiring, holding and trading ether directly on a peer-to-peer or other basis or via a digital asset platform. The Shares have been designed to remove obstacles associated with the complexities and operational burdens involved in a direct investment in ether by providing an investment with a value that reflects the price of the ether owned by the Fund at such time, less the Fund's expenses. The Fund is not a proxy for a direct investment in ether. Rather, the Shares are intended to provide a cost-effective alternative means of obtaining investment exposure through the securities markets that is similar to an investment in ether. The Fund is a passive investment vehicle and is not a leveraged product. The Sponsor does not actively manage the ether held by the Fund.

The Fund issues and redeems Shares only to eligible financial institutions called Authorized Participants and only in one or more blocks of 50,000 Shares (“Creation Units”). Creation Units are redeemable only by Authorized Participants. As of the period covered by this report, Creation Units are issued and redeemed in exchange for cash. The Shares are listed and traded on the Exchange under the ticker symbol “EZET.” The market price of the Shares may be different than the Fund’s NAV per Share. The Fund issues and redeems Shares in Creation Units on a continuous basis at the applicable NAV per Share on the transaction order date.

The Fund’s only ordinary recurring expense is expected to be the Sponsor’s fee. In exchange for the Sponsor’s fee, the Sponsor has agreed to assume the ordinary fees and expenses incurred by the Fund, including but not limited to the following: the fees charged by the Administrator, the Marketing Agent, the Custodians and the Trustee, Cboe BZX Exchange listing fees, typical maintenance and transaction fees of the DTC, SEC registration fees, printing and mailing costs, tax reporting fees, audit fees, license fees and expenses, and up to $500,000 per annum in ordinary legal fees and expenses. The Sponsor paid the costs of the Fund’s organization and the initial offering costs, and may not seek reimbursement of such costs.

The Sponsor’s fee is accrued daily at an annualized rate equal to 0.19% of the net asset value of the Fund and is payable at least quarterly in arrears in U.S. dollars. The Sponsor may, at its sole discretion and from time to time, waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s fee for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to waive any portion of its fees and any such waiver shall create no obligation to waive any such fees during any period not covered by the waiver. The Fund will sell ether as needed to pay the Sponsor’s fee. The Fund bears transaction costs, including any Ethereum network fees or other similar transaction fees, in connection with any sales of ether necessary to pay the Sponsor’s fee, as well as other Fund expenses (if any) that are not assumed by the Sponsor (expenses assumed by the Sponsor are specified above). Any Ethereum network fees and similar transaction fees incurred in connection with the creation or redemption of Creation Units are borne by the Authorized Participant.

For a period from July 23, 2024 (the day the Shares were initially listed on the Exchange) to January 31, 2025, the Sponsor agreed to waive the entire Sponsor’s Fee on the first $10.0 billion of the Fund’s assets. In the future, if the Sponsor decides to waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee, Shareholders will be notified in a prospectus supplement, in the Fund’s periodic reports, and/or on the Fund’s website.

The Fund is an “emerging growth company” as that term is used in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and, as such, the Fund may elect to comply with certain reduced public company reporting requirements.

The NAV of the Trust is used by the Trust in its day-to-day operations to measure the net value of the Trust’s assets. The NAV is calculated on each business day and is equal to the aggregate value of the Trust’s assets less its liabilities based on the Index price. In determining the NAV of the Trust on any business day, the Administrator will calculate the price of the ether held by the Trust as of 4:00 p.m. ET on such day. The Administrator will also calculate the “NAV per Share” of the Trust, which equals the NAV of the Trust divided by the number of outstanding Shares. For purposes of making these calculations, a business day means any day other than a day when the Exchange is closed for regular trading.

The Administrator will rely on the Index as the index price to be used when determining NAV. However, determining the value of the Trust’s ether using the Index is not in accordance with GAAP, and therefore is not used in the Trust’s financial statements. The Trust’s ether is carried, for financial statement purposes, at fair value, as required by GAAP. The Trust determines the fair value of ether based on the price provided by the ether market that the Trust considers its “principal market” as of 11:59:59 p.m., ET on the valuation date. The net asset value of the Trust determined on a GAAP basis is referred to as the “Principal Market NAV” and the net asset value of the Trust per Share determined on a GAAP basis is referred to as the “Principal Market NAV per Share.”

NAV and NAV per Share are not measures calculated in accordance with GAAP and are not intended as substitute for Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share, respectively.

Critical Accounting Policies

The Trust’s and the Fund’s financial statements and accompanying notes are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these financial statements relies on estimates and assumptions that impact the Fund’s as well as the Trust’s financial position and results of operations. These estimates and assumptions affect the Fund’s as well as the Trust’s application of accounting policies. A description of the valuation of Ether, a critical accounting policy that is important to understanding the results of operations and financial position of the Trust and the Fund is presented in the Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K in the section entitled “Calculation of Net Asset Value, Valuation of Ether and The CF Benchmark Index.” In addition, please refer to Note 2 to the financial statements included in this report for further discussion of the Trust’s and the Fund’s accounting policies.

Discussion of Operations

At December 31, 2025, the Custodian held 19,348.4650 ether on behalf of the Fund, with a market value of $57,494,931 (cost: $67,384,986) based on the Principal Market Price at quarter end.

Results of Operations for the quarter ended December 31, 2025

For the three months ended to December 31, 2025, 450,000 Shares were issued in exchange for 3,415.0200 ether and 800,000 Shares were redeemed in exchange for 6,070.5184 ether. The Fund’s NAV per Share began the period at $31.35 and ended the period at $22.54. The 28.10% decrease in the Fund's NAV from $31.35 at September 30, 2025 to $22.54 at December 31, 2025 is directly related to the 28.06% decrease in the price of ether. The Fund’s NAV decreased slightly more than the price of ether on a percentage basis due to the Sponsor’s fee of $35,569 for the period.

Net realized and change in unrealized loss on investment in ether for the three months ended December 31, 2025, was approximately $24,485,232 which includes a net realized gain on investment in ether sold for redemptions of $353,054 and net change in unrealized depreciation on investment in ether of approximately $24,838,286. Net realized and change in unrealized loss on investment in ether for the period was driven by ether price depreciation from $4,130.84 per ether as of September 30, 2025 to $2,971.55 per ether as of December 31, 2025. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was approximately $24,520,801 for the three months ended December 31, 2025, which consisted of the net realized and change in unrealized loss on investment in ether of $24,485,232 and the Sponsor Fee of $35,569. Net assets decreased to approximately $57,484,440 on December 31, 2025. The decrease in net assets primarily resulted from the aforementioned ether price movement, net capital share transactions of approximately $(8,920,086), and a net decrease resulting from operations of $24,520,801.

Results of Operations for the quarter ended December 31, 2024

For the three months ended to December 31, 2024, 250,000 Shares were issued in exchange for 1,900.0000 ether and 150,000 Shares were redeemed in exchange for 1,140.0000 ether. The Fund’s NAV per Share began the period at $19.98 and ended the period at $25.34. The 26.83% increase in the Fund's NAV from $19.98 at September 30, 2024 to $25.34 at December 31, 2024 is directly related to the 26.83% increase in the price of ether.

Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ether for the period ended December 31, 2024, was approximately $8,501,878 which includes a net realized gain on investment in ether sold for redemptions of $215,469 and net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in ether of approximately $8,286,409. Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ether for the period was driven by ether price appreciation from $2,628.44 per ether as of September 30, 2024 to $3,333.60 per ether as of December 31, 2024. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was approximately $8,501,878 for the period ended December 31, 2024, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ether of $8,501,878. Net assets increased to approximately $41,803,344 on December 31, 2024. The increase in net assets primarily resulted from the aforementioned ether price appreciation and net capital share transactions of approximately $2,338,443.

Results of Operations for the nine months ended December 31, 2025

For the nine months ended to December 31, 2025, 2,700,000 Shares were issued in exchange for 20,498.8764 ether and 1,700,000 Shares were redeemed in exchange for 12,903.7817 ether. The Fund’s NAV per Share began the period at $13.94 and ended the period at $22.54. The 61.69% increase in the Fund's NAV from $13.94 at March 31, 2025 to $22.54 at December 31, 2025 is directly related to the 61.95% increase in the price of ether. The Fund’s NAV increased slightly less than the price of ether on a percentage basis due to the Sponsor’s fee of $85,512 for the period.

Net realized and change in unrealized gain on investment in ether for the nine months ended December 31, 2025, was approximately $9,607,950 which includes a net realized gain on investment in ether sold for redemptions of $3,260,379 and net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in ether of approximately $6,347,571. Net realized and change in unrealized gain on investment in ether for the period was driven by ether price appreciation from $1,834.80 per ether as of March 31, 2025 to $2,971.55 per ether as of December 31, 2025. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was approximately $9,522,438 for the nine months ended December 31, 2025, which consisted of the net realized and change in unrealized gain on investment in ether of $9,607,950 offset by the Sponsor Fee of $85,512. Net assets increased to approximately $57,484,440 on December 31, 2025. The increase in net assets primarily resulted from the aforementioned ether price movement, net capital share transactions of approximately $26,356,604, and a net increase resulting from operations of $9,522,438.

Results of Operations for the period July 23, 2024 (Date of commencement of operations) to December 31, 2024

For the period from July 23, 2024 (Date of Commencement of operations) to December 31, 2024, 1,750,000 Shares were issued in exchange for 13,300.0000 ether and 200,000 Shares were redeemed in exchange for 1,520.000 ether. The Fund’s NAV per Share began the period at $26.21 and ended the period at $25.34. The 3.32% decrease in the Fund's NAV from $26.21 at July 23, 2024 (Date of Commencement of operations) to $25.34 at December 31, 2024 is directly related to the 3.32% decrease in the price of ether.

Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ether for the period ended December 31, 2024, was approximately $1,529,902 which includes a net realized gain on investment in ether sold for redemptions of $20,638 and net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in ether of approximately $1,509,264. Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ether for the period was driven by ether price movement from $3,448.77 per ether as of July 23, 2024 (Date of Commencement of operations) to $3,333.60 per ether as of December 31, 2024. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was approximately $1,529,902 for the period ended December 31, 2024, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized gain on investment in ether of $1,529,902. Net assets increased to approximately $41,803,344 on December 31, 2024. The increase in net assets primarily resulted from the aforementioned ether price movement and net capital share transactions of approximately $37,652,377.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Fund is not aware of any trends, demands, commitments, events, or uncertainties that are reasonably likely to result in material changes to its liquidity needs. The Fund’s only ordinary recurring expense is expected to be the Sponsor’s fee. In exchange for the Sponsor’s fee, the Sponsor has agreed to assume the ordinary fees and expenses incurred by the Fund, including but not limited to the following: the fees charged by the Administrator, the Marketing Agent, the Custodians and the Trustee, Cboe BZX Exchange listing fees, typical maintenance and transaction fees of the DTC, SEC registration fees, printing and mailing costs, tax reporting fees, audit fees, license fees and expenses, and up to $500,000 per annum in ordinary legal fees and expenses. The Sponsor paid the costs of the Fund’s organization and the initial offering costs, and may not seek reimbursement of such costs. The Sponsor is not required to pay any extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

The Sponsor’s fee is accrued daily at an annualized rate equal to 0.19% of the net asset value of the Fund and is payable at least quarterly in arrears in U.S. dollars. The Sponsor may, at its sole discretion and from time to time, waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s fee for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to waive any portion of its fees and any such waiver shall create no obligation to waive any such fees during any period not covered by the waiver. The Fund will sell ether as needed to pay the Sponsor’s fee. From July 23, 2024 (the day the Shares were initially listed on the Exchange) to January 31, 2025, the Sponsor agreed to waive the entire Sponsor’s Fee on the first $10.0 billion of the Fund’s assets. In the future, if the Sponsor decides to waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee, Shareholders will be notified in a prospectus supplement or on the Sponsor’s website for the Fund.

The Fund bears transaction costs, including any Ethereum network fees or other similar transaction fees, in connection with any sales of ether necessary to pay the Sponsor’s fee, as well as other Fund expenses (if any) that are not assumed by the Sponsor (expenses assumed by the Sponsor are specified above). Any Ethereum network fees and similar transaction fees incurred in connection with the creation or redemption of Creation Units are borne by the Authorized Participant.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

At December 31, 2025 and March 31, 2025, the Fund as well as the Trust did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

Analysis of Movements in the Price of Ether

As movements in the price of Ether are expected to directly affect the price of the Fund’s shares, it is important for investors to understand and follow movements in the price of Ether. Past movements in the Ether price are not indicators of future movements.

The following chart shows movements in the price of Ether based on the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant for the Ether – U.S. Dollar trading pair (the “CF Benchmarks Index”) in U.S. dollars per unit over the period from October 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025.

The average, high, low and end-of-period Ether prices based on the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant are as below:

(1) The end of period Ether price is the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant on the last business day of the period.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

The Fund is a passive investment vehicle and is not a leveraged product. The Sponsor does not actively manage the ether held by the Fund. This means that the Sponsor does not sell ether at times when its price is high or acquire ether at low prices in the expectation of future price increases. The Fund will not utilize leverage, derivatives or similar instruments or transactions in seeking to meet its investment objective.

Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

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, have evaluated the effectiveness of the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures, and have concluded as of the end of the period covered by this filing on Form 10-Q that the disclosure controls and procedures of the Trust operated effectively at reasonable assurance levels.

The disclosure controls and procedures are designed 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, are recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time period specified in the applicable rules and forms, and that such information 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. It is important to note that no set of controls, no matter how reasonably designed, can detect every error.

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, have evaluated the effectiveness of the Fund’s disclosure controls and procedures, and have concluded as of the end of the period covered by this filing on Form 10-Q that the disclosure controls and procedures of the Fund operated effectively at reasonable assurance levels.

The disclosure controls and procedures are designed 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, on behalf of the Fund, are recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time period specified in the applicable rules and forms, and that such information 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. It is important to note that no set of controls, no matter how reasonably designed, can detect every error.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in the Trust’s and the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the fiscal quarter covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trust’s and/or the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting.

Each of the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications included as exhibits to this filing apply with respect to both the operations of both the Fund, as the sole series of the Trust, and the Trust as registrant.

Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the factors discussed in Part I, Item 1A. "Risk Factors" in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results. Other than as set forth below, there have been no material changes in our risk factors from those disclosed in our 2025 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The risks described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K are not the only risks facing the Trust and the Fund. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and/or operating results.

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

While the Fund does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to risks that stablecoins pose for the ether market and other digital asset markets. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar, at a certain value. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, their market value may fluctuate. This volatility has in the past impacted the price of ether. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the ether market. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that, when the stablecoin is used to pay for bitcoin, could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for bitcoin, artificially inflating the price of bitcoin, and if true, there is no assurance similar dynamics would not be at work in the market for ether. There have been reports that those associated with certain stablecoins may be involved in laundering money. In addition, a large amount of Tether is issued as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum network. If Tether were to no longer be issued or operating on the Ethereum network, there would be no need to use ether to pay the gas fees needed to record ERC-20 Tether transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, and a substantial source of demand for ether could be eliminated, which could cause the price of ether to decrease, affecting the value of the Shares.

USDC is a reserve-backed stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Financial that is commonly used as a method of payment in digital asset markets, including the ether market. While USDC is designed to maintain a stable value at 1 U.S. dollar at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 for multiple days after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that US$3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered FDIC receivership earlier that day. Stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. banking system and U.S. treasuries, and the failure of either to function normally could impede the function of stablecoins, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Similar to Tether, a large amount of USDC is issued as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum network. If USDC were to no longer be issued or operating on the Ethereum network, there would be no need to use ether to pay the gas fees needed to record ERC-20 USDC transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, and a substantial source of demand for ether could be eliminated, which could cause the price of ether to decrease, affecting the value of the Shares.

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for ether. A significant portion of the digital asset market continues to depend on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC. As such, any disruption in the operation or perceived stability of these stablecoins such as a disorderly de-pegging event or a loss of market confidence resulting in a run on reserves could lead to substantial market volatility across digital assets more broadly.

Additional risks such as operational failures (e.g., technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns regarding the adequacy or transparency of reserve assets backing stablecoins, the use of unbacked or undercollateralized stablecoins in potentially manipulative trading practices and regulatory scrutiny of stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, including exchanges that facilitate stablecoin transactions, may also adversely affect market confidence and liquidity. Further, these risks are underscored by recent legislative developments. On July 18, 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (“GENIUS Act”) was enacted, establishing a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. The GENIUS Act will become effective on July 18, 2028. The GENIUS Act prohibits the issuance or use of payment stablecoins unless the issuer obtains a qualifying license and complies with a range of regulatory requirements, including reserve backing with liquid assets, redemption rights, governance standards, and operational transparency. The GENIUS Act also restricts the payment of interest on stablecoins and imposes oversight on both bank and nonbank issuers. The enactment of the GENIUS Act, or the removal or migration of prominent stablecoins from the Ethereum network, could reduce the willingness of market participants to engage in digital asset transactions that rely on stablecoins, diminish liquidity in the ether market, and adversely affect the price of ether. Any such developments could, in turn, materially and adversely impact the value of the Shares.

If regulators or public utilities take actions that restrict or otherwise impact validator activities, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Ethereum network, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares

Concerns have been raised about the electricity required to secure and maintain digital asset networks. Although measuring the electricity consumed by the process of securing and maintaining digital asset networks is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. Driven by concerns around energy consumption and the impact on public utility companies, various states and cities have implemented, or are considering implementing, moratoriums on mining activity in their jurisdictions.

Ethereum uses a system called proof-of-stake to validate transaction information. Anyone that owns the specific proof-of-stake digital asset can participate in staking, subject to certain minimum amounts as determined by the applicable proof-of-stake digital asset. Generally, the higher the amount staked by any actor, the higher the chances of being chosen by the applicable blockchain to act as validator and reaping validator rewards; in other words, the higher the stake, the higher the chances of earning a staking reward. This has led to the creation of staking pools, where third parties combine smaller stakes into large pools, which leads to higher returns for owners of small stakes, in return for a fee collected by the third parties.

Other digital asset networks may use a system called proof-of-work to validate transaction information. It’s called proof-of-work because solving the encrypted hash takes time and energy, which acts as proof that work was done. Proof of work requires users to mine or complete complex computational puzzles before submitting new transactions to the network.

Proof-of-stake digital assets allow people to pledge or lock up some of their holdings as a way of vouching for the accuracy of newly added information. Meanwhile, proof-of-work digital assets require people to solve complex cryptographic puzzles — which can incur significant energy costs — before they’re allowed to propose a new block. This expenditure of time, computing power and energy is intended to make the cost of fraud higher than the potential rewards of a dishonest action.

The operations of digital asset networks can consume significant amounts of electricity, which may have a negative environmental impact and give rise to public opinion against allowing, or government regulations restricting, the use of electricity for mining operations, in the case of proof-of-work networks. Additionally, miners on proof-of-work networks may be forced to cease operations during an electricity shortage or power outage, or if electricity prices increase where the mining activities are performed.

The operations of the Ethereum network and other digital asset networks may also consume significant amounts of energy, even though the Ethereum blockchain is generally considered to consume significantly less energy than other digital asset networks, such as the Bitcoin blockchain, due to its of proof-of-stake, rather than proof-of-work, transaction validation mechanism. Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a network’s total energy consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations.

Notwithstanding Ethereum’s proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, if regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities generally, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Ethereum network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares. This could adversely affect the price of ether, or the operation of the Ethereum network, and accordingly decrease the value of the Shares, by creating negative sentiment around digital assets generally.

Digital asset treasury companies may exacerbate volatility in digital asset markets.

In recent times, a number of companies engaged in businesses outside the digital assets industry have begun to hold their corporate treasuries in digital assets instead of in fiat currency (“digital asset treasury companies”). In some cases, these companies have raised funds through financing or securities offerings and applied the proceeds to purchase digital assets, including ether.

Digital asset treasury companies are a relatively new phenomenon and it is difficult to predict their long-term sustainability, and therefore their impact to digital asset markets, and to the Fund. Digital asset treasury companies may increase procyclical dynamics in the market because they may purchase digital assets, such as ether, when prices are rising and they may in certain circumstances be forced to sell such assets when prices are decreasing, potentially causing downward pressure on ether prices in a falling market (causing prices to fall faster than they otherwise would). Digital asset treasury companies could cause greater volatility in digital asset markets, including markets for ether. Negative events or sentiment surrounding digital asset treasury companies could affect the market for ether. The increase of consolidated positions in ether held by digital asset treasury companies could affect the operation of the Ethereum blockchain. One digital asset treasury company, BitMine Immersion Technology Inc. ("BitMine Immersion"), held approximately 2.8% of ether’s supply as of November 3, 2025. If BitMine Immersion or another similarly situated digital asset treasury company begins to operate validators, it could gain influence in how the Ethereum blockchain operates. The foregoing or similar events involving digital asset treasury companies could adversely affect holders of Shares in the Fund.

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ether, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of ether, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ether, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including ether, over the course of 2021, and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for ether. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout ether’s history, including in 2021-2023. As of the end of the reporting period covered herein, digital asset prices have continued to fluctuate. For example, ether lost approximately 12.2% of its value according to some sources in mid- October 2025 as part of wider digital asset market turmoil, widely attributed to global trade tensions, which triggered a number of dislocations in the digital asset market (the “October 2025 Flash Crash”), including liquidations of up to $20 billion in collateral in the form of various digital assets (including, but not limited to, ether) securing trades (particularly perpetual futures contracts and various forms of financing transactions), along with reported service interruptions, halted orders, forced unwinding of trades, and other issues, across centralized and decentralized exchanges.

Extreme volatility may persist and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may still be experiencing a bubble or may experience a bubble again in the future. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (‟FTX”), one of the largest digital asset platforms by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). In response to these events (collectively, the ‟2022 Events”), the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by these events, digital asset prices, including ether, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny increased in response to these events, and could further increase in response to similar events in the future, including from federal as well as state regulators and authorities.

The price of some digital assets, including ether, has fluctuated significantly following the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States. Industry participants generally expect the administration to continue to take a constructive approach toward the digital assets industry. Through his executive orders, President Trump has indicated that the administration will work toward providing greater regulatory clarity and certainty for emerging technologies, including blockchain technology and digital assets, thereby fostering their development. Similarly, the digital assets industry expects favorable legislation from the new U.S. Congress as certain members have expressed interest in advancing digital asset specific legislation. To the extent market expectations about future activity by the administration or Congress lead digital asset prices and valuations to increase, there can be no assurance such expectations will be fulfilled, or that digital asset prices will rise or maintain their current levels. Some commentators have referred to the digital asset market post-President Trump's election as a bubble. There can be no assurance that such a bubble does not exist. The failure of the administration and Congress to provide greater regulatory clarity and certainty for blockchain technology and digital assets, such as through promulgating a regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets that meets industry expectations, could lead to a decline in digital assets prices, including ether. Such a decline could cause a decline in the value of the Shares and cause Shareholders to suffer losses. Moreover, there can be no assurance that political dynamics and sentiments toward the digital asset industry, or market perceptions of those sentiments, will not shift over time.

Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of ether, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. Furthermore, negative perception and a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset economy may reduce confidence in the digital asset economy and may result in greater volatility in the price of ether and other digital assets, including a depreciation in value. The Fund is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of ether.

Due to the relative unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of digital asset platforms, which may experience fraud, manipulation, security failures or operational problems, as well as the wider ether market, the value of ether and, consequently, the value of the Shares may be adversely affected, causing losses to Shareholders.

Risk of loss of market confidence due to lack of established regulatory framework. Digital asset platforms are relatively new and, in some cases, may be unregulated or subject to regulation by a relevant jurisdiction but potentially non-compliant with such regulations. Many operate outside the United States. Furthermore, while many prominent digital asset platforms provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance, many digital asset platforms do not provide this information. Digital asset platforms may not be subject to, or may not comply with, 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 platforms, including prominent platforms that handle a significant volume of ether trading.

Risk of manipulative activity (e.g., wash trading, front running or other fraudulent practices). Many digital asset platforms are unlicensed, may be unregulated or subject to regulation by a relevant jurisdiction but potentially non-compliant with such regulations, 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 platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset platforms was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated platforms located outside of the United States. Such reports alleged that certain overseas platforms have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices, such as fake or artificial trading volume or trading volume based on non-economic “wash trading” (where offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes), and attributed such manipulative or fraudulent behavior to motives like the incentive to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume platforms on which to list their coins.

Other academics and market observers have put forth evidence to support claims that manipulative trading activity has occurred on certain digital asset platforms. For example, in a 2017 paper titled “Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem” sponsored by the Interdisciplinary Cyber Research Center at Tel Aviv University, a group of researchers used publicly available trading data, as well as leaked transaction data from a 2014 Mt. Gox security breach, to identify and analyze the impact of “suspicious trading activity” on Mt. Gox between February and November 2013, which, according to the authors, caused the price of bitcoin to increase from around $150 to more than $1,000 over a two-month period. In August 2017, it was reported that a trader or group of traders nicknamed “Spoofy” was placing large orders on Bitfinex without actually executing them, presumably in order to influence other investors into buying or selling by creating a false appearance that greater demand existed in the market. In December 2017, an anonymous blogger (publishing under the pseudonym Bitfinex’d) cited publicly available trading data to support his or her claim that a trading bot nicknamed “Picasso” was pursuing a paint-the-tape-style manipulation strategy by buying and selling bitcoin and bitcoin cash between affiliated accounts in order to create the appearance of substantial trading activity and thereby influence the price of such assets. Although bitcoin and ether are different assets, there can be no assurance that ether prices may not at times be subject to similar activity. Even in the United States, there have been allegations of wash trading even on regulated venues. Any actual or perceived false trading in the digital asset platform market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of digital assets and/or negatively affect the market perception of digital assets.

The ether market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many ether trading venues 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 demonstrated by the October 2025 Flash Crash. As a result, the prices of ether on trading venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges. 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 platforms, or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the digital asset markets generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in a digital asset manipulating the digital asset’s pricing; (3) hacking of the digital asset’s peer-to-peer network, protocols and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the digital asset network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in the digital asset, new sources of demand for the digital asset, etc. or other events which could affect the price of the digital asset) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether (for more information, see “Risk Factors-Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets-Prices of Ether may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and US Dollar Coin (“USDC”)), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at digital asset trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in the digital asset markets and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Fund or cause losses to Shareholders.

Risks related to exchange bankruptcy, failure or closure, including as a result of criminal fraud, cyber attacks or other security breaches. In addition, over the past several years, some digital asset platforms have been closed, including due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such digital asset platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such digital asset platforms. While, generally speaking, smaller digital asset platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger digital asset platforms more stable, larger digital asset 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, the collapse of Mt. Gox, which filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan in late February 2014, demonstrated that even the largest digital asset platforms could be subject to abrupt failure with consequences for both users of digital asset platforms and the digital asset industry as a whole. In particular, in the two weeks that followed the February 7, 2014 halt of bitcoin withdrawals from Mt. Gox, the value of one bitcoin fell on other platforms from around $795 on February 6, 2014 to $578 on February 20, 2014. Additionally, in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets. Further, in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 bitcoins worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex, a large digital asset platform. 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 platform, for facilitating crimes such as drug sales and ransomware attacks. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based digital asset platform Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. Following the hack, Youbit users were allowed to withdraw approximately 75% of the digital assets in their platform accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, in January 2018, the Japanese digital asset platform, Coincheck, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $535 million, and in February 2018, the Italian digital asset platform Bitgrail, was hacked, resulting in approximately $170 million in losses. In May 2019, one of the world’s largest digital asset platforms, Binance, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $40 million. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), one of the largest digital asset platforms by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO. Around the same time, there were reports that approximately $300-600 million of digital assets were removed from FTX and the full facts remain unknown, including whether such removal was the result of a hack, theft, insider activity, or other improper behavior. On February 21, 2025, Bybit, a centralized platform for exchanging digital assets, announced that more than $1.4 billion in ether had been stolen from its platform. Hackers were able to manipulate Bybit’s transfer process to authorize and complete the illicit transaction. The incident has resulted in renewed concerns over the security of digital asset platforms.

Reputational harm and related industry contagion effects may exacerbate negative events in the digital asset markets or digital platforms. Negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset markets and the closure or temporary shutdown of digital asset 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 or decreases in the prices of ether. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a digital asset platform used in calculating the Index may result in a loss of confidence in the Fund’s ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. The potential consequences of a digital asset platform’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares and may cause the Fund to lose substantial value.