iset20250731_424b3.htm

424B3 1 iset20250731_424b3.htm FORM 424B3 iset20250731_424b3.htm

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)
Registration No. 333-275583

PROSPECTUS

iShares^® Ethereum Trust ETF

The iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (the “Trust”) is a Delaware statutory trust that issues shares (“Shares”) representing fractional undivided beneficial interests in its net assets. The assets of the Trust consist primarily of ether held by a custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of ether. The Trust seeks to reflect such performance before payment of the Trust’s expenses and liabilities. iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”) is the sponsor of the Trust; Wilmington Trust, National Association, a national association (the “Delaware Trustee”), is the Delaware trustee of the Trust; BlackRock Fund Advisors (the “Trustee”) is the trustee of the Trust; Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, (the “Ether Custodian”) is the custodian for the Trust’s ether holdings; Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. (the “Additional Ether Custodian”) is an available alternative custodian for the Trust’s ether holdings; and The Bank of New York Mellon is the custodian for the Trust’s cash holdings (the “Cash Custodian” and together with the Ether Custodian and the Additional Ether Custodian, the “Custodians”) and the administrator of the Trust (the “Trust Administrator”). The Trust is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), and the Sponsor is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as an investment adviser and is not subject to regulation by the SEC as such in connection with its activities with respect to the Trust. The Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended (the “Commodity Exchange Act” or “CEA”), and the Sponsor is not subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading advisor with respect to the Trust.

The Trust intends to issue Shares on a continuous basis and is registering an indeterminate number of Shares with the SEC in accordance with Rule 456(d) and 457(u). The Trust issues and redeems Shares only in blocks of 40,000 or integral multiples thereof, based on the quantity of ether attributable to each Share (net of accrued but unpaid remuneration due to the Sponsor (the “Sponsor’s Fee”) and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). A block of 40,000 Shares is called a “Basket.” These transactions take place in exchange for ether or cash. Baskets will be offered continuously at the net asset value per Share (“NAV”) for 40,000 Shares. Only registered broker-dealers that become authorized participants by entering into a contract with the Sponsor and the Trustee (“Authorized Participants”) may purchase or redeem Baskets. Shares will be offered to the public from time to time at varying prices that will reflect the price of ether and the trading price of the Shares on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ” or the “Exchange”) at the time of the offer.

The Authorized Participants will deliver only ether or cash to create Shares and will receive only ether or cash when redeeming Shares.

Neither the Trust, nor the Sponsor, nor the Ether Custodian, nor any other person associated with the Trust will, directly or indirectly, employ any portion of the Trust’s assets in actions where any portion of the Trust’s ether becomes subject to the Ethereum proof-of-stake validation or is used to earn additional ether or generate income or other earnings (collectively, “Staking Activities”). Accordingly, the Trust will not earn any form of staking rewards, or income of any kind, from Staking Activities.

Table of Contents

The Shares are listed and traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “ETHA.” Market prices for the Shares may be different from the NAV.

CME CF Ether–Dollar Reference Rate – New York Variant for the ether – U.S. Dollar trading pair (the “CF Benchmarks Index”), produced by CF Benchmarks Ltd., on July 7, 2025 was $2,548.02.

Except when aggregated in Baskets, Shares are not redeemable securities. Baskets are only redeemable by Authorized Participants.

The Trust is an “emerging growth company,” as that term is used in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”), subject to reduced public company reporting requirements under U.S. federal securities laws.

Investing in the Shares involves significant risks. See “Risk Factors” starting on page 16.

Neither the SEC nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of the securities offered in this prospectus, or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

The Shares are not interests in nor obligations of any of the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Delaware Trustee, BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. (the “Seed Capital Investor”), the Administrator, the Cash Custodian, the Ether Custodian, the Additional Ether Custodian, or their respective affiliates. The Shares are not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) or any other governmental agency.

“iShares” is a registered trademark of BlackRock, Inc. or its affiliates.

On May 21, 2024, the Seed Capital Investor, an affiliate of the Sponsor, subject to conditions, purchased the Seed Creation Baskets, comprising 400,000 Shares at a per-Share price equal to $25.00. Total proceeds to the Trust from the sale of the Seed Creation Baskets were $10,000,000. On June 24, 2024, the Trust purchased 3,030.72569755 ether with the proceeds of the Seed Creation Baskets using the Prime Execution Agent. The Seed Capital Investor has acted as a statutory underwriter in connection with this purchase. See “Seed Capital Investor” and “Plan of Distribution” for additional information.

The price of the Seed Creation Baskets was determined as described above and such Shares could be sold at different prices if sold by the Seed Capital Investor at different times.

The date of this prospectus is July 31, 2025.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS	iv
PROSPECTUS SUMMARY	1
THE OFFERING	6
SUMMARY FINANCIAL CONDITION	15
RISK FACTORS	16
USE OF PROCEEDS	74
OVERVIEW OF THE ETHEREUM INDUSTRY	75
BUSINESS OF THE TRUST	86
DESCRIPTION OF THE SHARES AND THE TRUST AGREEMENT	98
THE SECURITIES DEPOSITORY; BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY SYSTEM; GLOBAL SECURITY	111
THE SPONSOR	112
THE TRUSTEE	114
THE TRUST ADMINISTRATOR	115
THE DELAWARE TRUSTEE	115
THE CUSTODIANS	117
THE PRIME EXECUTION AGENT AND THE TRADE CREDIT LENDER	121
U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES	128
ERISA AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS	134
SEED CAPITAL INVESTOR	135
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION	135
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST	136
GOVERNING LAW; CONSENT TO DELAWARE JURISDICTION	137
LEGAL MATTERS	137
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION; INCORPORATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION BY REFERENCE	138
GLOSSARY	139
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM	139

This prospectus contains information you should consider when making an investment decision about the Shares. You may rely on the information contained in this prospectus. Neither the Trust nor the Sponsor has authorized any person to provide you with different information and, if anyone provides you with different or inconsistent information, you should not rely on it. You should assume that the information appearing in this prospectus is accurate only as of the date on the front cover of this prospectus. This prospectus is not an offer to sell the Shares in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale of the Shares is not permitted.

Authorized Participants may be required to deliver a prospectus when making transactions in the Shares. See “Plan of Distribution.”

iii

Table of Contents

STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This prospectus includes statements which relate to future events or future performance. In some cases, you can identify such forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “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 prospectus that address activities, events or developments that may occur in the future, including such matters as changes in commodity prices and market conditions (for ether and the Shares), the Trust’s operations, the Sponsor’s plans 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, however, is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the special considerations discussed in this prospectus, 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. See “Risk Factors.” Consequently, all the forward-looking statements made in this prospectus 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. None of the Trust, the Sponsor, the Trustee or the Delaware Trustee or their respective affiliates is under a duty to update any of the forward-looking statements to conform such statements to actual results or to a change in the Sponsor’s expectations or predictions.

Table of Contents

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY

Although the Sponsor believes that this summary is materially complete, you should read the entire prospectus, including “Risk Factors” beginning on page 16, before making an investment decision about the Shares.

Definitions of terms used in this prospectus can be found in the Glossary on page 139.

Trust Structure, the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Delaware Trustee and the Custodians

The Trust was formed as a Delaware statutory trust on November 9, 2023. The purpose of the Trust is to own ether transferred to or purchased by the Trust in exchange for Shares issued by the Trust. Each Share represents a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net assets of the Trust. The assets of the Trust consist primarily of ether held by the Ether Custodian pursuant to the Custodial Services Agreement between Coinbase Custody and the Trust (the “Custodian Agreement”) on behalf of the Trust. The Trust has also entered into a custody agreement with the Additional Ether Custodian pursuant to the Master Custody Services Agreement between Anchorage and the Trust (the “Anchorage Custodian Agreement”). The Trust is not required to hold any particular amount of assets at either the Ether Custodian or the Additional Ether Custodian, and the Sponsor shall, in its sole discretion, determine the amounts held at either custodian from time to time as permitted by the Trust Agreement. As of the date of this prospectus, the Trust’s ether is held with the Ether Custodian, and the Sponsor has no plans to move any of the Trust’s ether to the Additional Ether Custodian, though such plans are subject to ongoing review. The addition of the Additional Ether Custodian as an available alternative custodian of the Trust’s ether reflects the Sponsor’s ongoing risk management approach as part of the Trust’s growing size and the Sponsor’s expanding presence in the digital asset space.

The Sponsor of the Trust is iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and an indirect subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”). The Shares are not obligations of, and are not guaranteed by, iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates.

The Trust is governed by the provisions of the Third Amended and Restated Trust Agreement executed as of July 8, 2025 by the Sponsor, the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee (as amended from time to time, the “Trust Agreement”).

The Trust issues and redeems Shares only in Baskets of 40,000 or integral multiples thereof, based on the quantity of ether attributable to each Share (net of accrued but unpaid Sponsor’s Fee and any accrued but unpaid expenses or liabilities). Baskets may be redeemed by the Trust in exchange for either (1) the cash proceeds from selling the amount of ether corresponding to their redemption value or (2) the amount of ether corresponding to their redemption value. These transactions take place in exchange for cash or ether. Individual Shares will not be redeemed by the Trust but will be listed and traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “ETHA.” The Trust seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of ether. The Trust seeks to reflect such performance before payment of the Trust’s expenses and liabilities. The material terms of the Trust are discussed in greater detail under the section “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement.” The Trust is a passive investment vehicle that does not seek to generate returns beyond tracking the price of ether. This means the Sponsor does not speculatively sell ether at times when its price is high or speculatively acquire ether at low prices in the expectation of future price increases. It also means the Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective. The Trust, the Sponsor and the Trust’s service providers will not loan, pledge or rehypothecate the Trust’s assets, nor will the Trust’s assets serve as collateral for any loan or similar arrangement, except with respect to securing the repayment of Trade Credits (as defined below). See “The Custodians—The Ether Custodian and the Additional Ether Custodian” and “The Prime Execution Agent and the Trade Credit Lender—The Prime Execution Agent.” The Trust is not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act and is not required to register under the Investment Company Act. The Sponsor is not registered with the SEC as an investment adviser and is not subject to regulation by the SEC as such in connection with its activities with respect to the Trust. The Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the CEA, and the Sponsor is not subject to regulation by the CFTC as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading advisor in connection with its activities with respect to the Trust.

The Trust intends to continuously offer Shares but may suspend issuances of Shares at any time.

The Sponsor has arranged for the creation of the Trust, the registration of the Shares for their public offering in the United States and the listing of the Shares on NASDAQ. The Sponsor has agreed to assume the marketing and the following administrative expenses incurred by the Trust: the fees of the Trustee, the Delaware Trustee and the Trust Administrator, the Custodians’ fee (the “Custodians’ Fee”), NASDAQ listing fees, 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 will also pay the costs of the Trust’s organization and the initial sale of the Shares. The Sponsor may determine in its sole discretion to assume legal fees and expenses of the Trust in excess of the $500,000 per annum required under the Trust Agreement. To the extent that the Sponsor does not voluntarily assume such fees and expenses, they will be the responsibility of the Trust.

- 1 -

Table of Contents

The Sponsor will maintain a public website on behalf of the Trust, containing information about the Trust and the Shares. The Internet address of the Trust’s website is www.iShares.com. This Internet address is only provided here as a convenience to you, and the information contained on or connected to the Trust’s website is not considered part of this prospectus. The Sponsor is responsible for oversight and overall management of the Trust but has delegated day-to-day administration of the Trust to the Trustee under the Trust Agreement. The Sponsor may remove the Trustee and appoint a successor trustee in its discretion or if, having received written notice of a material breach of its obligations under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee has not cured the breach within thirty days. The Sponsor may also replace the Trustee during the 90 days following any merger, consolidation or conversion in which the Trustee is not the surviving entity. The Trustee also has the right to select any new or additional custodians.

The Sponsor, the Trustee or any of their respective affiliates and associates currently engage in, and may in the future engage in, the promotion, management or investment management of other accounts, funds or trusts that invest primarily in ether or another digital asset, or may face other potential conflicts of interest. Although officers and professional staff of the Sponsor’s or the Trustee’s management intend to devote as much time to the Trust as is deemed appropriate to perform their duties, the Sponsor’s or the Trustee’s management may allocate their time and services among the Trust and the other accounts, funds or trusts. In addition, the Sponsor and the Trustee may agree to amend the Trust Agreement, including to increase the Sponsor’s Fee, without Shareholder consent. See “Conflicts of Interest.”

The Trustee is BlackRock Fund Advisors, the Delaware Trustee is Wilmington Trust, National Association, the Ether Custodian is Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC (“Coinbase Custody”), and the Cash Custodian and the Trust Administrator is The Bank of New York Mellon.

Subject to the Sponsor’s oversight, the Trustee is generally responsible for the management and day-to-day operations of the Trust. The responsibilities of the Trustee include (1) processing orders for the creation and redemption of Baskets; (2) coordinating with the Ether Custodian and Prime Execution Agent the receipt and delivery of ether purchased or sold by or otherwise transferred to, or by, the Trust and with the Cash Custodian or Ether Custodian the receipt and delivery of cash or ether transferred to or by the Trust in connection with each issuance and redemption of Baskets; (3) calculating the net asset value of the Trust on any day other than: a Saturday or a Sunday, or a day on which NASDAQ is closed for regular trading (“Business Day”); and (4) selling the Trust’s ether as needed to cover the Trust’s expenses. Under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee may delegate all or a portion of its duties to any agent and has delegated the bulk of the day-to-day responsibilities to the Trust Administrator and certain other administrative and record-keeping functions to its affiliates and other agents.

The Ether Custodian is responsible for safekeeping the ether owned by the Trust. The Ether Custodian and the Additional Ether Custodian are appointed by the Trustee. The general role and responsibilities of the Ether Custodian and the Additional Ether Custodian are further described in “The Custodians—The Ether Custodian and the Additional Ether Custodian.”

Trust Objective

The Trust seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of ether. The Trust seeks to reflect such performance before payment of the Trust’s expenses and liabilities. The Shares are intended to constitute a simple means of making an investment similar to an investment in ether rather than by 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 the obstacles represented by the complexities and operational burdens involved in a direct investment in ether, while at the same time having an intrinsic value that reflects, at any given time, the investment exposure to the price of ether owned by the Trust at such time, less the Trust’s expenses and liabilities. Neither the Trust, nor the Sponsor, nor the Ether Custodian, nor any other person associated with the Trust will, directly or indirectly, employ the Trust’s ether in Staking Activities. Accordingly, the Trust will not earn any form of staking rewards, or income of any kind, from Staking Activities. Foregoing potential returns from Staking Activities could cause an investment in the Shares to deviate from that which would have been obtained by purchasing and holding ether directly by virtue of giving up staking as a source of return when an investor holds the Shares. Although the Shares are not the exact equivalent of a direct investment in ether, they provide investors with an alternative method of achieving investment exposure to the price of ether through the securities market, which may be more familiar to them.

- 2 -

Table of Contents

An investment in Shares is:

Backed by ether held by the Ether Custodian on behalf of the Trust.

The Shares are backed by the assets of the Trust. The Ether Custodian keeps custody of all of the Trust’s ether, other than that which is maintained in a trading account (the “Trading Balance”) with Coinbase, Inc. (“Coinbase Inc.” or the “Prime Execution Agent”, which is an affiliate of the Ether Custodian), in accounts that are required to be segregated from the assets held by the Ether Custodian as principal and the assets of its other customers (the “Vault Balance”). The Ether Custodian keeps all of the private keys associated with the Trust’s ether held by the Ether Custodian in the Vault Balance in “cold storage”, which refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to the Trust’s ether are generated and stored in an offline manner using computers or devices that are not connected to the Internet, which is intended to make them more resistant to hacking.

The Trust is not required to hold any particular amount of assets at either the Ether Custodian or the Additional Ether Custodian, and the Sponsor will, in its sole discretion, determine the amounts held at either ether custodian from time to time as permitted by the Trust Agreement. As of the date of this prospectus, the Sponsor has no plans to move any of the Trust’s ether to the Additional Ether Custodian, though such plans are subject to ongoing review. The addition of the Additional Ether Custodian as an available alternative custodian reflects the Sponsor’s ongoing risk management approach, which is consistent with its overall global business practices in response to the Trust’s growing size and the Sponsor’s expanding presence in the digital asset space.

For more information, see “The Custodians—The Ether Custodian and the Additional Ether Custodian” below.

The Trust’s ether holdings and cash holdings from time to time may be held with the Prime Execution Agent in the Trading Balance in connection with creations and redemptions of Baskets, and the sale of ether to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and any other Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, to the extent applicable, and in extraordinary circumstances, in connection with the liquidation of the Trust’s ether. Within the Trust’s Trading Balance, the Prime Execution Agent Agreement provides that the Trust does not have an identifiable claim to any particular ether (and cash). Instead, the Trust’s Trading Balance represents an entitlement to a pro rata share of the ether (and cash) the Prime Execution Agent holds on behalf of customers who hold similar entitlements against the Prime Execution Agent. In this way, the Trust’s Trading Balance represents an omnibus claim on the Prime Execution Agent’s ether (and cash) held on behalf of the Prime Execution Agent’s customers. The Prime Execution Agent holds the ether associated with customer entitlements across a combination of omnibus cold wallets, omnibus “hot wallets” (meaning wallets whose private keys are generated and stored online, in Internet-connected computers or devices) or in omnibus accounts in the Prime Execution Agent’s name on a trading venue (including third-party venues and the Prime Execution Agent’s own execution venue) where the Prime Execution Agent executes orders to buy and sell ether on behalf of its clients. Within such omnibus hot and cold wallets and accounts, the Prime Execution Agent has represented to the Sponsor that it keeps the majority of assets in cold wallets, to promote security, while the balance of assets is kept in hot wallets to facilitate rapid withdrawals. However, the Sponsor has no control over, and for security reasons the Prime Execution Agent does not disclose to the Sponsor, the percentage of ether that the Prime Execution Agent holds for customers holding similar entitlements as the Trust which are kept in omnibus cold wallets, as compared to omnibus hot wallets or omnibus accounts in the Prime Execution Agent’s name on a trading venue. The Prime Execution Agent has represented to the Sponsor that the percentage of assets maintained in cold versus hot storage is determined by ongoing risk analysis and market dynamics, in which the Prime Execution Agent attempts to balance anticipated liquidity needs for its customers as a class against the anticipated greater security of cold storage.

As convenient and easy to handle as any other investment in shares.

Investors may purchase and sell Shares through traditional securities brokerage accounts and can avoid the complexities of handling ether directly (e.g., managing wallets and public and private keys themselves, or interfacing with a trading platform), which some investors may not prefer or may find unfamiliar.

Listed.

The Shares are listed and traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “ETHA.”

Summary Risk Factors

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

●

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.

- 3 -

Table of Contents

●

The value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of ether as a digital asset, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, destruction, or compromise of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset, and the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies such as the Ethereum blockchain.

●

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

●

Smart contracts, including those relating to decentralized finance (“DeFi”) applications, are a new technology and their ongoing development and operation may result in problems, which could reduce the demand for ether or cause a wider loss of confidence in the Ethereum network, either of which could have an adverse impact on the value of ether.

●

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

●

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

Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets

●

The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of ether, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations due to a number of factors.

●

The Index (as defined below) has a limited performance history, the Index price could fail to track the global ether price, and a failure of the Index price could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

●

The Index price used to calculate the value of the Trust’s ether may be volatile, adversely affecting the value of the Shares.

Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares

●

If the process of creation and redemption of Baskets encounters any unanticipated difficulties, the possibility for arbitrage transactions by Authorized Participants intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of ether may not exist and, as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV.

●

The liquidity of the Shares may also be affected by the withdrawal from participation of Authorized Participants or Ether Trading Counterparties.

●

Security threats to the Trust’s account at the Ether Custodian could result in the halting of Trust operations and a loss of Trust assets or damage to the reputation of the Trust, each of which could result in a reduction in the value of the Shares.

●

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

●

If the Custodian Agreement, the Prime Execution Agent Agreement, the Authorized Participant Agreements or the Ether Trading Counterparty Agreements are terminated or the Custodians, the Prime Execution Agent, Authorized Participants or the Ether Trading Counterparties fail to provide services as required, the Trustee may operationalize the Additional Ether Custodian or may need to find and appoint replacement custodians, an execution agent, authorized participants or ether trading counterparties, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ether, the Trust’s ability to create and redeem Shares and the Trust’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

●

The lack of full insurance and Shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, the Delaware Trustee, the Sponsor, the Trust Administrator, the Cash Custodian, the Prime Execution Agent, the Ether Custodian and, if operationalized, the Additional Ether Custodian, expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s ether for which no person or entity is liable.

●

Loss of a critical banking relationship for, or the failure of a bank used by, the Prime Execution Agent could adversely impact the Trust’s ability to create or redeem Baskets, or could cause losses to the Trust.

- 4 -

Table of Contents

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

●

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 ether or the Shares, such as by banning, restricting or imposing onerous conditions or prohibitions on the use of ether, validation activity, digital wallets, the provision of services related to trading and custodying ether, the operation of the Ethereum network, or the digital asset markets generally.

●

If regulators subject the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor or Ether Trading Counterparties to regulation as a money services business (“MSB”) or money transmitter, this could result in extraordinary expenses to the Trust, the Trustee, the Sponsor or Ether Trading Counterparties and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares.

●

Regulatory changes or interpretations could obligate an Authorized Participant, the Trust, the Trustee or the Sponsor to register and comply with new regulations, resulting in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust.

●

The treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal, state and local income tax purposes is uncertain.

Emerging Growth Company Status

The Trust is an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as the Trust is an emerging growth company, the Trust may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in the Trust’s periodic reports and audited financial statements in this prospectus, exemptions from the requirements of holding advisory “say-on-pay” votes on executive compensation and shareholder advisory votes on “golden parachute” compensation and exemption from any rules requiring mandatory audit firm rotation and auditor discussion and analysis and, unless otherwise determined by the SEC, any new audit rules adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Under the JOBS Act, the Trust will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of:

●

the last day of the fiscal year during which the Trust has total annual gross revenues of $1.235 billion or more;

●

the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of this offering;

●

the date on which the Trust has, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt; or

●

the date on which the Trust is deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” (i.e., an issuer that (1) has more than $700 million in outstanding equity held by non-affiliates and (2) has been subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) for at least 12 calendar months and has filed at least one annual report on Form 10-K.)

The JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can utilize the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) for complying with new or revised accounting standards. The Trust is choosing to opt out of this extended transition period and, as a result, the Trust will comply with new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for companies that are not “emerging growth companies.” Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that the Trust’s decision to opt out of the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards is irrevocable.

Principal Offices

The Sponsor’s office is located at 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 and its telephone number is (415) 670-2000. The Trust’s office is c/o iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC, 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 and its telephone number is (415) 670-2000. The Trustee’s office is located at 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. The Ether Custodian’s office is located at 55 Hudson Yards, 550 West 34th Street, 4^th Floor, New York, NY 10001. The Additional Ether Custodian’s office is located at 101 S. Reid Street, Suite 29, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57103. The Cash Custodian’s and the Trust Administrator’s office is located at 240 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10286.

- 5 -

Table of Contents

THE OFFERING

Offering	The Shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net assets of the Trust.

Use of proceeds	Proceeds received by the Trust from the issuance and sale of Baskets consist of ether and cash deposits. Ether deposits are held by the Ether Custodian or Prime Execution Agent on behalf of the Trust until (i) delivered to Authorized Participants or their designated agent or client in connection with an in-kind redemption or sold in connection with a cash redemption, or (ii) sold to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and Trust expenses of liabilities not assumed by the Sponsor. Cash deposits are held by the Cash Custodian or Prime Execution Agent on behalf of the Trust until (i) transferred in connection with the purchase of ether, (ii) delivered to Authorized Participants in connection with a cash redemption of Baskets or (iii) transferred to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and Trust expenses or liabilities not assumed by the Sponsor.

NASDAQ ticker symbol	ETHA

CUSIP	46438R105

Creation and redemption	The Trust issues and redeems Baskets on a continuous basis. These transactions take place in exchange for cash or ether. Baskets are only issued or redeemed in exchange for an amount of ether or cash determined by the Trustee on each day that NASDAQ is open for regular trading. No Shares are issued unless the Ether Custodian or Prime Execution Agent has allocated to the Trust’s account the corresponding amount of ether. As of July 7, 2025, a Basket requires delivery of $771,122.04 or 302.64 ether. The amount of ether necessary for the creation of a Basket, or to be received upon redemption of a Basket, will decrease over the life of the Trust, due to the payment or accrual of fees and other expenses or liabilities payable by the Trust. Baskets may be created or redeemed only by Authorized Participants, who pay BlackRock Investments, LLC (“BRIL”), an affiliate of the Trustee that has been retained by the Trust to perform certain order processing, Authorized Participant communications, and related services in connection with the issuance and redemption of Baskets (“ETF Services”), (1) a transaction fee for each order to create or redeem Baskets (the “ETF Servicing Fee”) and (2) transfer, processing and other transaction costs charged by the Ether Custodian in connection with the issuance of Baskets for such purchase order (“Custody Transaction Costs”).

- 6 -

Table of Contents

	The Authorized Participants will deliver only ether or cash to create Shares and will receive only ether or cash when redeeming Shares. See “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement” for more details.

Net Asset Value	The net asset value of the Trust equals the total assets of the Trust, which consists solely of ether and cash, less total liabilities of the Trust, each determined by the Trustee pursuant to policies established from time to time by the Trustee or its affiliates or otherwise described herein. The methodology used to calculate an index (the “Index”) price to value ether in determining the net asset value of the Trust may not be deemed consistent with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The Sponsor has the exclusive authority to determine the Trust’s net asset value, which it has delegated to the Trustee under the Trust Agreement. The Trustee has delegated to the Trust Administrator the responsibility to calculate the net asset value of the Trust and the NAV, based on a pricing source selected by the Trustee. In determining the Trust’s net asset value, the Trust Administrator values the ether held by the Trust based on the Index, unless the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines that the Index is unreliable. The CF Benchmarks Index shall constitute the Index, unless the CF Benchmarks Index is not available or the Sponsor in its sole discretion determines the CF Benchmarks Index is unreliable as the Index and therefore determines not to use the CF Benchmarks Index as the Index. If the CF Benchmarks Index is not available or the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that the CF Benchmarks Index is unreliable (together a “Fair Value Event”), the Trust’s holdings may be fair valued on a temporary basis in accordance with the fair value policies approved by the Trustee. Additionally, the Trust Administrator will monitor for unusual prices and escalate to the Trustee if detected. If the CF Benchmarks Index is not used, the Trust will notify Shareholders in a prospectus supplement, in its periodic Exchange Act reports and/or on the Trust’s website.

	The Trust Administrator calculates the NAV of the Trust once each Business Day. The NAV for a normal trading day will be released after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”). Trading during the core trading session on the Exchange typically closes at 4:00 p.m. ET. However, NAVs are not officially released until after the completion of a comprehensive review of the NAV and prices utilized to determine the NAV of the Trust by the Trust Administrator. Upon the completion of the end-of-day reviews by the Trust Administrator the NAV is released to the public typically by 5:30 p.m. ET and generally no later than 8:00 p.m. ET. The period between 4:00 p.m. ET and the NAV release after 5:30 p.m. ET (or later) provides an opportunity for the Trust Administrator and the Trustee to detect, flag, investigate, and correct unusual pricing should it occur and implement a Fair Value Event, if necessary. Any such correction could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The Trust’s periodic financial statements may not utilize net asset value of the Trust to the extent the methodology used to calculate the Index is deemed not to be consistent with GAAP. The Trust’s periodic financial statements will be prepared in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures” (“ASC Topic 820”) and utilize an exchange-traded price from the Trust’s principal market for ether as of 11:59 p.m. ET on the Trust’s financial statement measurement date. The Sponsor will determine in its sole discretion the valuation sources and policies used to prepare the Trust’s financial statements in accordance with GAAP. The Trust intends to engage a third-party vendor to obtain a price from a principal market for ether, which will be determined and designated by such third-party vendor daily based on its consideration of several exchange characteristics, including oversight, and the volume and frequency of trades. Under GAAP, such a price is expected to be deemed a Level 1 input in accordance with the ASC Topic 820 because it is expected to be a quoted price in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

- 7 -

Table of Contents

Net Asset Value Calculation and Index	On each Business Day, as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m. ET, the Trust Administrator evaluates the ether held by the Trust as reflected by the CF Benchmarks Index and determines the net asset value of the Trust and the NAV. For purposes of making these calculations, a Business Day means any day other than a day when NASDAQ is closed for regular trading.

	The CF Benchmarks Index employed by the Trust is calculated on each Business Day by aggregating the notional value of ether trading activity across major spot ether platforms. The CF Benchmarks Index is designed based on the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks and is a registered benchmark under the UK Benchmark Regulations (“BMR”). The administrator of the CF Benchmarks Index is CF Benchmarks Ltd. (the “Index Administrator”) a UK incorporated company, authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) of the UK as a Benchmark Administrator, under UK BMR. The CF Benchmarks Index serves as a once-a-day benchmark rate of the U.S. dollar price of ether (USD/ETH), calculated as of 4:00 p.m. ET. The CF Benchmarks Index aggregates the trade flow of several ether platforms, during an observation window between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET into the U.S. dollar price of one ether at 4:00 p.m. ET. Specifically, the CF Benchmarks Index is calculated based on the “Relevant Transactions” (as defined in “Business of the Trust – Valuation of Ether; the CF Benchmarks Index”) of all of its constituent ether platforms, which are currently Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit, Kraken, Gemini, LMAX Digital, and Crypto.com (the “Constituent Platforms”), and which may change from time to time. The Trust is intended to provide a way for Shareholders to obtain exposure to the price of ether by investing in the Shares rather than by acquiring, holding and trading ether directly on a peer-to-peer or other basis or via a digital asset platform. An investment in the Shares is not the same as an investment directly in ether on a peer-to-peer or other basis or via a digital asset platform.

Intraday Indicative Value	In order to provide updated information relating to the Trust for use by Shareholders, the Trust intends to publish an intraday indicative value per Share (“IIV”) using the CME CF Ether-Dollar Real Time Index (“ETHUSD_RTI”). One or more major market data vendors will provide an IIV updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during NASDAQ’s regular market session of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET (the “Regular Market Session”). The IIV will be calculated by using the prior day’s closing NAV as a base and updating that value during the Regular Market Session to reflect changes in the value of the Trust’s NAV during the trading day. The IIV’s dissemination during the Regular Market Session should not be viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV will be widely disseminated every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session by one or more major market data vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through online information services.

- 8 -

Table of Contents

Trust expenses

The Trust’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 marketing and the following administrative expenses of the Trust: the fees of the Trustee, the Delaware Trustee and the Trust Administrator, the Custodians’ Fee, NASDAQ listing fees, 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 may determine in its sole discretion to assume legal fees and expenses of the Trust in excess of the $500,000 per annum required under the Trust Agreement. To the extent that the Sponsor does not voluntarily assume such fees and expenses, they will be the responsibility of the Trust. The Sponsor will also pay the costs of the Trust’s organization and the initial sale of the Shares.

The Sponsor’s Fee is accrued daily at an annualized rate equal to 0.25% of the net asset value of the Trust and is payable at least quarterly in arrears in U.S. dollars or in-kind or any combination thereof. 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. For a twelve-month period commencing on the day the Shares are initially listed on NASDAQ, the Sponsor will waive a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee so that the Sponsor’s Fee after the fee waiver will be equal to 0.12% of the net asset value of the Trust for the first $2.5 billion of the Trust’s assets.

The Trust may incur certain extraordinary, non-recurring expenses that are not assumed by the Sponsor, including but not limited to, taxes and governmental charges, any applicable brokerage commissions, financing fees, Ethereum network fees and similar transaction fees, expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust or the interests of Shareholders, any indemnification of the Cash Custodian, the Ether Custodian, the Additional Ether Custodian, the Prime Execution Agent, Trust Administrator, or other agents, service providers or counterparties of the Trust and extraordinary legal fees and expenses, including any legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with litigation, regulatory enforcement or investigation matters. Because the Trust does not have any income, it needs to sell ether to cover the Sponsor’s Fee and expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, if any. Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor and not included in trade execution costs paid by the Trust shall accrue daily and be payable by the Trust to the Sponsor at least quarterly in arrears. The Trust may also be subject to other liabilities (for example, as a result of litigation) that have also not been assumed by the Sponsor. The only source of funds to cover those liabilities will be sales of ether held by the Trust. Even if there are no expenses other than those assumed by the Sponsor, and there are no other liabilities of the Trust, the Trust needs to sell ether to pay the Sponsor’s Fee. The result of these sales is a decrease in the amount of ether represented by each Share.

- 9 -

Table of Contents

	To cover the Sponsor’s Fee and expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, the Sponsor or its delegate will cause the Trust (or its delegate) to convert ether into U.S. dollars at the price available through the Prime Execution Agent’s Coinbase Prime service (less applicable trading fees) through the Trading Platform which the Sponsor is able to obtain using commercially reasonable efforts. The number of ether represented by a Share will decline each time the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee or any Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor by transferring or selling ether. The quantity of ether to be sold to permit payment of the Sponsor’s Fee or Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, will vary from time to time depending on the level of the Trust’s expenses and the value of ether held by the Trust. Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery or sale of ether by the Trust for the payment of expenses generally will be a taxable event to Shareholders. See “U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.” In the event that any of the foregoing fees and expenses are incurred with respect to the Trust and other Client Accounts (as defined in “Conflicts of Interest”), the Sponsor will allocate the costs across the entities on a pro rata basis, except to the extent that certain expenses are specifically attributable to the Trust or another Client Account. The Trust expects that any trading commissions associated with block trading, if applicable, will be allocated across the relevant entities on a pro rata basis.

Staking Activities	Neither the Trust, nor the Sponsor, nor the Ether Custodian, nor any other person associated with the Trust will, directly or indirectly, engage in Staking Activities.

Incidental Rights / IR Digital Asset	From time to time, the Trust may be entitled to or come into possession of rights to acquire, or otherwise establish dominion and control over, any digital asset (for avoidance of doubt, other than ether) or other asset or right, which rights are incident to the Trust’s ownership of ether and arise without any action of the Trust, or of the Sponsor or Delaware Trustee on behalf of the Trust (“Incidental Rights”) and/or digital asset tokens, or other assets or rights, acquired by the Trust through the exercise (subject to the applicable provisions of the Trust Agreement) of any Incidental Right (“IR Digital Asset”) by virtue of its ownership of ether, generally through a fork in the Ethereum blockchain, an airdrop offered to holders of ether or other similar event.

- 10 -

Table of Contents

	With respect to a fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to permanently and irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights and IR Digital Asset and no such Incidental Right or IR Digital Asset shall be taken into account for purposes of determining the NAV of the Trust. In the event the Trust seeks to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by NASDAQ seeking approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to sell Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset and distribute the cash proceeds (net of expenses and applicable withholding taxes) to Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset in-kind to DTC. Because the Trust will abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Digital Asset, the Trust would not receive any direct or indirect consideration for the Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset, and thus the value of the Shares will not reflect the value of the Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Trust and the Shares – A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares. In addition, Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any Incidental Rights and any IR Digital Asset, including any forked or airdropped assets.”

Tax Considerations	Owners of Shares will be treated, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as if they owned a corresponding share of the assets of the Trust. They will also be viewed as if they directly received a corresponding share of any income of the Trust, or as if they had incurred a corresponding share of the expenses of the Trust. Consequently, each sale of ether by the Trust will constitute a taxable event to the Shareholders. See “U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Taxation of U.S. Shareholders.”

Voting Rights	Owners of Shares do not have any voting rights, take no part in the management or control of, and have no voice in, the Trust’s operations or business. See “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement—Voting Rights.”

Suspension of Issuance, Transfers and Redemptions

The Trustee may, and upon the direction of the Sponsor shall, suspend the acceptance of purchase orders or the delivery or registration of transfers of Shares generally, or may, and upon the direction of the Sponsor shall, refuse a particular purchase order, delivery or registration of Shares (i) during any period when the transfer books of the Trustee are closed or (ii) at any time, if the Sponsor thinks it advisable for any reason. The Trustee may, in its sole discretion, and upon the direction of the Sponsor will, suspend the right to surrender Shares or postpone the delivery date of ether or other Trust property generally or with respect to a particular redemption order (i) during any period in which regular trading on NASDAQ is suspended or restricted, or the exchange is closed (other than scheduled holiday or weekend closings), or (ii) during a period when the Sponsor determines that delivery, disposal or evaluation of ether is not reasonably practicable (for example, as a result of an interruption in services or availability of the Prime Execution Agent, Ether Custodian, Cash Custodian, Administrator, or other service providers to the Trust, act of God, catastrophe, civil disturbance, government prohibition, war, terrorism, strike or other labor dispute, fire, force majeure, interruption in telecommunications, iShares order entry system, Internet services, or network provider services, unavailability of Fedwire, SWIFT or banks’ payment processes, significant technical failure, bug, error, disruption or fork of the Ethereum network, hacking, cybersecurity breach, or power, Internet, or Ethereum network outage, or similar event). The Trustee shall reject any purchase order or redemption order that is not in proper form. See “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement—Requirements for Trustee Actions.”

Limitation on Obligations and Liability

The Sponsor and the Trustee:

● are only obligated to take the actions specifically set forth in the Trust Agreement without willful misconduct, gross negligence, reckless disregard or bad faith;

● are not liable if either of them is prevented or delayed by law or circumstances beyond their control from performing their respective obligations under the Trust Agreement;

- 11 -

Table of Contents

● are not liable for the exercise of discretion permitted under the Trust Agreement;

● have no obligation to prosecute any lawsuit or other proceeding on behalf of the Shareholders or any other person;

● are not liable for any loss of ether occurring prior to the delivery of ether to the Ether Custodian or Prime Execution Agent, as applicable, or after the delivery of ether by the Ether Custodian or Prime Execution Agent, as applicable, in connection with creations and redemptions (and for the avoidance of doubt, are not liable for the loss of ether while held by the Ether Custodian or Prime Execution Agent, or for any loss of ether occurring during the transfer of ether from the Ether Custodian or the Prime Execution Agent to the Additional Ether Custodian or vice versa, absent willful misconduct, gross negligence, reckless disregard or bad faith by the Sponsor and Trustee); and

	● may rely upon any advice or information from other persons they believe in good faith to be competent to provide such advice or information. See “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement—Limitations on Obligations and Liability.”

Dissolution events	The Trustee will dissolve the Trust if:

	● the Trustee is notified that the Shares are delisted from NASDAQ and are not approved for listing on another national securities exchange within five Business Days of their delisting;

	● a U.S. federal or state court or regulator, or applicable law or regulatory requirements, requires the Trust to shut down, or forces the Trust to liquidate its ether, or seizes, impounds or otherwise restricts access to Trust assets;

	● the Sponsor notifies the Trustee in writing that it has determined, in its sole discretion, that the dissolution of the Trust is advisable or desirable for any reason; or

	● DTC is unable or unwilling to continue to perform its functions, and a comparable replacement is unavailable.

	The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, dissolve the Trust if:

	● 60 days have elapsed since the Trustee notified the Sponsor of the Trustee’s election to resign or since the Sponsor removed the Trustee, and a successor trustee has not been appointed and accepted its appointment;

	● the SEC (or its staff) or a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the Trust is an investment company under the Investment Company Act;

	● the CFTC determines that the Trust is a commodity pool under the Commodity Exchange Act;

	● the U.S. Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) determines that the Trust or the Sponsor is required to register as an MSB, or the New York Department of Financial Services determines the Trust or the Sponsor is required to obtain licensure under 23 NYCRR Part 200 (“BitLicense”);

- 12 -

Table of Contents

	● if any state regulator or court of competent authority determines the Sponsor or the Trust is required to obtain a money transmitter license or other state license; ● the Index Administrator ceases to maintain the Index or any ongoing event exists that prevents or makes impractical the determination of the Index price and, in the opinion of the Sponsor, no successor or similar pricing source is reasonably available; ● the net assets of the Trust in relation to the operating expenses of the Trust is at a level at which continued operation of the Trust is unreasonable or imprudent; ● any ongoing event exists that either prevents the Trust from or makes impractical the Trust’s holding of ether, or prevents the Trust from converting or makes impractical the Trust’s reasonable efforts to convert ether to U.S. dollars;

	● the Trust fails to qualify for treatment, or ceases to be treated, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as a grantor trust, and the Trustee receives notice from the Sponsor that the Sponsor has determined that, because of that tax treatment or change in tax treatment, termination of the Trust is advisable; or

	● any custodian (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any of the Custodians) or prime execution agent (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Prime Execution Agent) then acting resigns, is removed, is prohibited by applicable law or regulation to act as or otherwise ceases to act as custodian or prime execution agent, and, in the opinion of the Sponsor, no successor custodian or prime execution agent has been employed and operationalized prior to, at the Sponsor’s election, (i) the effective date of such resignation, removal, prohibition or cessation, or (ii) in the case of the Ether Custodian or Prime Execution Agent, the final date as of which the Ether Custodian or Prime Execution Agent will cease to hold any of the Trust’s assets, to the extent different from (i).

	The term of the Trust is perpetual (unless terminated earlier in certain circumstances). See “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement—Amendment and Dissolution.” On and after dissolution of the Trust, the Trustee will wind up the business and affairs of the Trust and deliver Trust property upon surrender and cancellation of Shares. The Trustee will not accept any purchase order or redemption order after the date of dissolution. If any Shares remain outstanding after the date of dissolution of the Trust, the Trustee thereafter will (i) discontinue the registration of transfer of Shares; (ii) continue to collect distributions pertaining to Trust property and hold proceeds thereof uninvested, without liability for interest; and (iii) pay the Trust’s expenses and may sell Trust property as necessary to meet those expenses. After the dissolution of the Trust, the Trustee will sell or otherwise liquidate the Trust property then held and after deducting any fees, expenses, taxes or other governmental charges payable by the Trust and any expenses for the account of DTC of such Shares and any applicable taxes or other governmental charges, promptly distribute the net proceeds from such sale to DTC. See “Description of the Shares and the Trust Agreement—Amendment and Dissolution.”

- 13 -

Table of Contents

Authorized Participants	Baskets may be created or redeemed only by Authorized Participants. Each Authorized Participant must be a registered broker-dealer, a participant in DTC, have entered into an agreement with the Sponsor and the Trustee (the “Authorized Participant Agreement”) and be in a position to transfer cash or ether to, and take delivery of cash or ether from, the Trust Administrator through one or more accounts. The Authorized Participant Agreement provides the procedures for the creation and redemption of Baskets and for the delivery of cash or ether in connection with such creations or redemptions. As of the date of this prospectus, the Authorized Participants that are able to conduct creations and redemptions for cash are ABN AMRO Clearing USA LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp., HRT Financial LP, Jane Street Capital, LLC, Jefferies LLC, JP Morgan Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. and Virtu Americas LLC. As of the date of this prospectus, the Sponsor and the Trustee have not entered into any agreements with Authorized Participants to facilitate creations and redemptions in-kind. Additional Authorized Participants may be added at any time, subject to the discretion of the Sponsor.

Ether Trading Counterparties	In connection with cash creations and redemptions, the Trust will engage in ether transactions for converting cash into ether (in association with purchase orders) and ether into cash (in association with redemption orders). The Trust will conduct its ether purchase and sale transactions by, in its sole discretion, choosing to trade directly with third parties (each, a “Ether Trading Counterparty”), pursuant to written agreements between such Ether Trading Counterparties and the Trust, or choosing to trade through the Prime Execution Agent through its Coinbase Prime service pursuant to the Prime Execution Agent Agreement. As of the date of this prospectus, the Ether Trading Counterparties are Cumberland DRW LLC, Flow Traders B.V., JSCT, LLC and Virtu Financial Singapore Pte. Ltd. JSCT, LLC is an affiliate of Jane Street Capital LLC and Virtu Financial Singapore Pte. Ltd. is an affiliate of Virtu Americas LLC. Each of Jane Street Capital LLC and Virtu Americas LLC is an Authorized Participant. Ether Trading Counterparties may be added at any time, subject to the discretion of the Sponsor. As of the date of this prospectus, in connection with cash creations and redemptions, the Trust is not aware of any other affiliation or material relationship between an Ether Trading Counterparty and the Authorized Participants or other service providers of the Trust in executing a transaction in ether with the Trust. In connection with cash creations and redemptions, each Ether Trading Counterparty represents to the Trust that it is acting for itself and not for another person, and is not acting as agent or at the direction of any Authorized Participant. Upon receipt of an order from an Authorized Participant to create or redeem Baskets, the Trust may obtain quotes for a price to purchase or sell ether from one or more Ether Trading Counterparties. An Ether Trading Counterparty may respond to the Trust’s request with an offer of a quote at which it is willing to sell the specified quantity of ether, or a portion thereof, in the case of a creation, or a quote at which it is willing to buy the specified quantity of ether, or a portion thereof, in the case of a redemption, as indicated in such offer. The Ether Trading Counterparties are not contractually obligated to participate in cash orders for creations or redemptions by placing any offers to buy or sell ether with the Trust. The Trust then determines, in its sole discretion, whether to utilize one of the Ether Trading Counterparties that provided a quote or to trade through the Prime Execution Agent to execute an ether trade. Once an offer is accepted, it becomes a trade that is binding on both the Trust and the Ether Trading Counterparty, subject to customary exceptions.

Clearance and settlement	The Shares will be evidenced by a global certificate that the Trust issues to DTC. The Shares are issued in book-entry form only. Transactions in Shares clear through the facilities of DTC. Investors may hold their Shares through DTC, if they are participants in DTC, or indirectly through entities that are participants in DTC.

- 14 -

Table of Contents

SUMMARY FINANCIAL CONDITION

As of July 7, 2025, the net asset value of the Trust was $4,601,285,101 and the NAV was $19.28.

- 15 -

Table of Contents

RISK FACTORS

The Shares are speculative and involve a high degree of risk. Before making an investment decision, you should consider carefully the risks described below, as well as the other information included in this prospectus.

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

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 date of this prospectus, digital asset prices have continued to fluctuate in 2025.

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 has increased, including from, among others, the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress, as well as state regulators and authorities. These events are continuing to develop, and the full facts are continuing to emerge. It is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Trust, its service providers or to the digital asset industry as a whole.

The price of some digital assets, including ether, has risen following the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, although prices have suffered recent declines. Many expect the new administration to facilitate a supportive regulatory approach toward the digital asset industry. Through his executive orders, President Trump has indicated that the administration will work toward providing greater regulatory clarity for blockchain technology and digital assets, thereby fostering their development in the U.S. Similarly, the digital asset industry expects favorable legislation from the new U.S. Congress as certain members have expressed interest in advancing digital asset specific legislation. There can be no assurance that market expectations around future activity by the administration or Congress 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 the expected level of regulatory clarity and support for blockchain technology and digital assets, could lead to a decline in digital asset 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.

On March 6, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order for the “Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile” (the “Order”). The Order requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury to establish two offices to administer and maintain a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” (the “Bitcoin Reserve”) and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile (the “Digital Asset Stockpile”), respectively. The Bitcoin Reserve will be capitalized with bitcoin forfeited as part of U.S. criminal or civil proceedings or in satisfaction of penalties imposed by executive agencies. The Order directs the Secretaries of the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Department of Commerce to develop budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional bitcoin for the Bitcoin Reserve. As established by the Order, the Bitcoin Reserve will not contain ether, and there can be no assurance, and there is no present indication, that it would be changed to include ether in the future. The Digital Asset Stockpile will be capitalized initially with digital assets other than bitcoin forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings, which could include ether; however, there will be no new acquisitions of ether as part of the Digital Asset Stockpile. The anticipation of a U.S. government-funded strategic cryptocurrency reserve may have motivated large-scale purchases of ether in the expectation of the U.S. government potentially acquiring ether to fund such an expected reserve, and the market price of ether may have decreased as a result of the ultimate content of the Order, which did not ultimately provide for acquisition of ether as part of the Bitcoin Reserve, though ether could be held as part of the Digital Asset Stockpile. While legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, which would direct the acquisition of 1 million bitcoin by the federal government over a five-year period, no such similar federal legislation has been introduced that would provide for acquiring ether. Even if such legislation providing for the acquisition of ether were to be introduced at the federal level, it could fail to pass. Bills have also been introduced in several state legislatures to authorize the acquisition of bitcoin by state governments or their instrumentalities, some of which have failed to pass; however, the Sponsor is not aware as of the date of this prospectus that similar legislation at the state level has been introduced in respect of ether, in the same quantity as legislation in respect of bitcoin. If now or in the future, the U.S. federal government or any state government or any instrumentality thereof does not announce ether acquisition plans or does announce such plans, but these plans fall short of market expectations, the price of ether may decline, which may impact Share value. Even if government acquisitions of ether were to occur or if legislation requiring acquisitions of ether is enacted, the price of ether may decline if there are implementation challenges, unexpected difficulties, policy or legal reversals, any of which may negatively impact Share value. Further, executive orders such as the Order are subject to change and can be reversed or overturned. The enduring existence and size of the Digital Asset Stockpile is subject to complex challenges and uncertainty that makes it difficult to evaluate its effect on the value of ether and the Shares, now or in the future. There can be no assurance that any particular legislation will ever be introduced or passed at either the federal or state level providing for the acquisition of ether by governmental instrumentalities.

- 16 -

Table of Contents

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 Trust is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of ether.

Digital assets such as ether were only introduced within the past decade, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recentness of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and validators and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

●

Digital asset networks, including the Ethereum peer-to-peer network and associated blockchain ledger (such blockchain, the “Ethereum blockchain” and together with the peer-to-peer network, the “Ethereum network” or “Layer 1 Ethereum network”), and the software used to operate them are in the early stages of development. Given the recentness of the development of digital asset networks, digital assets may not function as intended and parties may be unwilling to use digital assets, which would dampen the growth, if any, of digital asset networks. Because ether is a digital asset, the value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets, including the fact that digital assets are bearer instruments and loss, theft, compromise, or destruction of the associated private keys could result in permanent loss of the asset.

●

Digital assets, including ether, are controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public key and private key or keys relating to the Ethereum network address, or “wallet,” at which the digital asset is held. Private keys must be safeguarded and kept private in order to prevent a third party from accessing the digital asset held in such wallet. The loss, theft, compromise or destruction of a private key required to access a digital asset may be irreversible. If a private key is lost, stolen, destroyed or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key is accessible, the owner would be unable to access the digital asset corresponding to that private key and the private key will not be capable of being restored by the digital asset network resulting in the total loss of the value of the digital asset linked to the private key.

●

Digital asset networks are dependent upon the internet. A disruption of the internet or a digital asset network, such as the Ethereum network, would affect the ability to transfer digital assets, including ether, and, consequently, their value.

●

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

●

Governance of the Ethereum network is by voluntary consensus and open competition. As a result, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on the governance of the Ethereum network, which may stymie the Ethereum network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. In particular, it may be difficult to find solutions or martial sufficient effort to overcome any future problems on the Ethereum network, especially long-term problems.

●

The foregoing notwithstanding, the Ethereum network’s protocol is informally overseen by a collective of core developers who, along with members of the Ethereum community, can introduce proposals, known as Ethereum Improvement Proposals (“EIPs”), for updating the Ethereum network. The core developers evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation. An Ethereum client (“Ethereum Client”) is a software application that implements the Ethereum network specification and communicates with the Ethereum network. A “node” is a computer or other device that has downloaded the Ethereum Client and is connected to other computers also running the Ethereum Client software, together forming the Ethereum network. To the extent that node operators update their individual Ethereum Client to new specifications, the Ethereum network could be subject to changes that may adversely affect the value of ether. In addition, if a digital asset network has high-profile contributors, the perception that such contributors will no longer contribute to the network could have an adverse effect on the market price of the related digital asset.

●

Over the past several years, digital asset validator operations have evolved from individual users to “professionalized” validating operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of digital asset validating operations are not sufficiently high, including due to a decrease in transaction fees, validators are more likely to immediately sell tokens earned by validating, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of that digital asset, which would generally tend to reduce that digital asset’s market price.

- 17 -

Table of Contents

●

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

●

Many digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network, face significant scaling challenges and may periodically be upgraded with various features designed to increase the speed of digital asset transactions and the number of transactions that can processed in a given period (known as “throughput”). These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective or may result in unforeseen problems or issues, and such upgrades may fail, resulting in potentially irreparable damage to the Ethereum network and the value of ether.

●

Moreover, in the past, bugs, defects, and flaws in the source code for digital assets have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disrupted normal Ethereum network, Ethereum Client, or dApp and smart contract operations or disabled related functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. For example, in May 2023, the main Ethereum network itself reportedly suffered outages or bugs that for a short time prevented transactions from finalizing and being recorded in blocks twice in two days. Major Ethereum Clients which nodes use to access the Ethereum network, such as Geth, Besu and Nethermind, have in the past suffered outages or disruptions due to bugs. For more on an unplanned fork involving Geth clients, see “—A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares.” The cryptography underlying the Ethereum network or ether as an asset could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. Quantum computing technology is an emerging phenomenon which, because it is still developing, makes it difficult to predict its ultimate effect on the future value of ether and other digital assets. However, if quantum computing technology is able to advance and significantly increase its capacity relative to the capacity of today's leading quantum computers, it could potentially undermine the viability of many of the cryptographic algorithms used across the world's information technology infrastructure, including the cryptographic algorithms used for digital assets like ether. If quantum computing is able to advance in that way, there is a risk that quantum computing could result in the cryptography underlying the Ethereum network becoming ineffective, which, if realized, could compromise the security of the Ethereum network, or allow a malicious actor to compromise the wallets holding ether owned by the Trust or others on the Ethereum network, which would result in losses to Shareholders. While various actors in the Ethereum community are taking steps to enable the uses of cryptographic algorithms that would be resistant to advanced quantum computers, there is no guarantee that new quantum-proof architectures will be built and appropriate transitions will be implemented across the network at scale in a timely manner; any such changes could require the achievement of broad consensus within the Ethereum network community and a fork (or multiple forks), and there can be no assurance that such consensus would be achieved or the changes implemented successfully. See “—Changes in the governance of a digital asset network may not receive sufficient support from users and miners, which may negatively affect that digital asset network’s ability to grow and respond to challenges” and “—A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares.” If any of the foregoing were to occur, it could result in losses to Shareholders. Moreover, normal operations and functionality of the Ethereum network may be negatively affected. Such losses of functionality could lead to the Ethereum network losing attractiveness to users, nodes, validators, or other stakeholders, thereby dampening demand for ether. Even if another digital asset other than ether were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

●

The Ethereum network has been in the process of implementing a series of software upgrades and other changes to its protocol, which were previously referred to collectively as “Ethereum 2.0” and some of which were implemented during 2022, such as the Bellatrix and Paris planned forks (defined below) that transitioned the Ethereum network from a proof-of-work consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism (“the Merge”). These upgrades have resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, changes to the Ethereum network. Many of the contemplated upgrades to the Ethereum network will include updates to material aspects of its source code. Although some of these upgrades have been successfully implemented, such as the Merge, which was completed in September 2022, there is no guarantee that there are not undiscovered flaws that will emerge in the future even in upgrades previously considered successful, and previously successful upgrades do not guarantee that future upgrades will be successful. Any such undiscovered flaws, or the failure to properly implement future changes, could have a material adverse effect on the value of ether and the value of the Shares. One completed upgrade is known as the “Shanghai” upgrade, which allows users to unstake their ether and remove it from the relevant smart contract. As a result of these or future upgrades, it is possible that significant volumes of currently locked and illiquid ether becomes unlocked and sold, which could increase volatility in ether prices or have a material adverse effect on the value of ether and the value of the Shares. Upgrades currently being considered to increase throughput and promote scaling, such as “sharding” the Layer 1 Ethereum network or greater reliance on so-called “Layer 2” solutions, could have effects which are difficult to anticipate at this time, but could – if unsuccessfully implemented, or if they contain undiscovered flaws – materially adversely impact or even effectively eliminate the value of ether, and therefore impact the price of the Shares. In addition, the acceptance of software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the users and validators in a digital asset network could result in a “fork” in such network’s blockchain, resulting in the operation of multiple separate networks. See “—A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares” for additional information.

- 18 -

Table of Contents

●

The Ethereum network is still in the process of developing and making significant decisions that will affect policies that govern the supply and issuance of ether as well as other Ethereum network protocols. For example, the Ethereum network has on occasion reduced the quantity of ether rewarded per block and may make additional changes in the future, see “Overview of the Ethereum Industry—Creation of New Ether” for additional information. The open-source nature of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Ethereum network, means that developers and other contributors are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols. As a result, the developers and other contributors of a particular digital asset may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the network, or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies whose interests are at odds with other participants in a particular digital asset network. If the Ethereum network does not successfully develop its policies on supply and issuance and other major design decisions, or does so in a manner that is not attractive to network participants, it could lead to a decline in adoption of the Ethereum network and price of ether.

●

Decentralized application and smart contract developers depend on being able to obtain ether to be able to run their programs and operate their businesses. In particular, decentralized applications and smart contracts require ether in order to pay the gas fees needed to power such applications and smart contracts and execute transactions. As such, they represent a significant source of demand for ether. Ether’s price volatility (particularly where ether prices increase), or the Ethereum network’s wider inability to meet the demands of decentralized applications and smart contracts in terms of inexpensive, reliable, and prompt transaction execution (including during congested periods), or to solve its scaling challenges or increase its throughput, may discourage such decentralized application and smart contract developers from using the Ethereum network as the foundational infrastructure layer for building their applications and smart contracts. If decentralized application and smart contract developers abandon the Ethereum blockchain for other blockchain or digital asset networks or protocols for whatever reason, the value of ether could be negatively affected.

Moreover, because digital assets, including ether, have been in existence for a short period of time and are continuing to develop, there may be additional risks in the future that are impossible to predict as of the date of this prospectus.

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

The first digital asset, bitcoin, was launched in 2009. The Ethereum network launched in 2015 (though some ether was sold in a pre-mine in 2014). Ether, along with bitcoin, was one of the first cryptographic digital assets to gain global adoption and critical mass. In general, digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network and other cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the issuance of digital assets represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

●

Ether is only selectively accepted as a means of payment by retail and commercial outlets, and use of ether by consumers to pay such retail and commercial outlets remains limited. Banks and other established financial institutions may refuse to process funds for ether transactions; process wire transfers to or from digital asset platforms, ether-related companies or service providers; or maintain accounts for persons or entities transacting in ether. As a result, the prices of ether may be influenced to a significant extent by speculators, thus contributing to price volatility that makes retailers less likely to accept ether in the future.

●

Banks may not provide banking services, or may cut off banking services, to businesses that provide digital asset-related services or that accept digital assets as payment, which could dampen liquidity in the market and damage the public perception of digital assets generally or any one digital asset in particular, such as ether, and their or its utility as a payment system, which could decrease the price of digital assets generally or individually. Further, the lack of availability of banking services could prevent the Trust from being able to complete creations and redemptions of Baskets, the timely liquidation of ether and withdrawal of assets from the Ether Custodian even if the Sponsor determined that such liquidation was appropriate or suitable, or otherwise disrupt the Trust’s operations.

- 19 -

Table of Contents

●

Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network. For example, some prominent contributors to the Ethereum network have proposed the concept of “privacy pools,” zero-knowledge proofs, and other privacy-preserving features. If any such features are introduced to the Ethereum network, any platforms or businesses that facilitate transactions in ether may be at an increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks or facilitate illicit financing or crime.

●

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

The Trust is not actively managed and will not have any formal strategy relating to the development of the Ethereum network.

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

The governance of decentralized networks, such as the Ethereum network, is by voluntary consensus and open competition. As a result, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on the governance of any particular decentralized digital asset network, which may stymie such network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. The foregoing notwithstanding, the protocols for some decentralized networks, such as the Ethereum network, are informally managed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s source code. Core developers’ roles evolve over time, largely based on self determined participation. If a significant majority of nodes, users and validators adopt amendments to a decentralized network based on the proposals of such core developers, such network will be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of the relevant digital asset.

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

Potential amendments to the Ethereum network’s protocols and software could, if accepted and authorized by the Ethereum network community, adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

The Ethereum network uses cryptographic protocols to govern the interactions within the Ethereum network. A loose community known as the core developers has evolved to informally manage the source code for the protocol. Membership in the community of core developers evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation in the resource section dedicated to Ethereum on Github.com. The core developers can propose amendments to the Ethereum network’s source code that, if accepted by nodes, validators and users, could alter the protocols and software of the Ethereum network and the properties of ether. These alterations would occur through software upgrades, and could potentially include changes to the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the issuance of new ether or changes to the ether supply, which could undermine the appeal and market value of ether. Alternatively, software upgrades and other changes to the protocols of the Ethereum network could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects or flaws, security risks, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Ethereum network or ether. As a result, the Ethereum network could be subject to changes to its protocols and software in the future that may adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

- 20 -

Table of Contents

The open-source structure of the Ethereum network protocol means that the core developers and other contributors are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing the Ethereum network protocol. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the Ethereum network protocol could damage the Ethereum network and an investment in the Trust.

The Ethereum network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by the core developers and other contributors, largely on the GitHub resource section dedicated to Ethereum network development. As new ether are rewarded solely for validator activity (other than the 2014 pre-mine) and are not sold on an ongoing basis to generate revenue to support development activity, and the Ethereum network protocol itself is made available for free rather than sold or made available subject to licensing or subscription fees and its use does not generate revenues for its development team, the core developers are generally not compensated for maintaining and updating the source code for the Ethereum network protocol. Consequently, there is a lack of financial incentive for developers to maintain or develop the Ethereum network and the core developers may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues with the Ethereum network protocol. Although the Ethereum network is currently supported by the core developers, there can be no guarantee that such support will continue or be sufficient in the future. For example, there have been recent reports that the number of core developers who have the authority to make amendments to the Ethereum network’s source code in the GitHub repository is relatively small, although there are believed to be a larger number of developers who contribute to the overall development of the source code of the Ethereum network. The perception that high-profile contributors may no longer contribute to the network may have an adverse effect on the market price of any related digital assets. For example, in June 2017, an unfounded rumor circulated that Ethereum core developer Vitalik Buterin had died. Following the rumor, the price of ether decreased approximately 20% before recovering after Buterin himself dispelled the rumor. Some have speculated that the rumor led to the decrease in the price of ether. In the event a high-profile contributor to the Ethereum network, such as Vitalik Buterin, is perceived as no longer able to contribute to the Ethereum network due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Alternatively, some developers may be funded by entities whose interests are at odds with other participants in the Ethereum network. In addition, a bad actor could also attempt to interfere with the operation of the Ethereum network by attempting to exercise a malign influence over a core developer. To the extent that material issues arise with the Ethereum network protocol and the core developers and open-source contributors are unable to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Ethereum network and an investment in the Trust may be adversely affected.

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

Many digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network, face significant scaling challenges due to the fact that public blockchains generally face a tradeoff between security and scalability. One means through which public blockchains achieve security is decentralization, meaning that no intermediary is responsible for securing and maintaining these systems. For example, a greater degree of decentralization generally means a given digital asset network is less susceptible to manipulation or capture. In practice, this typically means that every single validator on a given digital asset network is responsible for securing the system by processing every transaction and every single full node is responsible for maintaining a copy of the entire state of the network. As a result, a digital asset network may be limited in the number of transactions it can process by the fact that all validators participate in validating in each block and the capabilities of each single fully participating node.

As of March 31, 2025, the Ethereum network handled approximately 15 transactions per second (according to Dune analytics). In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. In December 2017, the popularity of the blockchain-based game Cryptokitties led to significant network congestion on the Ethereum network. The game, which allows players to trade and create virtual kitties, represented by non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), was reported by some sources to have accounted for more than 10% of the entire Ethereum network traffic at the time causing increases in transaction fees and delays in transaction processing times, and driving Ethereum network traffic to a reported then-all time high. Since January 1, 2020, ether transaction fees have increased from $0.08 average daily transaction fees per ether transaction, to a high of up to approximately $200.06 average daily transaction fees per transaction on May 1, 2022. As of March 31, 2025, ether transaction fees stood at $0.46 per transaction, on average. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ether (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

- 21 -

Table of Contents

In the second half of 2020, the Ethereum network began the first of several stages of an upgrade culminating in the Merge. The Merge amended the Ethereum network’s consensus mechanism to a process known as proof-of-stake, and was intended to address the perceived shortcomings of the proof-of-work consensus mechanism in terms of labor intensity and duplicative computational effort expended by validators (known under proof-of-work as “miners”) who did not win the race, under proof of work, to be the first in time to solve the cryptographic puzzle that would allow them to be the only validator permitted to validate the block and receive the resulting block reward (which was only given to the first validator to successfully solve the puzzle and hash a given block, and not to others). Instead, under proof-of-stake, a single validator is randomly selected to solve the cryptographic puzzle needed to validate a block, which it proposes to a committee of other validators, who vote for whether to include the block (or not), which reduces the computational work performed – and energy expended – to validate each block compared to proof-of-work. See “Overview of the Ethereum Industry—Creation of New Ether” and “—Modifications to the Ether Protocol” for additional information.

Following the Merge, core development of the Ethereum source code has increasingly focused on modifications of the Ethereum protocol to increase speed, throughput and scalability and also improve existing or next generation uses. Future upgrades to the Ethereum protocol and Ethereum blockchain to address scaling issues – such as network congestion, slow throughput and periods of high transaction fees owing to spikes in network demand – have been discussed by network participants, such as sharding. The purpose of sharding is to increase scalability of the Ethereum blockchain by splitting the blockchain into subsections, called shards, and dividing validation responsibility so that a defined subset of validators would be responsible for each shard, rather than all validators being responsible for the entire blockchain, allowing for parallel processing and validation of transactions. However, there appears to be uncertainty and a lack of existing widespread consensus among network participants about how to solve the scaling challenges faced by the Ethereum network.

The rapid development of other competing scalability solutions, such as those which would rely on handling the bulk of computational work relating to transactions or smart contracts and applications built on the Ethereum network (consistent with common usage, all such applications are referred to as “decentralized applications” or “dApps”, whether or not decentralized in fact) outside of the main Ethereum network and Ethereum blockchain, has caused alternatives to sharding to emerge. “Layer 2” is a collective term for solutions which are designed to help increase throughput and reduce transaction fees by handling or validating transactions off the main Ethereum network (known as “Layer 1”) and then attempting to take advantage of the perceived security and integrity advantages of the Layer 1 Ethereum network by uploading the transactions validated on the Layer 2 protocol back to the Layer 1 Ethereum network. The details of how this is done vary significantly between different Layer 2 technologies and implementations. For example, “rollups” perform transaction execution outside the Layer 1 Ethereum network and then post the data, typically in batches, back to the Layer 1 Ethereum network where consensus is reached. “Zero knowledge rollups” are generally designed to run the computation needed to validate the transactions off-chain, on the Layer 2 protocol, and submit a proof of validity of a batch of transactions (not the entire transactions themselves) that is recorded on the Layer 1 Ethereum network. By contrast, “optimistic rollups” assume transactions are valid by default and only run computation, via a fraud proof, in the event of a challenge. Other proposed Layer 2 scaling solutions include, among others, “state channels”, which are designed to allow participants to run a large number of transactions on the Layer 2 side channel protocol and only submit two transactions to the main Layer 1 Ethereum network (the transaction opening the state channel, and the transaction closing the channel), “side chains”, in which an entire Layer 2 blockchain network with similar capabilities to the existing Layer 1 Ethereum network runs in parallel with the existing Layer 1 Ethereum network and allows smart contracts and dApps to run on the Layer 2 side chain without burdening the main Layer 1 network, and others. To date, the Ethereum network community has not coalesced overwhelmingly around any particular Layer 2 solution, though this could change.

- 22 -

Table of Contents

There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the speed and throughput of settlement of Ethereum network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could cause the Ethereum network to not adequately resolve scaling challenges and adversely impact the adoption of ether and the Ethereum network and the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any potential scaling solution, whether a change to the Layer 1 Ethereum network like sharding or the introduction of a Layer 2 solution like rollups, state channels or side chains, will achieve widespread adoption. Alternatively, in theory, the widespread adoption of Layer 2 solutions could succeed in reducing congestion on the Layer 1 Ethereum network by moving transactions and computational work to the Layer 2 level and thereby reduce direct transactions on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, but by reducing transactions on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, could reduce demand for ether on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, which could in theory negatively impact the price of ether. It is possible that proposed changes to the Layer 1 Ethereum network could divide the community, potentially even causing a hard fork, or that the decentralized governance of the Ethereum network causes network participants to fail to coalesce overwhelmingly around any particular solution, causing the Ethereum network to suffer reduced adoption or causing nodes, users or validators to migrate to other blockchain networks. It is also possible that scaling solutions could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects or flaws, security risks, or other problems that could cause them to suffer operational disruptions. For example, in April 2024, Starknet, a Layer 2 built on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, suffered an outage reportedly caused by a rounding error bug that halted production of new blocks on Starknet’s Layer 2 blockchain network. Similar outages, bugs, defects, or other problems could affect Layer 2s in the future. Similarly, in multiple instances throughout 2022 and 2023, the Arbitrum Layer 2 network experienced outages due to failures in its primary node responsible for submitting transactions to the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Although the Layer 1 Ethereum network is believed not to have been affected by those outages, problems on Layer 2s in the future could conceivably affect or cause issues for the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Alternatively, if a widely used Layer 2 network were to fail, it could reduce demand for ether because it would eliminate a source of demand for using ether to record transactions from the Layer 2 onto the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect the price of ether or the value of the Shares.

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

The largest ether wallets are believed to hold, in aggregate, a significant percentage of the ether in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of ether, even if they individually only hold a small amount, and it is possible that some of these wallets are controlled by the same person or entity. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of ether.

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

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

●

A reduction in the processing power expended by validators on the Ethereum network could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtaining control. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the validating power on the Ethereum network, or otherwise obtains control over the Ethereum network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the Ethereum blockchain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.”

●

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

- 23 -

Table of Contents

●

To the extent that any validators cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Ethereum blockchain until a block is validated by a validator who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee. Any widespread delays or disruptions in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the Ethereum network and could prevent the Trust from completing transactions associated with the day-to-day operations of the Trust, including creations and redemptions of the Shares in exchange for ether or cash with Authorized Participants.

●

During the course of the block validation processes, validators exercise the discretion to select which transactions to include within a block and in what order to include these transactions. Beyond the standard block reward and transaction fees, validators have the ability to extract what is known as Maximal Extractable Value (“MEV”) by strategically choosing, reordering, or excluding certain transactions during block production in return for increased transaction fees or other forms of profit for such validators. In blockchain networks that facilitate DeFi protocols in particular, such as the Ethereum network, users may attempt to gain an advantage over other users by offering additional fees to validators for effecting the order or inclusions of transactions within a block. Certain software solutions, such as MEV Boost by Flashbots, have been developed which facilitate validators and other parties in the ecosystem in capturing MEV. The presence of MEV may incentivize associated practices such as sandwich attacks or front running that can have negative repercussions on DeFi users. A “sandwich attack” is executed by placing two transactions around a large, detected transaction to capitalize on the expected price impact. For instance, a market participant might identify a sizable transaction within the publicly visible so-called memory pool (“mempool”) of pending but unexecuted transactions awaiting validation that will significantly alter an asset’s price on a decentralized exchange. The participant could then for example orchestrate a transaction bundle: one transaction to acquire the asset prior to the detected transaction, followed by the large transaction itself, and a final transaction to sell the asset after the market price has increased due to the large transaction’s execution. Such transaction bundles can be submitted to validators through mechanisms like MEV-Boost, with validators receiving a share of the profits as an incentive to include the specific transaction bundle in the block. In the context of MEV, “front running” is said to occur when a user spots a transaction in the mempool, and then pays a high transaction fee to a validator to have their transaction executed on a priority basis in a manner designed to profit from the pending but unexecuted transaction that is still in the mempool. MEV may also compromise the predictability of transaction execution, which may deter usage of the network as a whole. Although based on widely available information given that transactions in the mempool are publicly visible, any potential perception of MEV as unfair manipulation may also discourage users and other stakeholders from engaging with DeFi protocols or the Ethereum network in general. In addition, it is possible regulators or legislators could enact rules which restrict practices associated with MEV, which could diminish the popularity of the Ethereum network among users and validators. Any of these or other outcomes related to MEV may adversely affect the value of ether and the value of the Shares.

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 33% of the validating stake on the Ethereum network, or otherwise obtains control over the Ethereum network through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could delay or manipulate the Ethereum blockchain in the short term, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

Following the Merge and the switch to proof-of-stake validation, the Ethereum network is currently vulnerable to several types of attacks, including:

●

“>33% attack” where, if a validator or group of validators were to gain control of more than 33% of the total staked ether on the Ethereum network, a malicious actor could temporarily impede or delay block confirmation or even cause a temporary fork in the blockchain. This is believed to be temporary, as the Ethereum network’s inactivity leak would be expected to eventually penalize the attacker enough for the chain to finalize again (i.e., the honest majority would be expected to reclaim 2/3^rd stake as the attacker’s stake is penalized). However, it is not believed that with 33% control, a malicious actor could engage in double-spending or fraudulent block propagation.

- 24 -

Table of Contents

●

“>50% attack” where, if a validator or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 50% of the total staked ether on the Ethereum network, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the Ethereum network and the ability to manipulate future transactions on the blockchain, including censoring transactions, double-spending and fraudulent block propagation, potentially for an extended period or even permanently. In theory, the minority non-attackers might reach social consensus to reject blocks proposed by the malicious majority attacker, reducing the attacker’s ability to engage in malicious activity, but there can be no assurance this would happen or that non-attackers would be able to coordinate effectively.

●

“>66% attack” where, if a validator or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 66% of the total staked ether on the Ethereum network, a malicious actor could permanently and irreversibly manipulate the blockchain, including censorship, double-spending and fraudulent block propagation. The attacker could finalize their preferred chain without any consideration for the votes of other stakers and could also revert finalized blocks.

If a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a majority (over 50%) of the validating power on the Ethereum network, it may be able to alter the Ethereum blockchain on which transactions in ether rely by constructing fraudulent blocks or preventing certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all. The malicious actor or botnet could also control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions. Although the malicious actor or botnet would not be able to generate new tokens or transactions using such control, it could “double-spend” its own tokens (i.e., spend the same tokens in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control (over 50%). To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the validating power on the Ethereum network or the Ethereum community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the Ethereum blockchain may not be possible. If the malicious actor were to gain control of more than 33% of the total staked ether on the Ethereum network, they could temporarily impede or delay block confirmation or even cause a temporary fork in the blockchain, but it is not believed that they could in double-spending or fraudulent block propagation. Even without 33% control, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the Ethereum network (similar to a denial-of-service attack).

For example, in August 2020, the Ethereum Classic network was the target of two double-spend attacks by an unknown actor or actors that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Ethereum Classic network. The attacks resulted in reorganizations of the Ethereum Classic blockchain that allowed the attacker or attackers to reverse previously recorded transactions in excess of $5.0 million and $1.0 million.

In addition, in May 2019, the Bitcoin Cash network experienced a 51% attack when two large mining pools reversed a series of transactions in order to stop an unknown miner from taking advantage of a flaw in a recent Bitcoin Cash protocol upgrade. Although this particular attack was arguably benevolent, the fact that such coordinated activity was able to occur may negatively impact perceptions of the Bitcoin Cash network. Although the two attacks described above took place on proof-of-work-based networks, it is possible that a similar attack may occur on the proof-of-stake Ethereum network, which could negatively impact the value of ether and the value of the Shares.

Although there are no known reports of malicious activity on, or control of, the Ethereum network, it is possible that certain groups of coordinating or connected ether holders may together have more than 50% of outstanding ether, which if staked and if the users run validators, would permit them to exert authority over the validation of ether transactions. This risk is heightened if over 50% of the processing power on the network falls within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority. If network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of validating pools, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of ether, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the validating power on the Ethereum network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares. See also“—Liquid staking applications pose centralization concerns” below.

A malicious actor may also obtain control over the Ethereum network through its influence over core developers by gaining direct control over a core developer or an otherwise influential programmer. To the extent that nodes, users and validators accept amendments to the source code proposed by the controlled core developer, other core developers do not counter such amendments, and such amendments enable the malicious exploitation of the Ethereum network, the risk that a malicious actor may be able to obtain control of the Ethereum network in this manner exists. Moreover, it is possible that a group of ether holders that together control more than 50% of outstanding ether are in fact part of the initial or current core developer group, or are otherwise influential members of the Ethereum community. To the extent that the initial or current core developer groups also control more than 50% of outstanding ether, as some believe, the risk of and arising from this particular group of users obtaining control of the validating power on the Ethereum network will be even greater, and should this materialize, it may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

- 25 -

Table of Contents

Liquid staking applications pose centralization concerns.

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

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

The Ethereum network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can become a node by downloading the Ethereum Client and participating in the Ethereum network, and no permission of a central authority or body is needed to do so. In addition, anyone can propose a modification to the Ethereum network’s source code and then propose that the Ethereum network community support the modification. These proposed modifications to the Ethereum network’s source code, if adopted, can lead to forks (referred to as “planned forks” because they take place through a formal process).

In the case of planned forks, the core developers, including those associated with or funded by the Ethereum Foundation, are able to access and alter the Ethereum network source code and, as a result, they are typically responsible for proposing quasi-official or widely publicized releases of updates and other changes to the Ethereum network’s source code called EIPs. Any user can propose an idea for modifying the Ethereum network’s source code, and the core developers are responsible for merging the proposed idea into the EIP repository on GitHub, where it formally becomes an EIP. However, the release of proposed updates to the Ethereum network’s source code by core developers does not guarantee that the updates will be automatically adopted. The developers of each Ethereum Client must agree to implement the EIP’s changes to the Ethereum network in the source code for their respective client software, nodes must accept the changes made available by the developers of the Ethereum Client software they use by choosing to individually download the modified Ethereum Client software, and ultimately a critical mass of validators and users – such as dApp and smart contract developers, as well as end users of dApps and smart contracts, and anyone else who transacts on the Ethereum blockchain or Ethereum network – must support the shift, or the upgrades will lack adoption.

Typically, in the case of a planned fork, once the EIPs are formally introduced by being merged into the EIP repository on GitHub, a robust debate within the Ethereum community as to the advisability of the proposed change ordinarily follows. Assuming the core developers at the protocol level and the developers of individual Ethereum Clients reach a broad consensus among themselves in favor of introducing the change into the respective source code they are responsible for developing and maintaining, the source code modification will be introduced and made available to download. A modification of the Ethereum network’s source code is only effective with respect to the Ethereum nodes that download it and modify their Ethereum Clients accordingly, and in practice such decisions are heavily influenced by the preferences of validators and users. Typically, after a modification is introduced and if a sufficiently broad critical mass of users and validators support the modification and nodes download the modification into their individual Ethereum Clients, the change is implemented and the Ethereum network continues to operate uninterrupted, assuming there are no software issues (e.g., bugs, outages, etc.). However, if less than a sufficiently broad critical mass (in practice, amounting to a substantial majority) of users and validators support the proposed modification and nodes refuse to download the modification to their Ethereum Clients, and the modification is not backwards compatible with the Ethereum blockchain or network or the Ethereum Clients of nodes prior to their modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Ethereum network, with one group of nodes running the pre-modified software, with users and validators continuing to use the pre-modified software, while the other group would adopt and run the modified software. The effect of such a hard fork would be the existence of two versions of the Ethereum network running in parallel on separate networks using separate blockchain ledgers, yet lacking interchangeability. In practice, in a hard fork, the two networks would compete with each other for developers, node operators, users, validators, and adoption, potentially to their mutual detriment (for example, if the number of validators on each network is too small leading to security concerns, as discussed below, or if the number of users on each is reduced compared to the number of users of the single pre-fork blockchain network). Debates relating to hard forks can be contentious and hard fought among network participants and can lead to ill will. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of validating power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual validator or validating pool’s validating power to exceed 50% of the total on either network, thereby making them both more susceptible to attack.

- 26 -

Table of Contents

A future fork in the Ethereum network could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate. A fork could also adversely affect the price of ether at the time of announcement or adoption or subsequently. For example, the announcement of a hard fork could lead to increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset, in anticipation that ownership of the pre-fork digital asset would entitle holders to a new digital asset following the fork. The increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset may cause the price of the digital asset to rise. After the hard fork, it is possible the aggregate price of the two versions of the digital asset running in parallel would be less than the price of the digital asset immediately prior to the fork. Alternatively, as with any change to software code, software upgrades and other changes to the source code or protocols of the Ethereum network could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, or security risks, create problematic economic incentives which incentivize behavior which has a negative effect on the Ethereum network’s users, validators, or the Ethereum network as a whole, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Ethereum network or ether. If a fork caused operational problems for either post-fork network or blockchain, the digital assets associated with the affected network could lose some or all of their value. Furthermore, while the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, determine which network is generally accepted as the Ethereum network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the network and the associated digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork. Any of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares.

On March 13, 2024, the Ethereum network underwent a planned fork called “Dencunˮ implementing a series of EIPs. EIP 4844, which some commentators perceive to be the most significant EIP within the Dencun series, is intended to improve the economics of Layer 2s by reducing transaction fees for Layer 2s who batch transactions executed on the Layer 2s and upload them as a batch (or as a single proof) onto the main Layer 1 Ethereum network. Among other objectives, the Dencun software upgrade was designed to provide Layer 2 scaling solutions a designated storage space on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, called Binary Large Objects (“blobsˮ), which attach large data chunks to transactions on the Layer 1 Ethereum network and are recorded on its blockchain. The data in blobs become inaccessible on the Layer 1 Ethereum network after a temporary period of time (three weeks), unlike the previous method of storing batched data from Layer 2s on the Layer 1 Ethereum network, which was stored permanently. The cost of accessing the temporary storage in blobs is expected by proponents of the Dencun upgrade to be substantially lower than the cost of storing the data on the Ethereum Layer 1 network permanently, making Layer 2s more cost-efficient to operate and, some commentators hope, making them more attractive as a scaling solution. Immediately following the upgrade, some Layer 2s reportedly experienced reduced transaction fees when batching transactions to the main Layer 1 Ethereum network, which in turn lowered the transaction costs for executing transactions on such Layer 2s, but this also is believed to have resulted in ether prices (ether being the native asset of the Layer 1 Ethereum network) dropping as well due, in part, to the reduced demand for ether to pay the transaction costs of recording data on the Layer 1 Ethereum network. Decreased ether prices could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. Additionally, some Layer 2s, such as Blast, reportedly experienced outages and other disruptions in the aftermath of the Dencun upgrade, which in the case of Blast halted block production on the Blast Layer 2 blockchain for a period of time, though it was reportedly restored afterward. As with any change to software code, planned forks such as Dencun could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, security risks, problematic incentive structures, or otherwise fail to work as intended or achieve the expected benefits that proponents hope for in the short term or the long term, which could also have an adverse effect on adoption of the Ethereum network and the value of ether, and therefore the Shares.

- 27 -

Table of Contents

In September 2022, the Ethereum network transitioned to a proof-of-stake consensus model, in an upgrade referred to as the “Merge.” Following the Merge, a hard fork of the Ethereum network occurred, as a small number of Ethereum validators and network participants planned to maintain the proof-of-work consensus mechanism that was removed as part of the Merge. This version of the network, which is not backwards compatible with the Ethereum Layer 1 blockchain, is considered a forked branch and was rebranded as “Ethereum Proof-of-Work.” To the extent significant developer talent, users or validators abandon the Ethereum Layer 1 network and adopt the Ethereum Proof-of-Work blockchain instead, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected.

As illustrated by Dencun and the Merge, the Ethereum network regularly implements planned forks in an effort to achieve its development roadmap, advance the scalability process, and to improve the network generally. For example, in connection with the Ethereum development roadmap, the Ethereum network executed planned forks to transition from the initial Frontier development stage into the Homestead development stage in 2016; to transition from the Homestead development stage to the first sub-stage, Byzantium, of the Metropolis development stage in 2017; to transition from the Byzantium sub-stage to the St. Petersburg sub-stage in early 2019; and to transition from the St. Petersburg sub-stage to the Istanbul sub-phase, in late 2019. In April 2021, the Ethereum network underwent the Berlin and Altair planned forks, among others. In 2022, Ethereum underwent the Bellatrix and Paris planned forks in connection with the Merge. In 2023, Ethereum underwent the Capella and Shanghai planned forks (collectively, “Shapella”), which enabled withdrawals of staked assets to the Ethereum Layer 1 blockchain mainnet for the first time (they had previously been locked on the Beacon Chain testnet following the Merge). On May 7, 2025, “Pectra” which is a combination of the Prague execution layer hard fork and the Electra consensus layer upgrade, went live. Pectra, among other changes, increased the maximum amount of ether that a validator can stake from 32 to 2,048, allowing validators to manage higher balances with the goal of potentially reducing costs; introduce account abstraction, allowing externally owned accounts (EOAs) to temporarily function like smart contracts; and reduce security risks and shorten the wait time for new validators. Any of these or future planned forks could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, or security risks, create problematic economic incentives which incentivize behavior which has a negative effect on the Ethereum network's nodes, users, validators, or the Ethereum network as a whole, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the Ethereum network or ether. Alternatively, such hard forks could be contentious, leading to a split and fracture in the Ethereum community to its collective detriment, as discussed above. Any such outcomes could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Forks may also occur as a digital asset network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum underwent a hard fork between the Layer 1 Ethereum network and a new digital asset running on a “forked” branch of the network, Ethereum Classic, as a result of the Ethereum network community’s response to a significant security breach. In June 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to syphon approximately $60 million of ether held by The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the hack, and after a contentious debate, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a hard fork that effectively reversed the hack, and this network constitutes the Layer 1 Ethereum network. However, a minority of users continued to develop the original blockchain, now referred to as “Ethereum Classic”, which is not backwards compatible with the Layer 1 Ethereum network and is considered a forked branch, with the native digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as Ethereum Classic, or ETC. ETC now trades on several digital asset platforms. Following the July 2016 hard fork between the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks, new security concerns surfaced. Replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum exchanges through at least October 2016. An Ethereum exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision networks split in November 2018, and security concerns could similarly surface in connection with future hard forks.

- 28 -

Table of Contents

An unplanned fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of Ethereum Client software that nodes run and use to access the Ethereum network. For example, such an unplanned fork reportedly occurred in the Go-Ethereum (“Geth”) client, which is a popular Ethereum Client that many nodes use to access the Ethereum network and whose developers are financially supported by the Ethereum Foundation. In November 2020, a bug was discovered in Geth (but not the other Ethereum Clients at the time, such as Besu, OpenEthereum, and Nethermind), and a patch was released that all nodes using the Geth client were supposed to download and apply simultaneously. However, not all nodes using Geth did so, resulting with the non-patched Geth nodes temporarily running a different version of the Ethereum blockchain than the patched Geth nodes and nodes using other Ethereum Clients. This temporarily created two conflicting versions of the Ethereum blockchain, causing the nodes using the non-patched Geth version to be unable to reach consensus with the rest of the nodes on the Ethereum blockchain, interrupting the non-patch Geth nodes’ access to the Ethereum network. For example, Infura, which is a node operator that provides services to major Ethereum smart contracts, wallet software providers like MetaMask, ether trading platforms, and other market participants, reportedly ran numerous nodes using the Geth client. Infura’s Geth client-running nodes reportedly used the outdated, non-patched Geth version initially, which is said to have caused those nodes to be on the minority blockchain, impacting transaction execution, validation, and recording on the main Layer 1 Ethereum network for Infura’s customers – such as Ethereum-based smart contracts, wallet providers like MetaMask, ether trading platforms, etc. – until Infura was able to apply the software update released by the Geth client developers to Infura’s nodes that use Geth as their Ethereum Client. Ultimately, the problem was reportedly fixed by releasing a new upgraded version of Geth that all nodes using the Geth client were to promptly download. This reportedly harmonized the conflicting versions and restored synchronization among Geth nodes, fixing the problem and restoring access to the Ethereum network, including for Infura and its customers.

In the future, if an accidental or unintentional fork similar to what happened within the Geth client in November 2020 were to reoccur within Geth (or any other major Ethereum Client), or were to happen to the Ethereum network as a whole (instead of being limited to a single Ethereum Client, in this case Geth), such a fork could lead to nodes, users and validators losing confidence in the Ethereum network and abandoning it in favor of other blockchain protocols. Furthermore, it is possible that, in a future unplanned fork, a substantial number of nodes, users and validators could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains, resulting in a permanent fork. Moreover, following the Merge, nodes on the Ethereum network must run two Ethereum Clients, i.e., an Execution Client and a Consensus Client paired together, with the implementations selected at the discretion of the node operator. There are multiple groups independently developing and implementing their respective Execution Clients and Consensus Clients; while some individual Execution Clients or Consensus Clients are more popular or widely adopted than others, there remains heterogeneity among Ethereum Clients. Each Execution Client and Consensus Client needs to interoperate effectively with the other Execution Client and Consensus Client. Although this diversity of Ethereum Clients is perceived by some to promote decentralization of the Ethereum network, it comes at a potential cost: if there are any unanticipated or undiscovered flaws, bugs, software defects, or interoperability failures causing any individual Execution Client to fail to interoperate effectively with any other individual Execution Client or any Consensus Client, the Ethereum network as a whole could suffer an unplanned fork, major disruption, catastrophic outage, system failure, loss of confidence or adoption among users or validators, or a variety of other problems. Any of these events could cause ether to decline in value, adversely affecting the price of Shares.

Protocols may also be cloned. Unlike a fork, which modifies an existing blockchain, and results in two competing networks, each with the same genesis block, a “clone” is a copy of a protocol’s codebase, but results in an entirely new blockchain and new genesis block. Tokens are created solely from the new “clone” network and, in contrast to forks, holders of tokens of the existing network that was cloned do not receive any tokens of the new network. A “clone” results in a competing network that has characteristics substantially similar to the network it was based on, subject to any changes as determined by the developer(s) that initiated the clone. For example, following the DAO hack in July 2016, holders of Ethereum voted on-chain to reverse the hack, effectively causing a hard fork. For the days following the vote, the price of Ethereum rose from $11.65 on July 15, 2016 to $14.66 on July 21, 2016, the day after the first Ethereum Classic block was mined. A clone may also adversely affect the price of ether at the time of announcement or adoption or subsequently. For example, on November 6, 2016, Rhett Creighton, a Zcash developer, cloned the Zcash Network to launch Zclassic, a substantially identical version of the Zcash Network that eliminated the Founders’ Reward. For the days following the date the first Zclassic block was mined, the price of ZEC fell from $504.57 on November 5, 2016 to $236.01 on November 7, 2016 in the midst of a broader sell off of ZEC beginning immediately after the Zcash Network launch on October 28, 2016.

Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any Incidental Rights and any IR Digital Asset, including any forked or airdropped assets.

In addition to forks, a digital asset may become subject to a similar occurrence known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promotors of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that such holders will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. For example, in March 2017 the promoters of Stellar Lumens announced that anyone that owned bitcoin as of June 26, 2017 could claim, until August 27, 2017, a certain amount of Stellar Lumens. Airdrops could create operational, security, legal or regulatory, or other risks for the Trust, the Sponsor, the Ether Custodian, Authorized Participants, or other entities.

- 29 -

Table of Contents

We refer to the right to receive any such benefit as an “Incidental Right” and any such digital asset (other than ether) acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Digital Asset.” With respect to a fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights and any IR Digital Asset associated with such event. As such, Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any Incidental Rights and any IR Digital Asset.

In the event the Trust seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by NASDAQ seeking approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to sell Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset and distribute the cash proceeds (net of expenses and applicable withholding taxes) to DTC or distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Digital Asset in-kind to DTC. However, there can be no assurance as to whether or when the Sponsor would make such a decision, or when NASDAQ will seek or obtain this approval, if at all.

Even if such regulatory approval is sought and obtained, Shareholders may not receive the benefits of a fork, the Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Investors who prefer to have a greater degree of control over events such as forks, airdrops, and similar events, and any assets made available in connection with each, should consider investing in ether directly rather than purchasing Shares.

In the event of a hard fork of the Ethereum network, the Sponsor will, if permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine which network should be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and in doing so may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

In the event of a hard fork of the Ethereum network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Ethereum network, is generally accepted as the Ethereum network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including, but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of ether, users, services, businesses, validators and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, validating power on, and community engagement with, the Ethereum network, or whatever other factors it deems relevant. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Ether Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, crypto asset platforms, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as ether and should therefore be considered “ether” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

Any name change and any associated rebranding initiative by the core developers of ether may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of ether and the value of the Shares.

From time to time, digital assets may undergo name changes and associated rebranding initiatives. For example, Bitcoin Cash may sometimes be referred to as Bitcoin ABC in an effort to differentiate itself from any Bitcoin Cash hard forks, such as Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision, and in the third quarter of 2018, the team behind ZEN rebranded and changed the name of ZenCash to “Horizen.” The Sponsor cannot predict the impact of any name change and any associated rebranding initiative on ether. After a name change and an associated rebranding initiative, a digital asset may not be able to achieve or maintain brand name recognition or status that is comparable to the recognition and status previously enjoyed by such digital asset. The failure of any name change and any associated rebranding initiative by a digital asset may result in such digital asset not realizing some or all of the anticipated benefits contemplated by the name change and associated rebranding initiative, and could negatively impact the value of ether and the value of the Shares.

- 30 -

Table of Contents

Smart contracts, including those relating to DeFi applications, are a new technology and their ongoing development and operation may result in problems, which could reduce the demand for ether or cause a wider loss of confidence in the Ethereum network, either of which could have an adverse impact on the value of ether.

Smart contracts are programs that run on the Ethereum blockchain that execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Since smart contracts typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in their programming can have damaging effects. For example, in June 2016, a vulnerability in the smart contracts underlying The DAO allowed an attack by a hacker to syphon approximately $60 million worth of ether from The DAO’s accounts into a segregated account. In the aftermath of the theft, certain core developers and contributors pursued a “hard fork” of the Ethereum network in order to erase any record of the theft. Despite these efforts, the price of ether reportedly dropped approximately 35% in the aftermath of the attack and subsequent hard fork. In addition, in July 2017, a vulnerability in a smart contract for a multi-signature wallet software developed by Parity led to a reportedly $30 million theft of ether, and in November 2017, a new vulnerability in Parity’s wallet software reportedly led to roughly $160 million worth of ether being indefinitely frozen in an account. Furthermore, in April 2018, a batch overflow bug was found in many Ethereum-based ERC20-compatible smart contract tokens that allows hackers to create a large number of smart contract tokens, causing multiple crypto asset platforms worldwide to shut down ERC20-compatible token trading. Similarly, in March 2020, a design flaw in the MakerDAO smart contract caused forced liquidations of crypto assets at significantly discounted prices, resulting in millions of dollars of losses to users who had deposited crypto assets into the smart contract. Other smart contracts, such as bridges between blockchain networks and DeFi protocols have also been manipulated, exploited or used in ways that were not intended or envisioned by their creators such that attackers syphoned over $3.8 billion worth of digital assets from smart contracts in 2022. Problems with the development, deployment, and operation of smart contracts may have an adverse effect on the value of ether.

In some cases, smart contracts can be controlled by one or more “admin keys” or users with special privileges, or “super users.” These users may have the ability to unilaterally make changes to the smart contract, enable or disable features on the smart contract, change how the smart contract receives external inputs and data or transmits ether or other digital assets, and make other changes to the smart contract. Furthermore, in some cases inadequate public information may be available about certain smart contracts or applications, and information asymmetries may exist, even with respect to open-source smart contracts or applications; certain participants may have hidden informational or technological advantages, making for an uneven playing field. There may be opportunities for bad actors to perpetrate fraudulent schemes and engage in illicit activities and other misconduct, such as exit scams and rug pulls (orchestrated by developers and/or influencers who promote a smart contract or application and, ultimately, escape with the money at an agreed time), or Ponzi or similar fraud schemes.

Many DeFi applications are currently deployed on the Ethereum network, and smart contracts relating to DeFi applications currently represent a significant source of demand for ether. DeFi applications may achieve their investment purposes through self-executing smart contracts that may allow users, for example, to invest digital assets in a pool from which other users can borrow without requiring an intermediate party to facilitate these transactions. These investments may earn interest to the investor based on the rates at which borrowers repay the loan, and can generally be withdrawn by the investor. For smart contracts that hold a pool of digital asset reserves, smart contract super users or admin key holders may be able to extract funds from the pool, liquidate assets held in the pool, or take other actions that decrease the value of t

SEC Form 424B3 filed by iShares Ethereum Trust ETF