As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2024

Registration No. 333-278249

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

Pre-Effective

Amendment No. 5

FORM S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT

UNDER

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

FIDELITY^® ETHEREUM FUND

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

99-6342530

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification Number)

c/o FD Funds Management LLC

Rachel Nelson

245 Summer Street V13E

Boston, MA 02210

(800) 343-3548

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

Copy to:

Morrison C. Warren, Esq.,

Chapman and Cutler LLP

320 South Canal Street

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 845-3484

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this Registration Statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933 check the following box: ☒

If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering: ☐

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act. ☐

The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.

The information in this Preliminary Prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This Preliminary Prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.

Subject to Completion Dated July 17, 2024

PROSPECTUS

Shares

Fidelity^® Ethereum Fund

The Fidelity Ethereum Fund (the “Trust”) is an exchange-traded product that issues shares of beneficial interest (the “Shares”) that trade on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”). The Trust’s investment objective is to seek to track the performance of ether, the native token of the Ethereum blockchain, as measured by the performance of the Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate (the “Index”), adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. The Index is constructed using ether price feeds from eligible ether spot markets and a volume-weighted median price (“VWMP”) methodology, calculated every 15 seconds based on VWMP spot market data over rolling sixty-minute increments. The Index is designed to reflect the performance of ether in U.S. dollars. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold ether and will value its Shares daily based on the same methodology used to calculate the Index. FD Funds Management LLC (the “Sponsor”) is the sponsor of the Trust, CSC Delaware Trust Company (the “Trustee”) is the trustee of the Trust, State Street Bank and Trust Company (“State Street” or the “Transfer Agent”) is the Trust’s transfer agent (in such capacity, the “Transfer Agent”) and cash custodian (in such capacity, the “Cash Custodian”), and Fidelity Digital Asset Services, LLC (“FDAS” or the “Custodian”) is the custodian for the Trust, and will hold all of the Trust’s ether on the Trust’s behalf.

The Trust is an exchange-traded product. When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in blocks of 25,000 Shares (a “Basket”) based on the quantity of ether attributable to each Share of the Trust (net of accrued but unpaid expenses and liabilities). For a subscription for Shares, the subscription shall be in the amount of cash needed to purchase the amount of ether represented by the Basket being created, as calculated by the Administrator (as defined below). For a redemption of Shares, the Sponsor shall arrange for the ether represented by the Basket to be sold and the cash proceeds distributed. Financial firms that are authorized to purchase or redeem Shares with the Trust (known as “Authorized Participants”) will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares when they purchase Shares, and the Trust will deliver cash to such Authorized Participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. Shares initially comprising the same Basket but offered by the Authorized Participants to the public at different times may have different offering prices, which depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Trust’s assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction. Owners of the beneficial interests of Shares (“Shareholders”) who buy or sell Shares during the day from their broker on the secondary market may do so at a premium or discount relative to the per Share net asset value of the Trust.

The Trust will not participate in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Ethereum network (i.e., the Trust will not “stake” its ether) to earn additional ether or seek other means of generating income from its ether holdings.

Shareholders who decide to buy or sell Shares of the Trust will place their trade orders through their brokers and will incur customary brokerage commissions and charges. Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for the Shares. The Shares are expected to be listed for trading, subject to notice of issuance, on the Exchange under the ticker symbol “FETH.”

The offering of an indeterminate amount of the Trust’s Shares is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in accordance with the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”). The offering is intended to be a continuous offering. The Trust is not a fund registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), and is not subject to regulation under the 1940 Act. Investors in the Trust will not, therefore, receive the regulatory protections afforded by funds registered under the 1940 Act. The Sponsor is not an “Investment Adviser” (as defined in Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”)), and therefore the Sponsor’s provision of services to the Trust will not be governed by the Advisers Act and is not subject to a fiduciary standard of care. The Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, as amended (the “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. Shareholders in the Trust will not benefit from the protections afforded to investors in ether futures contracts on regulated futures markets. The Trust’s Shares are neither interests in nor obligations of the Sponsor or the Trustee.

On May 24, 2024, FMR Capital, Inc. (the “Seed Capital Investor”), an affiliate of the Sponsor, purchased 1 Share at a per-Share price of $40 (the “Seed Share”). Delivery of the Seed Share was made on May 24, 2024. Total proceeds to the Trust from the sale of the Seed Share were $40. On June 4, 2024, the Seed Share was redeemed for cash and the Seed Capital Investor purchased 125,000 Shares at a per-Share price of $37.9998 (the “Seed Baskets”). Total proceeds to the Trust from the sale of the Seed Baskets were $4,749,975.00. On June 4, 2024, the Trust purchased 1,250 ether with the proceeds of the Seed Baskets. As of the date of the Prospectus, these 125,000 Shares represent all of the outstanding Shares. The Seed Capital Investor will act as a statutory underwriter in connection with the Seed Baskets. See “Seed Capital Investor” for additional information.

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

AN INVESTMENT IN THE TRUST INVOLVES SIGNIFICANT RISKS AND MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR SHAREHOLDERS WHO ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT MORE RISK THAN MAY BE INVOLVED WITH EXCHANGE-TRADED PRODUCTS THAT DO NOT HOLD ETHER. THE SHARES ARE SPECULATIVE SECURITIES. THEIR PURCHASE INVOLVES A HIGH DEGREE OF RISK AND YOU COULD LOSE YOUR ENTIRE INVESTMENT. YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ALL RISK FACTORS BEFORE INVESTING IN THE TRUST. PLEASE REFER TO “RISK FACTORS” BEGINNING ON PAGE 23.

THE SHARES OF THE TRUST ARE NEITHER INTERESTS IN NOR OBLIGATIONS OF THE SPONSOR, THE TRUSTEE, THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE TRANSFER AGENT, THE DISTRIBUTOR, THE CUSTODIAN OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AFFILIATES. THE SHARES ARE NOT INSURED OR GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.

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 TRUST IS AN “EMERGING GROWTH COMPANY” AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STARTUPS ACT OF 2012 AND, AS SUCH, MAY ELECT TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REDUCED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

The date of this Prospectus is _______, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS


	Page
STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS		ii
PROSPECTUS SUMMARY		1
ETHER, ETHER MARKETS AND REGULATION OF ETHER		11
RISK FACTORS		23
THE TRUST AND ETHER PRICES		68
CALCULATION OF NAV		71
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUST		72
THE TRUST’S SERVICE PROVIDERS		76
CUSTODY OF THE TRUST’S ASSETS		78
TRANSFER OF SHARES		80
SEED CAPITAL INVESTOR		81
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION		81
CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF SHARES		83
USE OF PROCEEDS		88
OWNERSHIP OR BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE TRUST		88
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST		89
DUTIES OF THE SPONSOR		90
LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION		92
PROVISIONS OF LAW		94
BOOKS AND RECORDS		95
STATEMENTS, FILINGS, AND REPORTS TO SHAREHOLDERS		96
FISCAL YEAR		96
GOVERNING LAW; CONSENT TO DELAWARE JURISDICTION		96
LEGAL MATTERS		96
EXPERTS		97
MATERIAL CONTRACTS		97
UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES		103
PURCHASES BY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS		107
INFORMATION YOU SHOULD KNOW		108
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY		108
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION		109
PRIVACY POLICY		109
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM		110

This Prospectus contains information you should consider when making an investment decision about the Shares of the Trust. You may rely on the information contained in this Prospectus. The Trust and the Sponsor have not 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. This Prospectus is not an offer to sell the Shares in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale of the Shares is not permitted.

The Shares of the Trust are not registered for public sale in any jurisdiction other than the United States.

STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Prospectus includes “forward-looking statements” that generally relate to future events or future performance. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “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 will or may occur in the future, including such matters as movements in the digital asset markets and indexes that track such movements, 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 the Sponsor has made based on its perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors appropriate in the circumstances.

Whether or not actual results and developments will conform to the Sponsor’s expectations and predictions, however, is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including 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. Consequently, all the forward-looking statements made in this Prospectus are qualified by these cautionary statements, and there can be no assurance that actual results or developments the Sponsor anticipates will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will result in the expected consequences to, or have the expected effects on, the Trust’s operations or the value of its Shares.

Should one or more of these risks discussed in “Risk Factors” or other uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those described in forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are made based on the Sponsor’s beliefs, estimates and opinions on the date the statements are made and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor is under a duty or undertakes an obligation to update forward-looking statements if these beliefs, estimates and opinions or other circumstances should change, other than as required by applicable laws. Moreover, neither the Trust, the Sponsor, nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of any of these forward-looking statements. Investors are therefore cautioned against placing undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY

This is only a summary of the Prospectus and, while it contains material information about the Trust and its Shares, it does not contain or summarize all of the information about the Trust and the Shares contained in this Prospectus that is material and/or which may be important to you. You should read this entire Prospectus before making an investment decision about the Shares.

Overview of the Trust

The Fidelity Ethereum Fund (the “Trust”) is an exchange-traded product that issues shares of beneficial interest (the “Shares”) that seeks to list and trade on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”). The Trust’s investment objective is to seek to track the performance of ether, as measured by the performance of the Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate (the “Index”), adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. The Index is constructed using ether price feeds from eligible ether spot markets and a volume-weighted median price (“VWMP”) methodology, calculated every 15 seconds based on VWMP spot market data over rolling sixty-minute increments. The Index is designed to reflect the performance of ether in U.S. dollars. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold ether. The Trust is sponsored by FD Funds Management LLC (the “Sponsor”), a wholly owned subsidiary of FMR LLC.

The Trust provides exposure to the value of ether, and the Shares of the Trust are valued on a daily basis using the same methodology used to calculate the Index. The Trust provides investors with the opportunity to access the market for ether through a traditional brokerage account without the potential barriers to entry or risks involved with holding or transferring ether directly or acquiring it from an ether spot market. The Trust is passively managed and does not pursue active management investment strategies. The Trust will custody its ether at an affiliate of the Sponsor, Fidelity Digital Asset Services, LLC (“FDAS” or the “Custodian”), a New York state limited purpose trust company that provides custody and trade execution services for digital assets. The Trust will not stake the ether custodied at the Custodian. The Trust will not invest in derivatives. The Sponsor believes that the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to invest in ether without purchasing, holding and trading ether directly.

The Shareholders of the Trust take no part in the management or control, and have no voice in, the Trust’s operations or business. Except in limited circumstances, Shareholders will have no voting rights under the Trust Agreement (as defined below). The Trust will not participate in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Ethereum network (i.e., the Trust will not “stake” its ether) to earn additional ether or seek other means of generating income from its ether holdings.

The Trust, the Sponsor and the Trust’s service providers will not loan or pledge the Trust’s assets, nor will the Trust’s assets serve as collateral for any loan or similar arrangement.

The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

Ether and the Ethereum Network

Ether is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Ethereum network, a decentralized network of computers that operates pursuant to a set of cryptographic protocols. No single entity owns or operates the Ethereum network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. The Ethereum network allows people to exchange tokens of value, called “ether” or “ETH,” which are recorded on a public transaction ledger known as a blockchain. Ether can be used to pay for goods and services or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on digital asset trading platforms or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system. In addition, ether is used to compensate node operators on the Ethereum network for using computational resources to confirm transactions and secure the network. Furthermore, the Ethereum network allows users to write and implement smart contracts—that is, general-purpose code that executes on every computer in the network and can instruct the transmission of information and value based on a sophisticated set of logical conditions. Using smart contracts, users can create markets, store registries of debts or promises, represent the ownership of property, move funds in accordance with conditional instructions and create digital assets other than ether on the Ethereum network. Smart contract operations are executed on the Ethereum blockchain in exchange for payment of ether. The Ethereum network is one of a number of projects intended to expand blockchain use beyond just a peer-to-peer money system.

The Ethereum network was originally described in a 2013 white paper by Vitalik Buterin, a programmer involved with bitcoin, with the goal of creating a global platform for decentralized applications powered by smart contracts. The formal development of the Ethereum network began through a Swiss firm called Ethereum Switzerland GmbH (“EthSuisse”) in conjunction with several other entities. Subsequently, the Ethereum Foundation, a Swiss non-profit organization, was set up to oversee the protocol’s development. The Ethereum network went live on July 30, 2015. Unlike other digital assets, such as bitcoin, which are solely created through a progressive mining process, 72.0 million ether or “ETH” were created in connection with the launch of the Ethereum network. The initial 72.0 million ether were distributed as follows:

Initial Distribution: 60.0 million ether, or 83.33% of the supply, was sold to the public in a crowd sale conducted between July and August 2014 that raised approximately $18 million which was used to fund the development of the Ethereum network.

Ethereum Foundation: 6.0 million ether, or 8.33% of the supply, was distributed to the Ethereum Foundation for operational costs.

Ethereum Developers: 3.0 million ether, or 4.17% of the supply, was distributed to developers who contributed to the Ethereum network.

Developer Purchase Program: 3.0 million ether, or 4.17% of the supply, was distributed to members of the Ethereum Foundation to purchase at the initial crowd sale price.

Following the launch of the Ethereum network, ether supply initially increased through a progressive mining process. Following the introduction of EIP-1559, described below, the ether supply and issuance rate has varied based on factors such as recent use of the network.

Coinciding with the network launch, it was decided that EthSuisse would be dissolved, designating the Ethereum Foundation as the sole organization dedicated to support the development of the Ethereum protocol and related technologies, including support to projects and entities in the Ethereum community. The Ethereum network is decentralized in that it does not operate under governmental or other centralized authorities or require financial institution intermediaries to create or transmit ether or make governance decisions for the Ethereum network. Rather, the creation, supply and transmission of ether are governed by the rules of the Ethereum protocol and effected through the voluntary participation of node operators and validators, and governance and development of the Ethereum network are by consensus and open competition among developers, users and operating entities in the Ethereum community. The Ethereum network has no central decision-making body. See “Ether, Ether Markets and Regulation of Ether—Ether and the Ethereum Network”.

Among other things, ether is used to pay for transaction fees and computational services (i.e., smart contracts) on the Ethereum network; users of the Ethereum network pay for the computational power of the machines executing the requested operations with ether. Requiring payment in ether on the Ethereum network incentivizes developers to write quality applications and increases the efficiency of the Ethereum network because wasteful code costs more. It also ensures that the Ethereum network remains economically viable by compensating people for their contributed computational resources.

Ether may be regarded as a currency or digital commodity depending on its specific use in particular transactions. Ether may be used as a medium of exchange or unit of account. Although a number of large and small retailers accept ether as a form of payment in the United States and foreign markets, there is relatively limited use of ether for commercial and retail payments. Similarly, ether may be used as a store of value (i.e., an asset that maintains its value rather than depreciating), although it has experienced significant periods of price volatility.

There can be no assurance as to the future performance of ether; the past performance and volatility of ether should not be taken as an indication of future performance or volatility.

For more information on ether and the Ethereum network, see “Ether, Ether Markets and Regulation of Ether” below.

The Trust’s Investment Objective

The Trust’s investment objective is to seek to track the performance of ether, as measured by the Index, adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold ether and will value its Shares daily as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern time (“EST”) using the same methodology used to calculate the Index. All of the Trust’s ether will be held by the Custodian.

The Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate

The Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate (the “Index”) is designed to reflect the performance of ether in U.S. dollars. The Index is constructed using ether price feeds from eligible ether spot markets and the VWMP methodology, calculated every 15 seconds based on VWMP spot market data over rolling sixty-minute increments to develop an ether price composite. The Index methodology was developed by Fidelity Product Services LLC (the “Index Provider”) and is monitored by the Fidelity Index Committee (the “Committee”) with the assistance of the Fidelity Digital Asset Indices Advisory Committee. Coin Metrics, Inc. is the third-party calculation agent (“Calculation Agent”) for the Index.

The Trust is entitled to use the Index pursuant to a licensing arrangement with the Index Provider. As the Index is calculated as a price return, it does not track forks or air drops involving ether. Accordingly, the Trust will not normally hold forked or air dropped assets, as further described below in “The inability to recognize the economic benefit of a ‘fork’ or an ‘air drop’ could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.”

Summary of Risk Factors

An investment in the Trust involves risks described in the section below entitled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Prospectus. Some of these risks are summarized below.

Risks associated with ether and the Ethereum network

The Ethereum network has a limited history relative to traditional commodities and currencies. There is no assurance that use or acceptance of ether will continue to grow. A contraction in use or adoption of ether may result in increased volatility or a reduction in the price of ether, which would likely have an adverse impact on the value of the Shares. 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. Ether trading prices experience high levels of volatility, and in some cases such volatility has been sudden and extreme. Because of such volatility, owners of beneficial interests of Shares (“Shareholders”) could lose all or substantially all of their investment in the Trust in a very short time, even in the course of one day. Shareholders who invest in the Trust should actively manage and monitor their investments.

The Ethereum network depends on developers for both monitoring and upgrading the software protocols on which the Ethereum network is based and for the release of new and upgraded versions of existing DeFi applications. The Ethereum network and related DeFi applications could cease to be a focal point for developer activity, and there is no assurance that the most active developers who participate in such activities will continue to do so in the future, which could damage the network or reduce ether’s competitiveness with competing digital assets or blockchain protocols.

Spot markets on which ether trades are relatively new and largely unregulated or may not be complying with existing regulations and, therefore, may be more exposed to fraud and security breaches than established, regulated exchanges for other financial assets or instruments, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Trust. Disruptions at ether spot markets, futures markets and in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) markets could adversely affect the availability of ether and

the ability of Authorized Participants (as defined below) to purchase or sell ether or ether derivatives (or provide cash in relation thereto) and therefore their ability to create and redeem Shares of the Trust. The loss or destruction of certain “private keys,” including by the Custodian, could prevent the Trust from accessing its ether. Loss of these private keys may be irreversible and could result in the loss of all or substantially all of an investment in the Trust. Loss of private keys may also impede the Trust’s ability to operate, including by limiting the Trust’s ability to transfer ether in the face of a redemption request and forcing the Trust to consider liquidation.

Risks Associated with the Index

The failure of the Index methodology to measure the actual value of ether could have an adverse effect on the Trust and on the value of an investment in the Trust. In addition, the value of ether as calculated by the Index methodology may differ from the value of ether calculated by other methodologies and the price of ether on any single spot market.

Risks Associated with Investing in the Trust

Shareholders may choose to use the Trust as a means of investing indirectly in ether. As noted, there are significant risks and hazards inherent in the ether market that may cause the price of ether to fluctuate widely. Shareholders considering a purchase of Shares of the Trust should carefully consider what percentage of their total assets should be exposed to the ether market, and should fully understand, be willing to assume, and have the financial resources necessary to withstand, the risks involved in the Trust’s investment strategy, and be in a position to bear the potential loss of their entire investment in the Trust. Because the value of ether, and thus the value of the Shares, may be extremely volatile, Shareholders will need to monitor their investment frequently.

There is no assurance that the Trust will generate a profit for investors. In addition, an actual or perceived breach of the Trust’s account with the Custodian could harm the Trust’s operations, result in partial or total loss of the Trust’s assets, damage the Trust’s reputation and negatively affect the market perception of the effectiveness of the Trust, all of which could in turn reduce demand for the Shares, resulting in a reduction in the price of the Shares. The Trust may also cease operations, the occurrence of which could similarly result in a reduction in the price of the Shares. Any investment made in the Trust may result in a total loss of the investment.

The Trust’s net return will not match the performance of the Index because the Trust incurs operating expenses and other fees and liabilities. Moreover, the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Trust may deviate from the market price of its Shares for a number of reasons, including price volatility, trading activity, normal trading hours for the Trust, the calculation methodology of the NAV, and/or the closing of ether trading platforms due to fraud, failure, security breaches or otherwise.

Shareholders of the Trust should not expect to receive the economic benefit of any “fork” of the Ethereum network or asset “air dropped” to holders of ether. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any digital asset resulting from a fork in the Ethereum network (other than what the Sponsor determines to be ether) or any air drop. If the Trust were to change this policy, the Trust would need to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules.

Pricing Information Available on the Exchange and Other Sources

The current market price per Share (symbol: “FETH”) will be published continuously as trades occur throughout each trading day on the consolidated tape by market data vendors.

The intra-day indicative value per Share will be published by the Exchange once every 15 seconds throughout each trading day on the consolidated tape by market data vendors.

The website for the Trust, www.fidelity.com, or any successor thereto, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information: (a) the prior business day’s NAV; (b) the prior business day’s official closing price; (c) calculation of the premium or discount of such Exchange’s official closing price against such NAV; (d) data in chart form displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Exchange’s official closing price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of the Trust, if shorter); (e) the Prospectus; and (f) other applicable quantitative information. The Trust will also disseminate the Trust’s holdings on a daily basis on the Trust’s website. The NAV for the Trust will be calculated by the Administrator once a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time. Quotation and last sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the consolidated tape.

Any adjustments made to the Index will be published on the Sponsor’s website at i.fidelity.com/indices.

The intra-day levels and closing levels of the Index are published by the Index Provider, and the closing NAV is published by the Administrator (as defined below).

The Shares are not issued, sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by the Exchange, and the Exchange makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in the Shares.

The Index Provider makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of the Index for any purpose. Index information and any other data calculated and/or disseminated, in whole or part, by the Index Provider is for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes, and provided on an “as is” basis. The Index Provider does not warrant that the Index information will be uninterrupted or error-free, or that defects will be corrected. The Index Provider also does not recommend or make any representation as to possible benefits from any securities or investments, or third-party products or services. Shareholders should undertake their own due diligence regarding securities and investment practices.

For more information on the Index and the Index Provider, see “The Trust and Ether Prices” below.

The Trust’s Legal Structure

The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust, formed on October 31, 2023, pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act. The Trust continuously issues common shares representing fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust that may be purchased and sold on the Exchange. The Trust will operate pursuant to a Trust Agreement, as amended and/or restated from time to time (the “Trust Agreement”). CSC Delaware Trust Company, a Delaware trust company, is the trustee of the Trust (the “Trustee”). The Trust is managed and controlled by the Sponsor. The Sponsor is a limited liability company formed in the state of Delaware on August 23, 2019.

The Trust’s Service Providers

The Sponsor

The Sponsor, FD Funds Management LLC, arranged for the creation of the Trust and is responsible for the ongoing registration of the Shares for their public offering in the United States and the listing of Shares on the Exchange. The Sponsor’s principal address is 245 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210. The Sponsor will develop a marketing plan for the Trust, will prepare marketing materials regarding the Shares of the Trust, and will exercise the marketing plan of the Trust on an ongoing basis. The Sponsor has agreed to pay all normal operating expenses except for Extraordinary Expenses (defined below) out of the Sponsor’s unified fee.

The Trustee

The Trustee, CSC Delaware Trust Company, a Delaware trust company, acts as the trustee of the Trust in accordance with the Declaration of Trust and as required by the Delaware Statutory Trust Act to create a Delaware statutory trust.

The Administrator

Fidelity Service Company, Inc., an affiliate of the Sponsor, serves as the Trust’s administrator (the “Administrator”). The Administrator’s principal address is 245 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210. Under the Administration Agreement, the Administrator provides necessary administrative, tax and accounting services and financial reporting for the maintenance and operations of the Trust, including valuing the Trust’s ether and calculating the NAV per Share of the Trust and the NAV of the Trust and supplying pricing information to the Sponsor for the relevant website. In addition, the Administrator makes available the office space, equipment, personnel and facilities required to provide such services.

The Transfer Agent

State Street serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. The Transfer Agent: (1) facilitates the issuance and redemption of Shares of the Trust; (2) responds to correspondence by Shareholders and others relating to its duties; (3) maintains Shareholder accounts; and (4) makes periodic reports to the Trust. The Trust’s Transfer Agent will facilitate the settlement of Shares in response to the placement of creation orders and redemption orders from financial firms that are authorized to purchase or redeem Shares with the Trust (“Authorized Participants”).

The Custodian

Fidelity Digital Asset Services, LLC, an affiliate of the Sponsor, serves as the Trust’s ether custodian. The Custodian’s principal address is 640 Fifth Ave, 5^th Floor, New York, NY 10019. Under the Custodial Services Agreement, the Custodian is responsible for safekeeping all of the ether owned by the Trust. The Custodian was selected by the Sponsor. The Sponsor is responsible for opening an account with the Custodian that holds the Trust’s ether (the “Ether Account”), as well as facilitating the transfer or sale of ether required for the operation of the Trust.

The Cash Custodian

State Street also serves as the cash custodian for the Trust. The Cash Custodian is responsible for safekeeping all cash and other non-ether assets of the Trust.

The Distributor

Fidelity Distributors Company LLC, an affiliate of the Sponsor (“FDC” or the “Distributor”), is responsible for reviewing and approving the marketing materials prepared by the Sponsor for compliance with applicable SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) advertising laws, rules, and regulations pursuant to a marketing agreement with the Trust. The principal business address of FDC is 900 Salem Street, Smithfield, RI 02917. FDC is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) and a member of FINRA.

Index Services

Fidelity Product Services LLC, an affiliate of the Sponsor, is responsible for oversight of the Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate. Coin Metrics, Inc. is the third-party, independent calculation agent for the Index.

Ether Trading Counterparties

The Trust’s Fees and Expenses

The Trust will pay the Sponsor an annual unified fee of 0.25% of the Trust’s Ether Holdings (the “Sponsor Fee”). The Trust’s “Ether Holdings” is the quantity of the Trust’s ether plus any cash or other assets held by the Trust represented in ether as calculated using the Index price, less its liabilities (which include estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses) represented in ether as calculated using the Index price. The Sponsor Fee is paid by the Trust to the Sponsor as compensation for services performed under the Trust Agreement. The Sponsor has agreed to waive the entire Sponsor Fee through December 31, 2024. The Administrator will calculate the Sponsor Fee in respect of each day by reference to the prior day’s Ether Holdings. Except for periods during which all or a portion of the Sponsor Fee is being waived, the Sponsor Fee will accrue daily in ether and be payable monthly in ether or cash. To the extent there are any on-chain transaction fees incurred in connection with the transfers of ether to pay the Sponsor Fee, the Sponsor, and not the Trust, shall bear such fees. The Sponsor may, at its sole discretion and from time to time, waive all or a portion of the Sponsor 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.

ordinary course, (iv) audit fees, (v) regulatory fees, including, if applicable, any fees relating to the registration of the Trust and Shares, including any ongoing filings related to the offering of Shares, under the 1933 Act or the 1934 Act, (vi) printing and mailing costs, (vii) costs of maintaining the Trust’s website and (viii) applicable license fees (each, a “Sponsor-paid Expense” and collectively, the “Sponsor-paid Expenses”), provided that any expense that qualifies as an Extraordinary Expense (as defined below) will not be deemed to be a Sponsor-paid Expense. There is no cap on the amount of Sponsor-paid Expenses. The Sponsor has also assumed all fees and expenses related to the organization and offering of the Trust and the Shares.

The Trust may incur certain extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses that are not Sponsor-paid Expenses, including, but not limited to, brokerage and transaction costs associated with the sale or transfer of ether, taxes and governmental charges, expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust, the Trust’s assets, or the interests of Shareholders, any indemnification of the Custodian 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 (collectively, “Extraordinary Expenses”). To the extent on-chain transaction fees are incurred in connection with transfers or sales of ether to pay Extraordinary Expenses, the Trust will bear such fees.

To the extent it does not have cash readily available, the Sponsor will cause the transfer or sale of ether in such quantity as may be necessary to permit the payment of Trust expenses and liabilities not assumed by the Sponsor or for payment of cash redemption proceeds to Authorized Participants. The Trust will seek to transfer or sell ether at such times and in the smallest amounts required to permit such payments as they become due. With respect to transfers or sales necessary to pay Trust expenses and liabilities that are denominated other than in ether, the amount of ether transferred or sold may vary from time to time depending on the actual sales price of ether relative to the Trust’s expenses and liabilities (e.g., if the price of ether falls, the amount of ether needed to be transferred or sold to pay an expense or liability denominated in U.S. dollars will increase). To the extent the Trust must buy or sell ether, the Trust may do so through a third-party digital asset broker or dealer. The Sponsor will select third party brokers or dealers that it believes have implemented adequate AML, KYC and other legal compliance policies and procedures.

Under the terms of each Authorized Participant Agreement, the Authorized Participants will be responsible for any brokerage or transaction costs associated with the sale or transfer of ether incurred in connection with the fulfillment of a creation or redemption order.

Custody of the Trust’s Assets

The Trust’s Custodian will maintain custody of all of the Trust’s ether, which will be held in a segregated account in the name of the Trust on the Custodian’s books and records. The Custodian will maintain the Trust’s ether in omnibus wallets along with the assets of other customers of the Custodian, and the Trust’s ether will be treated as fungible with the ether of other customers of the Custodian. The Trust’s ether will not be staked. A portion of the ether is held in hot storage, which requires private keys to be held online on the Custodian’s intranet, where they are more accessible and can be used for more efficient ether transfers. A majority of the ether held by the Custodian is held in offline (“cold”) storage, and the Custodian is solely responsible for managing the allocation of ether in hot and cold storage and does not publicly disclose what percentage of ether is held in cold storage. The Trust, as client of the Custodian, performs regular diligence of operational practices of the Custodian, including practices related to the allocation of assets held in cold or hot storage.

Within such omnibus hot and cold wallets, the Custodian has represented to the Sponsor that it keeps a substantial majority of assets in cold wallets (generally targeting greater than 98%), to promote security, while the balance of assets is kept in hot wallets to facilitate timely withdrawals. The Custodian has represented to the Sponsor that the percentage of assets maintained in cold versus hot storage including target percentages may change over time and is determined by ongoing risk analysis and market dynamics, in which the Custodian balances anticipated liquidity needs for its customers as a class against the anticipated greater security of cold storage. The Sponsor has no control over the percentage of ether that the Custodian maintains in omnibus cold wallets versus omnibus hot wallets.

Cold storage is a safeguarding method with multiple layers of protections and protocols, by which the private key(s) corresponding to the Trust’s ether is (are) generated and stored in an offline manner. When the Custodian transfers ether from cold storage to a hot wallet, it does so by sending ether over the Ethereum network. Private keys are generated on devices that are not and never have been connected to the internet so that they are resistant to being hacked. The Custodian has multiple, redundant cold storage sites, which are geographically distributed including sites within the United States. Cold storage locations of the Custodian are monitored by 24x7 on-site security, video surveillance and alarms, and hardened room structures, and access to these facilities is controlled by multi-person controls, multi-team access rules, and multi-factor authentication. The private keys related to the Trust’s ether are not accessible to any person or entity except the Custodian, including the Sponsor. The Sponsor and the Trust’s service providers will have the ability to verify the existence of the Trust’s ether through information provided from the Custodian.

Cold storage of private keys may involve keeping such keys on a non-networked computer or electronic device or storing the private keys on a storage device or printed medium and deleting the keys from all computers. The Custodian may receive deposits of ether but may not send ether without use of the corresponding private keys. Outbound ether transfers require cryptographic signing by the Custodian using private keys, which are protected using high standards of physical, cyber, and operational controls.

The Trust generally does not intend to hold cash or cash equivalents except for cash received from Authorized Participants in connection with a creation transaction or cash held by the Trust pending distribution to Authorized Participants in a redemption transaction or payment of Trust expenses. The Trust has entered into a custodian agreement (the “Cash Custody Agreement”) with the Cash Custodian under which the Cash Custodian acts as custodian of the Trust’s cash. The Trust is obligated to convert any cash contributed to ether as soon as practicable, except to the extent necessary for a redemption transaction or to pay expenses.

The Trust may change the custodial arrangements described in this Prospectus at any time without notice to Shareholders. To the extent a change in custodial arrangements is deemed material by the Sponsor, the Trust will notify Shareholders in a Prospectus supplement and/or a current report on Form 8-K or in its annual or quarterly reports.

The Shares

The Trust will issue Shares, which represent fractional undivided beneficial interests in and ownership of the Trust. Shares issued by the Trust will be registered in a book entry system and held in the name of Cede & Co. at the facilities of the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), and one or more global certificates issued by the Trust to DTC will evidence the Shares. Shareholders may hold their Shares through DTC if they are direct participants in DTC (“DTC Participants”) or indirectly through entities (such as broker-dealers) that are DTC Participants.

Net Asset Value

Net Asset Value means the total assets of the Trust including, but not limited to, all ether and cash less total liabilities of the Trust.

The Administrator determines the NAV of the Trust on each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading, as promptly as practical after 4:00 p.m. EST. The NAV of the Trust is the aggregate value of the Trust’s assets less its accrued but unpaid liabilities (which include accrued expenses). In determining the Trust’s NAV, the Administrator values the ether held by the Trust based on the price set by the Index as of 4:00 p.m. EST. The Administrator also determines the NAV per Share. For purposes of the Trust’s financial statements, the Trust will utilize a pricing source that is consistent with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), as of the financial statement measurement date, which may result in valuations that differ from the Trust’s daily NAV calculations. 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.

Plan of Distribution

The Trust is an exchange-traded product. When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in blocks of 25,000 Shares (a “Basket”) based on the quantity of ether attributable to each Share of the Trust (net of accrued but unpaid expenses and liabilities). For a subscription for Shares, the subscription shall be in the amount of cash needed to purchase the amount of ether represented by the Basket being created, as calculated by the Administrator. For a redemption of Shares, the Sponsor shall arrange for the ether represented by the Basket to be sold and the cash proceeds distributed. Authorized Participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares when they purchase Shares, and the Trust will deliver cash to such Authorized Participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. Further, Authorized Participants will not directly or indirectly purchase, hold, deliver, or receive ether as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Trust or a third party with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving ether as part of the creation or redemption process. Shares initially comprising the same Basket but offered by the Authorized Participants to the public at different times may have different offering prices, which depend on various factors, including the supply and demand for Shares, the value of the Trust’s assets, and market conditions at the time of a transaction. Shareholders who buy or sell Shares during the day from their broker may do so at a premium or discount relative to the NAV of the Shares of the Trust.

As of the date of this Prospectus, the Trust only creates and redeems Shares in exchange for cash. If the Trust were to create or redeem shares in exchange for ether, the Trust would first need to seek certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Exchange’s listing rules and an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement of which this Prospectus forms a part. There can be no guarantee that the Trust will be successful in obtaining such regulatory approvals, and the timing of any such approvals is unknown. If the Trust is successful in obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals to allow for creations and redemptions in-kind, the Trust will notify Shareholders in a Prospectus supplement and/or a current report on Form 8-K or in its annual or quarterly reports.

Federal Income Tax Considerations

It is expected that an owner of Shares will be treated, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as if they owned a proportionate share of the assets of the Trust. A shareholder will accordingly include in the computation of their taxable income their proportionate share of the income and expenses realized by the Trust. Each sale or other disposition of ether by the Trust (including, under current Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) guidance, the use of ether to pay expenses of the Trust) will give rise to gain or loss and will therefore constitute a taxable event for some or all of the Shareholders. See “United States Federal Income Tax Consequences—Taxation of U.S. Shareholders.”

Use of Proceeds

Proceeds received by the Trust from the issuance of Baskets consist of cash. Deposits of cash are held by the Cash Custodian on behalf of the Trust until (i) transferred in connection with the purchase of ether, (ii) delivered out in connection with redemptions of Baskets or (iii) transferred to pay fees due to the Sponsor and Trust expenses and liabilities not assumed by the Sponsor.

When the Trust uses cash proceeds from creation transactions to purchase ether, the Trust will receive ether from a third party that is not an Authorized Participant. The Trust—not any Authorized Participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to deliver the ether. Furthermore, the third party will not be acting as an agent of any Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the ether to the Trust or acting at the direction of any Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the ether to the Trust. The Trust will redeem Shares by delivering ether to a third party that is not an Authorized Participant. The Trust—not any Authorized Participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to receive the ether. In addition, the third party will not be acting as an agent of any Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the ether from the Trust or acting at the direction of any Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the ether from the Trust. The third party will be unaffiliated with the Trust and the Sponsor.

Emerging Growth Company

The Trust is an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”). For as long as the Trust is an emerging growth company, unlike other public companies, it will not be required to, among other things: (i) provide an auditor’s attestation report on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its system of internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; or (ii) comply with any new audit rules adopted by the PCAOB after April 5, 2012, unless the SEC determines otherwise.

The Trust will cease to be an “emerging growth company” upon the earliest of (i) its having $1.235 billion or more in annual revenues, (ii) at least $700 million in market value of Shares being held by non-affiliates, (iii) its issuing more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period or (iv) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of its initial public offering.

In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”) for complying with new or revised accounting standards. In other words, an emerging growth company can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. The Trust intends to take advantage of the benefits of the extended transition period.

ETHER, ETHER MARKETS AND REGULATION OF ETHER

This section of the Prospectus provides a more detailed description of ether, including information about the historical development of ether, how a person holds ether; how to use ether in transactions; how to trade ether; the spot markets where ether can be bought, held and sold; and the ether OTC market and the proof-of-stake concept.

Ether and the Ethereum Network

Ether is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the Ethereum peer-to-peer network and associated blockchain ledger (the “Ethereum blockchain” and together the “Ethereum network”), a network of computers, known as nodes, that operates on cryptographic computer-code based logic, called a protocol. No single entity owns or operates the Ethereum network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a distributed user base, a phenomenon known as decentralization. Ether is not issued by governments, banks or any other centralized authority. The Ethereum network allows people to exchange tokens of value, called ether, which are recorded on a public transaction ledger known as the Ethereum blockchain. Ether can be used to pay for goods and services, including computational power on the Ethereum network, or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on digital asset exchanges or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system.

The Ethereum network allows users to write and implement computer programs called smart contracts—that is, general-purpose code that executes on every computer in the network and can instruct the transmission of information and value based on a sophisticated set of logical conditions. Using smart contracts, users can create markets, store registries of debts or promises, represent the ownership of property, move funds in accordance with conditional instructions and create digital assets other than ether on the Ethereum network. Smart contract operations are executed on the Ethereum blockchain in exchange for payment of ether. The Ethereum network is one of a number of projects intended to expand blockchain use beyond just a peer-to-peer money system.

The Ethereum network is commonly understood to be decentralized and does not require governmental authorities or financial institution intermediaries to create, transmit or determine the value of ether. Rather, following the initial distribution of ether, ether is created, burned and allocated by the Ethereum network protocol through a process that is currently subject to an issuance and burn rate as further described under “Limits on Ether Supply” below. The value of ether is determined by the supply of and demand for ether on the digital asset exchanges or in private end-user-to-end-user transactions. There is no hard cap which would limit the number of outstanding ether at any one time to a predetermined maximum.

New ether are created and rewarded to the validators of a block in the Ethereum blockchain for verifying transactions. The Ethereum blockchain is effectively a decentralized database that includes all blocks that have been validated and it is updated to include new blocks as they are validated. Each ether transaction is broadcast to the Ethereum network and, when included in a block, recorded in the Ethereum blockchain. As each new block records outstanding ether transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Ethereum blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions of the Ethereum network. For further details, see “Creation of New Ether.”

History of Ethereum

The Ethereum network was originally described in a 2013 white paper by Vitalik Buterin, a programmer involved with bitcoin, with the goal of creating a peer-to-peer, open-source network enabling users to create so-called decentralized applications powered by smart contracts, which are general-purpose code that executes on the Ethereum network. By combining the Ethereum blockchain with a flexible scripting language that is designed to be capable of implementing sophisticated logic and to execute a wide variety of instructions, the Ethereum network was designed to act as a programmable infrastructure layer that would enable users to create their own rules for ownership, transaction formats and state transition functions that they could build into custom software programs of their own creation. The formal development of the Ethereum network began through a Swiss firm called Ethereum Switzerland GmbH (“EthSuisse”) in conjunction with several other entities. Subsequently, the Ethereum Foundation, a Swiss non-profit organization, was set up to oversee the Ethereum network protocol’s development. The Ethereum network went live on July 30, 2015. Decentralized applications may be controlled by a single user or small group. See “Risk Factors-Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets.” 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.”

Ether is the digital asset that powers the Ethereum network and serves as the network’s native unit of account that is used to pay the “gas” fees needed to power decentralized applications and smart contracts and execute transactions. Unlike other digital assets, such as bitcoin, which are solely created through a progressive mining process, 72.0 million ether were created in connection with the launch of the Ethereum network. For additional information on the initial distribution, see “Creation of New Ether.” Coinciding with the network launch, it was decided that EthSuisse would be dissolved, designating the Ethereum Foundation as the sole organization dedicated to protocol development.

Smart Contracts and Development on the Ethereum Network

Smart contracts are programs that run on a blockchain that can execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Smart contracts facilitate the exchange of anything representative of value, such as money, information, property, or voting rights. Using smart contracts, users can send or receive digital assets, create markets, store registries of debts or promises, represent ownership of property or a company, move funds in accordance with conditional instructions and create new digital assets.

Development on the Ethereum network involves building more complex tools on top of smart contracts, such as decentralized applications (“DApps”); organizations that are autonomous, known as decentralized autonomous organizations (“DAOs”); and entirely new decentralized networks. For example, a company that distributes charitable donations on behalf of users could hold donated funds in smart contracts that are paid to charities only if the charity satisfies certain pre-defined conditions.

The Ethereum network has also been used as a platform for creating new digital assets and conducting their associated initial coin offerings. As of June 30, 2024, it is believed that a majority of digital assets not issued as the native token on their own blockchains were built on the Ethereum network, with such assets representing a significant amount of the total market value of all digital assets.

More recently, the Ethereum network has been used for DeFi or open finance platforms, which seek to democratize access to financial services, such as borrowing, lending, custody, trading, derivatives and insurance, by removing third-party intermediaries. DeFi can allow users to lend and earn interest on their digital assets, exchange one digital asset for another and create derivative digital assets such as algorithmic stablecoins, which are digital assets pegged to a reserve asset such as fiat currency. Over the first half of 2024, between $29.4 billion and $66.9 billion worth of digital assets were locked up as collateral on DeFi platforms on the Ethereum network.

In addition, the Ethereum network and other smart contract platforms have been used for creating non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”). Unlike digital assets native to smart contract platforms which are fungible and enable the payment of fees for smart contract execution, NFTs allow for digital ownership of assets that convey certain rights to other digital or real world assets. This new paradigm allows users to own rights to other assets through NFTs, which enable users to trade them with others on the Ethereum network. For example, an NFT may convey rights to a digital asset that exists in an online game or a DApp, and users can trade their NFT in the DApp or game, and carry them to other digital experiences, creating an entirely new free-market internet-native economy that can be monetized in the physical world.

The DAO and Ethereum Classic

In July 2016, the Ethereum network experienced what is referred to as a permanent hard fork that resulted in two different versions of its blockchain: Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.

In April 2016, a blockchain solutions company known as Slock announced the launch of a decentralized autonomous organization, known as “The DAO” on the Ethereum network. The DAO was designed as a decentralized crowdfunding model, in which anyone could contribute ether to The DAO in order to become a voting member and equity stakeholder in the organization. Members of The DAO could then make proposals about different projects to pursue and put them to a vote. By committing to profitable projects, members would be rewarded based on the terms of a smart contract and their proportional interest in The DAO. As of May 27, 2016, $150 million, or approximately 14% of all ether outstanding, was contributed to, and invested in, The DAO.

On June 17, 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited The DAO’s smart contract code to siphon approximately $60 million, or 3.6 million ether, into a segregated account. Upon the news of the breach, the price of ether was quickly cut in half as investors liquidated their holdings and members of the Ethereum community worked to determine a solution.

In the days that followed, several attempts were made to retrieve the stolen funds and secure the Ethereum network. However, it soon became apparent that direct interference with the protocol (i.e., a hard fork) would be necessary. The argument for the hard fork was that it would create an entirely new version of the Ethereum blockchain, erasing any record of the theft, and restoring the stolen funds to their original owners. The counterargument was that it would be antithetical to the core principle of immutability of the Ethereum blockchain.

The decision as to whether or not to hard fork the Ethereum blockchain was put to a vote of Ethereum community members. A majority of votes were cast in favor of a hard fork. On July 15, 2016, a hard fork specification was implemented by the Ethereum Foundation. On July 20, 2016, the Ethereum network completed the hard fork, and a new version of the blockchain, without recognition of the theft, was born.

Many believed that after the hard fork the original version of the Ethereum blockchain would dissipate entirely. However, a group of validators continued to mine the original Ethereum blockchain for philosophical and economic reasons. On July 20, 2016, the original Ethereum protocol was rebranded as “Ethereum Classic,” and its native token as ether classic (ETC), preserving the untampered transaction history (including the theft involving The DAO). Following the hard fork of Ethereum, each holder of ether automatically received an equivalent number of ETC tokens.

Overview of the Ethereum Network’s Operations

In order to own, transfer or use ether directly on the Ethereum network on a peer-to-peer basis (as opposed to through an intermediary, such as a custodian or centralized exchange), a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Ethereum network. Ether transactions may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary. To prevent the possibility of double-spending ether, a user must notify the Ethereum

network of the transaction by broadcasting the transaction data to its network peers. The Ethereum network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every peer-to-peer transaction in the Ethereum blockchain, which is publicly accessible and transparent. This memorialization and verification against double-spending of peer-to-peer transactions is accomplished through the Ethereum network validation process, which adds “blocks” of data, including recent transaction information, to the Ethereum blockchain.

Summary of an Ether Transaction

A “transaction request” refers to a request to the Ethereum network made by a user, in which the requesting user (the “sender”) asks the Ethereum network to send some ether or execute some code. A “transaction” refers to a fulfilled transaction request and the associated change in the Ethereum network’s state. 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, such as a mobile phone, running an individual Ethereum Client that is connected to other computers also running their own Ethereum Clients, which collectively form the Ethereum network. Nodes can be full nodes (meaning they host a local copy of the entire Ethereum blockchain) or light nodes, which only host a local copy of a sub-portion of the full Ethereum blockchain with reduced data. Nodes may (but do not have to) be validators, which requires them to download an additional piece of software in the node’s Ethereum Client and stake a certain amount of ether, which is discussed below.

Any user can broadcast a transaction request to the Ethereum network from a node located on the network. A user can run their own node, or they can connect to a node operated by others. For the transaction request to actually result in a change to the current state of the Ethereum network, it must be validated, executed, and “committed to the network” by another node (specifically, a validator node). Execution of the transaction request by the validator results in a change to the Ethereum network’s state once the transaction is broadcast to all other nodes across the Ethereum network. Transactions can include, for example, sending ether from one account to another, as discussed below; publishing a new smart contract onto the Ethereum network; or activating and executing the code of an existing smart contract, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the sender’s transaction request.

The Ethereum blockchain can be thought of as a ledger recording a history of transactions and the balances associated with individual accounts, each of which has an address on the Ethereum network. An Ethereum network account can be used to store ether. There are two types of Ethereum accounts: “externally owned accounts,” which are controlled by a private key, and “smart contract accounts,” which are controlled by their own code. Externally owned accounts are controlled by users, do not contain executable code, and are associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair, commonly referred to as a “wallet,” with the private key being used to execute transactions. Smart contract accounts contain, and are controlled by, their own executable code: every time the smart contract account receives a transaction from, or is “called” by, another user, the smart contract account’s code activates, allowing it to read and write to internal storage, send ether, or perform other operations. Both externally owned accounts and smart contract accounts can be used to send, hold, or receive ether, and both can interact with other smart contracts. However, only externally owned accounts have the power to initiate transactions; smart contract accounts can only send transactions of their own after they are first activated or called by another transaction. An externally owned account is associated with both a public address on the Ethereum network and a private key, while a smart contract account is only associated with a public address. While a smart contract account does not use a private key to authorize transactions, including transfers of ether, the developer of a smart contract may hold an “admin key” to the smart contract account, or have special access privileges, allowing the developer to make changes to the smart contract, enable or disable features on the smart contract, or change how the smart contract receives external inputs and data, among others.

Accounts depend on nodes to access the peer-to-peer Ethereum network. Through the node’s Ethereum Client, a user’s Ethereum wallet and its associated Ethereum network address enable the user to connect to the Ethereum network and transfer ether to, and receive ether from, other users, and interact with smart contracts, on a peer-to-peer basis. A user with an externally owned account can run their own node (and their own Ethereum Client) and connect that node to their Ethereum wallet, allowing them to make transactions from their Ethereum wallet on the Ethereum network, or a user’s wallet can connect to third-party nodes operated as a service (e.g., Infura) and access the Ethereum network that way. Multiple accounts can access the Ethereum network through one node.

Each user’s Ethereum wallet is associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair. To receive ether in a peer-to-peer transaction, the ether recipient must provide its public key to the sender. This activity is analogous to a recipient for a transaction in U.S. dollars providing a routing address in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient’s account. The sender approves the transfer to the address provided by the recipient by “signing” a transaction that consists of the recipient’s public key with the private key of the address from which the sender is transferring the ether. The recipient, however, does not make public or provide to the sender the recipient’s related private key, only its public key.

Neither the recipient nor the sender reveal their private keys in a peer-to-peer transaction because the private key authorizes transfer of the funds in that address to other users. Therefore, if a user loses their private key, the user may permanently lose access to the ether contained in the associated address. Likewise, ether is irretrievably lost if the private key associated with them is deleted and no backup has been made. When sending ether, a user’s Ethereum wallet must sign the transaction with the sender’s associated private key. In addition, since every computation on the Ethereum network requires processing power, there is a mandatory transaction fee involved with the transfer that is paid by the sender to the Ethereum network itself (“base fee”), plus additional transaction fees the sender can elect (or not) to pay at their discretion to the validators who validate their transaction (“tip”). The resulting digitally signed transaction is sent by the user’s Ethereum wallet, via a node (whether run by the user or operated by others), to other Ethereum network nodes, who in turn broadcast it on a peer-to-peer basis to validators to allow transaction confirmation.

Ethereum network validators record and confirm transactions when they validate and add blocks of information to the Ethereum blockchain. Validators operate through nodes whose Ethereum Clients have an extra piece of software that permits the node to perform validation transactions. In a proof-of-stake consensus protocol like that used by the Ethereum network, validators are randomly selected to validate transactions. A validator must stake 32 ether to become a validator, which allows it to activate a unique validator key pair (consisting of a public and private validator key). Each 32 ether that is staked results in issuance of a validator key pair, meaning that multiple validators can operate through a single validator node (including a validator node operated by a third party as a service). Validators generally both propose blocks (“proposers”) and participate in a committee that approves the block (“attesters”). Validators are selected based on a random process. A single person or entity running a group of validators does not gain an advantage in any one of their validators being selected. Further, an ether balance less than 32 ether (implying a slashing or inactivity leak penalty) will reduce the probability of being selected providing a bias to the better performing validators and good actors. A single person or entity can increase the numerical chances that any of their validators will be randomly selected by staking ether over multiple validators. When a validator is randomly selected by the protocol’s algorithm to propose a block, it submits a proposal for the block to be committed to the blockchain subject to completion of validation by other validators on the network, which includes data relating to (i) the verification of newly submitted transaction requests submitted by senders and (ii) a reference to the prior block in the Ethereum blockchain to which the new block is being added. The proposing validator becomes aware of outstanding transaction requests through peer-to-peer data packet transmission and distribution enforced by the Ethereum protocol rules, which connects the proposer to users who want transactions recorded. If, once created, the proposing validator’s block is confirmed by a committee of randomly selected attesters, the block is committed to the Ethereum network and added to the Ethereum blockchain. Any smart contract code that has been called by the transaction request is also executed (provided the base fee is paid for the Ethereum network’s computational power associated with executing the code, and up to the amount of the base fee). Upon the addition of a block included in the Ethereum blockchain, an adjustment to the ether balance in both the sender’s and the recipient’s Ethereum network public key will occur, completing the ether transaction. Once a transaction is confirmed on the Ethereum blockchain, it is irreversible.

As a reward for their services in adding the block to the Ethereum blockchain, the proposing validators receive redistributed ether (i.e., “tips”) and the attesting validators receive newly minted ether. If the proposing validator’s block is determined by the approving validator committee to be faulty or to break protocol rules, the proposer is penalized by having their staked ether reduced. Validators can also be penalized for attesting to transactions that break protocol rules or are inconsistent with the majority of other validators, or for inactivity or missing attestations that the Ethereum network protocol assigned to them. In extreme cases, a proposing or attesting validator can be “slashed”, meaning forcibly ejected by other validators, with their staked ether continuously drained, potentially up to the loss of their entire stake. In this way, the Ethereum network attempts to reduce double-spend and other attacks by validators and incentivize validator integrity.

Some ether transactions are conducted “off-blockchain” and are therefore not recorded in the Ethereum blockchain. Some “off-blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of ownership of a specific digital wallet holding ether or the reallocation of ownership of certain ether in a pooled-ownership digital wallet, such as a digital wallet owned by a digital asset exchange. If a transaction takes place through a centralized digital asset exchange or a custodian’s internal books and records, it is not broadcast to the Ethereum network or recorded on the Ethereum blockchain. In contrast to on-blockchain transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Ethereum blockchain, information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. Therefore, off-blockchain transactions are not peer-to-peer ether transactions in that they do not involve a transaction on the Ethereum network and do not reflect a movement of ether between addresses recorded in the Ethereum blockchain. For these reasons, off-blockchain transactions are not immutable or irreversible as any such transfer of ether ownership is not cryptographically protected by the protocol behind the Ethereum network or recorded in, and validated through, the blockchain mechanism.

Ether Markets and Exchanges

Ether spot markets hosted on centralized venues typically permit investors to open accounts with the market and then purchase and sell ether via websites or through mobile applications. Prices for trades on ether spot markets are typically reported publicly. In general, an investor opening a trading account on such a venue must deposit an accepted government-issued currency into its account with the spot market, or a previously acquired digital asset, before they can purchase or sell assets on the spot market. The process of establishing an account with an ether market and trading ether is different from, and should not be confused with, the process of users sending ether from one ether address to another ether address on the Ethereum network. This latter process is an activity that occurs on the Ethereum network, while the former is an activity that occurs entirely within the order book operated by the spot market. The spot market typically records the investor’s ownership of ether in its internal books and records, rather than on the Ethereum blockchain. The spot market ordinarily does not transfer ether to the investor on the Ethereum blockchain unless the investor makes a request to the exchange to withdraw the ether in its exchange account to an off-exchange ether wallet.

Outside of the spot markets, ether can be traded OTC. The OTC market is largely institutional in nature, and OTC market participants generally consist of institutional entities, such as firms that offer two-sided liquidity for ether, investment managers, proprietary trading firms, high-net-worth individuals that trade ether on a proprietary basis, entities with sizable ether holdings and family offices. The OTC market provides a relatively flexible market in terms of quotes, price, quantity, and other factors, although it tends to involve large blocks of ether. The OTC market has no formal structure and no open-outcry meeting place. Parties engaging in OTC transactions will agree upon a price—often via chat or voice—and then one of the two parties will initiate the transaction. For example, a seller of ether could initiate the transaction by sending the ether to the buyer’s Ethereum network address. The buyer would then wire U.S. dollars to the seller’s bank account. OTC trades are sometimes hedged and eventually settled with accompanying trades on ether spot markets.

In addition, ether futures and options trading occurs on exchanges in the United States regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”). The market for CFTC-regulated trading of ether derivatives has developed substantially. Ether futures on the CME (“CME Ether Futures”) traded around $9.71 billion per month in the one year ending June 30, 2024 and represented around $18.36 billion in open interest per month.

Creation of New Ether

Initial Creation of Ether

Unlike other digital assets, such as bitcoin, which are solely created through a progressive mining process, 72.0 million ether were created in connection with the launch of the Ethereum network. The initial 72.0 million ether were distributed as follows:

Initial Distribution: 60.0 million ether, or 83.33% of the supply, was sold to the public in a crowd sale conducted between July and August 2014 that raised approximately $18 million.

Ethereum Foundation: 6.0 million ether, or 8.33% of the supply, was distributed to the Ethereum Foundation for operational costs.

Ethereum Developers: 3.0 million ether, or 4.17% of the supply, was distributed to developers who contributed to the Ethereum network.

Developer Purchase Program: 3.0 million ether, or 4.17% of the supply, was distributed to members of the Ethereum Foundation to purchase at the initial crowd sale price.

Following the launch of the Ethereum network, ether supply initially increased through a progressive validation process. Following the introduction of EIP-1559, described below, the ether supply and issuance rate has varied based on factors such as recent use of the network.

Proof-of-Work Validation Process

Prior to September 2022, Ethereum operated using a proof-of-work consensus mechanism. Under proof-of-work, in order to incentivize those who incurred the computational costs of securing the network by validating transactions, there was a reward given to the computer (under proof-of-work, validators were known as “miners”) that was able to create the latest block on the chain. Every 12 seconds, on average, a new block was added to the Ethereum blockchain with the latest transactions processed by the network, and the miner that generated this block was awarded a variable amount of ether, depending on use of the network at the time. In certain validation scenarios, ether was sometimes sent to another miner if they were also able to find a solution but their block was not included. This is referred to as an “uncle/aunt reward.” Due to the nature of the algorithm for block generation, this process (generating a “proof-of-work”) was guaranteed to be random. Prior to the Merge upgrade, described below, miners on the Ethereum network engaged in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Ethereum blockchain and thereby confirm ether transactions included in that block’s data.

Proof-of-Stake Process

In the second half of 2020, the Ethereum network began the first of several stages of an upgrade that was initially known as “Ethereum 2.0.” and eventually became known as the “Merge” to transition the Ethereum network from a proof-of-work consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. The Merge was completed on September 15, 2022, and the Ethereum network has operated on a proof-of-stake model since such time.

Unlike proof-of-work, in which validators expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, in proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of coins staked. Any malicious activity, such as validating multiple blocks, disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a portion of the staked coins. Proof-of-stake is believed by some to be more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work. Every 12 seconds, approximately, a new block is added to the Ethereum blockchain with the latest transactions processed by the network, and the validator that generated this block is awarded ether.

Limits on Ether Supply

The rate at which new ether are issued and put into circulation is expected to vary. In September 2022 the Ethereum network converted from proof-of-work to a new proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. Following the Merge, approximately 1,700 ether are issued per day, though the issuance rate varies based on factors such as recent use of the network. In addition, the issuance of new ether could be partially or completely offset by the burn mechanism introduced by the EIP-1559 modification, under which ether are removed from supply at a rate that varies with network usage. See “Modifications to the Ethereum Protocol.” On occasion, the ether supply has been deflationary over a 24-hour period as a result of the burn mechanism. The attributes of the new consensus algorithm are subject to change but, in sum, the new consensus algorithm and related modifications reduced total new ether issuances and could turn the ether supply deflationary over the long term.

As of June 30, 2024, the current circulating supply of ether is estimated to be around 120.19 million coins.

Modifications to the Ethereum Protocol

The Ethereum network is an open-source project with no official developer or group of developers that controls it. However, historically the Ethereum network’s development has been overseen by the Ethereum Foundation and other core developers. The Ethereum Foundation and core developers are able to access and alter the Ethereum network source code and, as a result, they are responsible for quasi-official releases of updates and other changes to the Ethereum network’s source code. However, the release of proposed updates to the Ethereum network’s source code by core developers does not guarantee that the updates will be adopted. Nodes must accept any changes made to the Ethereum source code by choosing to download the proposed modification of the Ethereum network’s source code in their individual Ethereum Client, and ultimately a critical mass (in practice, a substantial majority) of validators and users—such as DApp and smart contract developers, as well as 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. 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. If a modification is accepted by less than a substantial majority of users and validators, a division in the Ethereum network will occur such that one network will run the pre-modification source code and the other network will run the modified source code. Such a division is known as a “fork.” See “Risk Factors-Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets—A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect an investment in the Shares.” Consequently, as a practical matter, a modification to the source code becomes part of the Ethereum network only if accepted by a sufficiently broad cross-section of the Ethereum network’s participants.

For example, in 2019 the Ethereum network completed a network upgrade called Metropolis that was designed to enhance the usability of the Ethereum network and was introduced in two stages. The first stage, called Byzantium, was implemented in October 2017. The purpose of Byzantium was to increase the network’s privacy, security, and scalability and reduce the block reward for validators (at that time, validators on the proof-of-work consensus version of Ethereum were known as “miners”) who created new blocks in proof-of-work consensus from 5.0 ether to 3.0 ether. The second stage, called Constantinople, was implemented in February 2019, along with another upgrade, called St. Petersburg. Another network upgrade, called Istanbul, was implemented in December 2019. The purpose of Istanbul was to make the network more resistant to denial of service attacks, enable greater ether and Zcash interoperability as well as other Equihash-based proof-of-work digital assets, and to increase the scalability and performance for solutions on zero-knowledge privacy technology like SNARKs and STARKs. The purpose of these upgrades was to prepare the Ethereum network for the introduction of a proof-of-stake algorithm and reduce the block reward from 3.0 ether to 2.0 ether.

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, which has been discussed for years, 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 that would rely on handling the bulk of computational work relating to transactions or smart contracts and decentralized applications (“DApps”) outside of the main Ethereum network and Ethereum blockchain, has caused alternatives to sharding to emerge. “Layer 2” is a collective term for solutions that 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 blockchain and then post the data, typically in batches, back to the Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain 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). 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 blockchain (the transaction opening the state channel, and the transaction closing the channel); and “side chains,” in which an entire Layer 2 blockchain network with capabilities similar to those of the existing Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain runs in parallel with the existing Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain and allows smart contracts and DApps to run on the Layer 2 side chain without burdening the main Layer 1 network. To date, the Ethereum network community has not coalesced overwhelmingly around any particular Layer 2 solution, though this could change.

Apart from solutions designed to address scalability challenges, there have been other upgrades as well. In 2021, the Ethereum network implemented the EIP-1559 upgrade. EIP-1559 changed the methodology used to calculate the fees paid to validators. EIP 1559 resulted in the splitting of fees into two components: a base fee and tip. Ether used to pay the base fee is as a result of EIP 1559 removed from circulation, or “burnt,” and the tip is paid to validators. EIP-1559 has reduced the total net issuance of ether fees to validators. Future updates may impact the supply of or demand for ether or its price. On March 13, 2024, the Ethereum network underwent a planned fork called “Dencun” 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 introducing a temporary storage solution, called Binary Large Objects (“blobs”), which is expected to reduce the cost of recording batched transactions on the Ethereum Network. Operators of Layer 2 blockchains now have a choice of using two types of data storage: as temporary blob space stored for 4096 epochs (approximately 18 days) or as permanent smart contract call data. Because the data is pruned from the Ethereum Network new service providers are likely to emerge which store the historical blob data beyond the pruning period. As expected, and immediately following the upgrade, some Layer 2s reported reduced gas fees when batching transactions to the Ethereum network which in turn lowered the transaction costs on the Layer 2. As with any change to software code, planned forks such as Dencun could introduce bugs, coding defects, unanticipated or undiscovered problems, flaws, security risks, or problematic incentive structures, or such planned forks could 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.

The Trust’s activities will not directly relate to scalability or upgrade projects, though such projects may potentially increase demand for ether and the utility of the Ethereum network as a whole. Conversely, if they are unsuccessful or they cause users or application or smart contract developers to migrate away from the Ethereum blockchain, demand for ether could potentially be reduced. Also, projects that operate and are built within the Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain and network may increase the data flow on the Ethereum network and could either “bloat” the size of the Ethereum blockchain or slow confirmation times.

Forms of Attack Against the Ethereum Network

All networked systems are vulnerable to various kinds of attacks. As with any computer network, the Ethereum network contains certain flaws. For example, the Ethereum network is currently vulnerable to a “51% attack” where, if a validator or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 50% of the staked ether, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the network and the ability to manipulate the Ethereum blockchain. As of the date of this Prospectus, the top three largest staking pools controlled nearly 50% of the ether staked on the Ethereum network.

In addition, many digital asset networks have been subjected to a number of denial of service attacks, which have led to temporary delays in block creation and in the transfer of Ethereum. Any similar attacks on the Ethereum network that impact the ability to transfer ether could have a material adverse effect on the price of ether and the value of the Shares.

This is not intended as an exhaustive list of all forms of attack against the Ethereum network. For additional information, see the “Risk Factors” section of this Prospectus.

Market Participants

Validators

In proof-of-stake, validators risk or stake coins to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded for performing their responsibilities and behaving in accordance with protocol rules. Malfunctions that cause validators to go offline and, in turn, inhibit them from performing their duties can result in financial penalties (e.g., inactivity leak). Any malicious activity, such as proposing multiple blocks for the same slot, making incorrect attestations or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the penalization or slashing of staked coins and forced exit from performing validator duties. The penalty varies depending on the type of offense and correlation to potential offenses by other validators.

Validators range from Ethereum enthusiasts to professional operations that design and build dedicated machines and data centers. On the Ethereum network, a validator must stake 32 ether in order to participate in maintaining the network. Once consensus is reached, the participating validator receives newly issued ETH as part of their consensus rewards and the priority fee as part of their execution rewards. The priority fee represents one of two components of the transaction fee. The second component is the base fee, which makes up the vast majority of the transaction fees paid by users and is not received by validators, but is instead taken out of circulation, or burnt. The base fee and the priority fee both fluctuate with network usership.

Investment and Speculative Sector

This sector includes the investment and trading activities of both private and professional investors and speculators. Historically, larger financial services institutions are publicly reported to have limited involvement in investment and trading in digital assets, although the participation landscape is beginning to change. Currently, there is relatively limited use of digital assets in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively extensive use by speculators, and a significant portion of demand for digital assets is generated by speculators and investors seeking to profit from the short- or long-term holding of digital assets.

Retail Sector

The retail sector includes users transacting in direct peer-to-peer ether transactions through the direct sending of ether over the Ethereum network. The retail sector also includes transactions in which consumers pay for goods or services from commercial or service businesses through direct transactions or third-party service providers, although the use of ether as a means of payment is still developing and has not been accepted in the same manner as bitcoin due to ether’s relative nascency and because ether has a generally different purpose than bitcoin.

Service Sector

This sector includes companies that provide a variety of services including the buying, selling, payment processing and storing of ether. For example, Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp, Gemini, and LMAX Digital are some of the largest digital asset exchanges by volume traded. As the Ethereum network continues to grow in acceptance, it is anticipated that service providers will expand the currently available range of services and that additional parties will enter the service sector for the Ethereum network.

Competition

As of June 30, 2024, more than 10,000 other digital assets, as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com, have been developed since the inception of bitcoin, which is currently the most developed digital asset because of the length of time it has been in existence, the investment in the infrastructure that supports it, and the network of individuals and entities that are using bitcoin in transactions. While ether has enjoyed some success in its limited history, the aggregate value of outstanding ether is smaller than that of bitcoin and may be eclipsed by the more rapid development of other digital assets. In addition, while ether was the first digital asset with a network that served as a smart contracts platform, newer digital assets also function as smart contracts platforms, including Solana, Avalanche and Cardano. Some industry groups are also creating private, permissioned blockchain versions of Ethereum.

Government Oversight, Though Increasing, Remains Limited

As digital assets have grown in both popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), SEC, CFTC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS and state financial institution and securities regulators) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset markets, with particular focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities or fund criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness of exchanges or other service providers that hold or custody digital assets for users. Many of these state and federal agencies have issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. On March 9, 2022, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets (the “Executive Order”) asserting that technological advances and the rapid growth of the digital asset markets “necessitate an evaluation and alignment of the United States Government approach to digital assets,” which signals an ongoing focus on digital asset policy and regulation in the United States. A number of reports issued pursuant to the Executive Order

focused on various risks related to the digital asset ecosystem and recommended additional legislation and regulatory oversight. In addition, federal and state agencies and other countries and international bodies have issued rules or guidance about the treatment of digital asset transactions or requirements for businesses engaged in digital asset activity.

In addition, the SEC, U.S. state securities regulators and several foreign governments have issued warnings and instituted legal proceedings in which they argue that certain digital assets may be classified as securities and that both those digital assets and any related initial coin offerings are subject to securities regulations. The outcomes of these proceedings, as well as ongoing and future regulatory actions may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate. Additionally, U.S. state and federal as well as foreign regulators and legislatures have taken action against virtual currency businesses or enacted restrictive regimes in response to adverse publicity arising from hacks, consumer harm, or criminal activity stemming from virtual currency activity.

The CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the ether futures markets. In addition, because the CFTC has determined that ether is a “commodity” under the CEA and the rules thereunder, it has jurisdiction to prosecute fraud and manipulation in the cash, or spot, market for ether. The CFTC has pursued enforcement actions relating to fraud and manipulation involving ether and ether markets. Beyond instances of fraud or manipulation, the CFTC generally does not oversee cash or spot market exchanges or transactions involving ether that do not use collateral, leverage, or financing.

On February 8, 2021, the CME, a designated contract market (“DCM”) registered with the CFTC launched new contracts for ether futures products. DCMs are boards of trades (or exchanges) that operate under the regulatory oversight of the CFTC, pursuant to Section 5 of the Commodity Exchange Act. To obtain and maintain designation as a DCM, an exchange must comply on an initial and ongoing basis with twenty-three Core Principles established in Section 5(d) of the CEA. Among other things, a DCM is required to establish self- regulatory programs designed to enforce the DCM’s rules, prevent market manipulation and customer and market abuses, and ensure the recording and safe storage of trade information. The CFTC engaged in a “heightened review” of the self-certification of ether futures, which required DCMs to enter direct or indirect information sharing agreements with spot market platforms to allow access to trade and trader data; to monitor data from cash markets with respect to price settlements and other ether prices more broadly, and identify anomalies and disproportionate moves in the cash markets compared to the futures markets; to engage in inquiries, including at the trade settlement level when necessary; and agree to regular coordination with CFTC surveillance staff on trade activities, including providing the CFTC surveillance team with trade settlement data upon request.

Various foreign jurisdictions have adopted, and may continue in the near future to adopt, laws, regulations or directives that affect a digital asset network, the digital asset markets, and their users, particularly digital asset exchanges and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example:

•

China has made transacting in cryptocurrencies illegal for Chinese citizens in mainland China, and additional restrictions may follow. China has banned initial coin offerings and there have been reports that Chinese regulators have taken action to shut down a number of China-based digital asset exchanges.

•

South Korea determined to amend its Financial Information Act in March 2020 to require virtual asset service providers to register and comply with its AML and counter-terrorism funding framework. These measures also provide the government with the authority to close digital asset exchanges that do not comply with specified processes. South Korea has also banned initial coin offerings.

•

The Reserve Bank of India in April 2018 banned the entities it regulates from providing services to any individuals or business entities dealing with or settling digital assets. In March 2020, this ban was overturned in the Indian Supreme Court, although the Reserve Bank of India is currently challenging this ruling.

•

The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority published final rules in October 2020 banning the sale of derivatives and exchange traded notes that reference certain types of digital assets, contending that they are “ill-suited” to retail investors citing extreme volatility, valuation challenges and association with financial crime. A new bill, the Financial Services and Markets Bill (“FSMB”), made its way through the House of Commons and the House of Lords and become law following approval from King Charles III in late 2023. The FSMB would bring digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets.

•

The European Council of the European Union approved the text of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”) in October 2022, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. MiCA is intended to serve as a comprehensive regulation of digital asset markets and imposes various obligations on digital asset issuers and service providers. The main aims of MiCA are industry regulation, consumer protection, prevention of market abuse and upholding the integrity of digital asset markets. MiCA passed the European Parliament in April 2023 and comes into full effect in 2024.

•

There remains significant uncertainty regarding foreign governments’ future actions with respect to the regulation of digital assets and digital asset exchanges. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of ether by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the Ethereum ecosystem in the United States and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of ether held by the Trust. The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or the ether held by the Trust is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.

RISK FACTORS

You should consider carefully the risks described below before making an investment decision. You should also refer to the other information included in this Prospectus, as well as information found in documents incorporated by reference in this Prospectus before you decide to purchase any Shares. These risk factors may be amended, supplemented or superseded from time to time by risk factors contained in any periodic report, Prospectus supplement, post-effective amendment or in other reports filed with the SEC in the future.

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.

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 2017, followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2018 in digital asset trading prices, including for ether. These drawdowns notwithstanding, digital asset prices, including ether, increased significantly again during 2019, decreased significantly again in the first quarter of 2020 amidst broader market declines as a result of the novel coronavirus outbreak and increased significantly again over the remainder of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021. Digital asset prices, including ether, continued to experience significant and sudden changes throughout 2021 followed by steep drawdowns in the fourth quarter of 2021, and throughout 2022, and digital asset prices have continued to fluctuate through 2023 and to date in 2024.

Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of ether, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. Furthermore, negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset economy may reduce confidence in the digital asset economy and may result in greater volatility in the price of ether and other digital assets, including a depreciation in value. The 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 are a relatively new asset class, 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, usership, developers and node operators (as described below) 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 network, and the software used to operate them are in the early stages of development. Given the recentness of the development of blockchain networks, their associated digital assets may not function as intended and, in turn, parties may be unwilling to use digital assets, which would dampen the potential growth of blockchain 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.

•

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

•

The acceptance of software patches or upgrades by a significant, but not overwhelming, percentage of the node operators 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 or serve as a catalyst for a hard fork of the network. 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 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 a significant majority of node operators update their individual Ethereum Client to the new specification, the Ethereum network could be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of ether. In addition, if a digital asset network has high-profile contributors, a 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.

•

To the extent that any validators cease to process transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in validated blocks, such transactions will not be recorded on the Ethereum blockchain. Any widespread delays in the processing 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 are being upgraded with various features designed to increase the speed of digital asset transactions and the number of transactions that can be processed in a given period (known as “throughput”). These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective, and such upgrades may fail, resulting in potentially irreparable damage to the Ethereum network and the value of ether. Furthermore, successful improvements to the scalability of digital asset networks often come at the expense of decentralization and/or security.

•

Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for blockchains, their respective native assets, and digital assets they host have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. The cryptography underlying ether could prove to be breakable 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. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to compromise the security of the Ethereum network or take the Trust’s ether, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Ethereum network may be negatively affected such that it is no longer attractive to users, 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 Merge” that transitioned the Ethereum network from a proof-of-work consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. These upgrades will result in new iterations of 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 this or future upgrades, it is possible that significant volumes of currently locked and illiquid ether may become 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, such as “sharding” or so-called “Layer 2” solutions, could have effects that 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.

•

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 three separate occasions reduced the quantity of ether rewarded per block and may make additional changes in the future. See “Ether, Ether Markets and Regulation of 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 they may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies whose interests are at odds with those of other participants in a particular digital asset network. If the Ethereum network does not successfully develop its policies on supply and issuance, or does so in a manner that is not attractive to network participants, there may not be sufficient network level support for such network, which could lead to a decline in the support 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. Thus, 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 relatively 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 exchanges, 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.

•

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 exchanges 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.

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

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2021 and continuing throughout 2022 and through 2023, digital asset prices began falling precipitously. This has led to volatility and disruption in the digital asset markets and financial difficulties for several prominent industry participants, including digital asset trading platforms, hedge funds and lending platforms. For example, in the first half of 2022, digital asset lenders Celsius Network LLC and Voyager Digital Ltd. and digital asset hedge fund Three Arrows Capital each declared bankruptcy, and the stablecoin TerraUSD collapsed. These events caused a loss of confidence in participants in the digital asset ecosystem, negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly and market-wide declines in digital asset trading prices and liquidity.

Thereafter, in November 2022, FTX, the third largest digital asset trading platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and numerous affiliates of FTX filed for bankruptcy. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently brought criminal charges, including charges of fraud, violations of federal securities laws, money laundering, and campaign finance offenses, against FTX’s former CEO and others. FTX is also under investigation by the SEC, the Justice Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as by various regulatory authorities in the Bahamas, Europe and other jurisdictions. In response to these events, the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and declines in liquidity, and regulatory and enforcement scrutiny has increased, including from the DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. 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. The SEC also brought charges against Genesis Global Capital, LLC and Gemini Trust Company, LLC on January 12, 2023 for their alleged unregistered offer and sale of securities to retail investors.

The collapse of TerraUSD and the bankruptcy filings of FTX, Celsius, Voyager and BlockFi have resulted in calls for heightened scrutiny and regulation of the digital asset industry, with a specific focus on digital asset trading platforms, and custodians. Federal and state legislatures and regulatory agencies are expected to introduce and enact new laws and regulations to regulate digital asset intermediaries, such as digital asset trading platforms and custodians. The U.S. regulatory regime – namely the Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Congress and certain U.S. agencies (e.g., the SEC, the CFTC, FinCEN, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) as well as the White House have issued reports and releases concerning digital assets, including ether and digital asset markets. However, the extent and content of any forthcoming laws and regulations are not yet ascertainable with certainty, and it may not be ascertainable in the near future. It is possible that new laws and increased regulation and regulatory scrutiny may require the Trust to comply with certain regulatory regimes, which could result in new costs for the Trust. The Trust may have to devote increased time and attention to regulatory matters, which could increase costs to the Trust. New laws, regulations and regulatory actions could significantly restrict or eliminate the market for, or uses of, digital assets including ether, which could have a negative effect on the value of ether, which in turn would have a negative effect on the value of the Trust’s Shares.

These events are continuing to develop at a rapid pace and it is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Sponsor, the Trust, their affiliates and/or the Trust’s third-party service providers, or to the digital asset industry as a whole.

Continued disruption and instability in the digital asset markets as these events develop, including further declines in the trading prices and liquidity of ether, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

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

A concentrated number of ether wallets is 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.

It may be illegal now, or in the future, to acquire, own, hold, sell or use digital assets in one or more countries.

Countries such as China, India and Russia have previously taken regulatory action to prohibit certain activities relating to digital assets and may take additional steps to prohibit or otherwise limit the use of digital assets in the future. In addition, countries may impose new or existing regulatory regimes on digital assets that are inconsistent with their intended operation. The imposition of such regulatory regimes on digital assets may have wide ranging implications on the offer, sale, trading, clearing and use of such assets, which may impede their continued adoption. Such regulatory regimes may adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

For example, in the United States, the SEC has been active in asserting its jurisdiction over digital assets. Specifically, the SEC and its staff have taken the position that certain digital assets fall within the definition of a security under the U.S. federal securities laws, beginning with the June 2017 Report of Investigation that concluded that “DAO Tokens” were investment contracts, because they were issued with the purpose of raising funds for investing in digital assets. More recently, the bankruptcy filings of FTX, the third largest digital asset trading platform by volume at the time of its filing, and other bankruptcy filings of crypto companies throughout calendar year 2022 have increased the regulatory scrutiny of the digital asset industry. On June 5, 2023, the SEC charged each of Coinbase and Binance with operating its digital asset trading platform as an unregistered national securities exchange, broker and clearing agency, asserting that certain assets supported on each trading platform are securities. Furthermore, in August 2022, OFAC banned all U.S. citizens from using Tornado Cash, a digital asset protocol designed to obfuscate blockchain transactions, by adding certain Ethereum wallet addresses associated with the protocol to its Specially Designated Nationals list.

In addition, Congress continues to consider potential legislation designed to comprehensively regulate the digital asset industry in the U.S. If enacted, such new legislation could dramatically restructure the regulatory framework within which digital assets may be offered, sold, traded, cleared and used in the U.S. Such a restructuring could affect the viability of digital assets in the U.S. and accordingly adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

Risks Associated with Ether and the Ethereum Network

The Ethereum network and its native digital asset, ether, are a relatively new technological innovation with a limited operating history.

Ether has a relatively limited history of existence and operations compared to traditional commodities. There is a limited established performance record for the price of ether and, in turn, a limited basis for evaluating an investment in ether. Although past performance is not necessarily indicative of future result, if ether had a more established history, such history might (or might not) provide investors with more information on which to evaluate an investment in the trust.

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 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.

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, scalability, and decentralization. This is commonly known as the Blockchain Trilemma under which only two of the three ideal blockchain features have been attainable. One means through which public blockchains achieve security is decentralization, meaning that no intermediary is responsible for securing and maintaining these systems. This is one reason why security and decentralization is the most popular pairing. 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 June 30, 2024, the Ethereum network handled approximately 13 transactions per second. 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 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 (in ether) average daily transaction fees per transaction on April 30, 2022. As of June 30, 2024, ether transaction fees stood at $0.21 (in ether) 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.

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 include 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 given only 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 “Ether, Ether Markets and Regulation of Ether” 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 to 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 that would rely on handling the bulk of computational work relating to transactions or smart contracts and DApps outside of the main Ethereum network and Ethereum blockchain, has caused alternatives to sharding to emerge. “Layer 2” is a collective term for solutions that are designed to help increase throughput and reduce transaction fees by processing or executing 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 posting the transactions executed 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 blockchain and then post the data, typically in batches, back to the Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain 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). By contrast, “optimistic rollups” assume transactions are valid by default and only run computation 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 blockchain (the transaction opening the state channel, and the transaction closing the channel); and “side chains,” in which an entire Layer 2 blockchain network with capabilities similar to those of the existing Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain runs in parallel with the existing Layer 1 Ethereum blockchain and allows smart contracts and DApps to run on the Layer 2 side chain without burdening the main Layer 1 network. To date, the Ethereum network community has not coalesced overwhelmingly around any particular Layer 2 solution, though this could change.

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 could 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 blockchain like sharding or the introduction of a Layer 2 solution like rollups, state channels or side chains, will achieve widespread adoption. 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 could cause network participants to fail to coalesce overwhelmingly around any particular solution, resulting in the Ethereum network suffering reduced adoption or causing 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 the Ethereum network to suffer operational disruptions. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect the price of ether or the value of the Shares of the Trust.

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% 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 manipulate the Ethereum blockchain, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

•

“>33% attack” where, if a validator or group of validators were to gain control of more than 33% of the staked ether, a malicious actor could cause a temporary fork in the blockchain.

•

“>50% attack” where, if a validator or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 50% of the staked ether, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the network and the ability to manipulate the blockchain, potentially for an extended period or even permanently.

•

“>66% attack” where, if a validator or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than 66% of the staked ether, a malicious actor could permanently and irreversibly manipulate the blockchain.

The success of these types of attacks depends on the malicious actor’s ability to gather an enormous amount of ether and other resources, which serves as the primary practical defense of the network. If a malicious actor or botnet (a volunteer or hacked collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a majority of the 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. 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. Further, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the Ethereum network.

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 attack 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 believed 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.

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 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 core developer group, or are otherwise influential members of the Ethereum community. To the extent that the initial or existing 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.

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.

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 (as described below) 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, allowing hackers to create a large number of smart contract tokens and 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 siphoned 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,” 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 the digital assets held by the smart contract in reserves. Even for digital assets that have adopted a decentralized governance mechanism, such as smart contracts that are governed by the holders of a governance token, such governance tokens can be concentrated in the hands of a small group of core community members, who would be able to make similar changes unilaterally to the smart contract. If any such super user or group of core members unilaterally makes adverse changes to a smart contract or to the design, functionality, features and value of the smart contract, its related digital assets may be harmed. In addition, assets held by the smart contract in reserves may be stolen, misused, burnt or locked up, or otherwise become unusable and irrecoverable. Super users can also become targets of hackers and malicious attackers. If an attacker is able to access or obtain the super user privileges of a smart contract, or if a smart contract’s super users or core community members take actions that adversely affect the smart contract, users who transact with the smart contract may experience decreased functionality of the smart contract or may suffer a partial or total loss of any digital assets they have used to transact with the smart contract. Furthermore, the underlying smart contracts may be insecure, may contain bugs or other vulnerabilities, or otherwise may not work as intended. Any of the foregoing could cause users of the DeFi application to be negatively affected or could cause the DeFi application to be the subject of negative publicity. Because DeFi applications may be built on the Ethereum network and represent a significant source of demand for ether, public confidence in the Ethereum network itself could be negatively affected, such sources of demand could diminish, and the value of ether could decrease. Similar risks apply to any smart contract or decentralized application, not just DeFi applications.

Validators may suffer losses due to staking, which could make the Ethereum network less attractive.

Validation on the Ethereum network requires ether to be deposited (i.e., “staked”) to activate a validator node. If the Ethereum network source code or protocol fail to behave as expected, suffer cybersecurity attacks or hacks, experience security issues, or encounter other problems, such assets may be irretrievably lost. The Ethereum network imposes three types of sanctions for validator misbehavior or inactivity, which would result in a portion of their staked ether being confiscated, withdrawn or “burned”: penalties, slashing, and inactivity leaks. A validator may face penalties if it fails to take certain actions, such as providing a timely attestation to a block proposed by another validator. Under this scenario, a validator’s staked ether could be burned in an amount equal to the reward to which the validator would have been entitled for performing the actions. A more severe sanction (i.e., “slashing”) is imposed if a validator commits malicious acts related to the proposal or attestation of blocks with invalid transactions. After an initial slashing, as described in the previous sentence, the validator is queued for forceful removal from the Ethereum network’s validator “pool,” and more of the validator’s staked ether is burned over a period of approximately thirty-six (36) days with the exact amount of ether burned and time period determined by the network regardless of whether the validator makes any further slashable errors, at which point the validator is automatically removed from the validator pool. Staked ether may also be burned through a process known as an “inactivity leak,” which is triggered if the Ethereum network has gone too long without finalizing a new block. For a new block to be successfully added to the blockchain, validators that account for at least two-thirds of all staked ether must agree on the validity of a proposed block. This means that if validators representing more than one-third of the total staked ether are offline, no new blocks can be finalized. To prevent this, an inactivity leak causes the ether staked by the inactive validators to gradually “bleed away” until these inactive validators represent less than one-third of the total stake, thereby allowing the remaining active validators to finalize proposed blocks. Any cybersecurity attacks, security issues, hacks, penalties, slashing events, or other problems could damage validators’ willingness to participate in validation, discourage existing and future validators from serving as such, and adversely impact the Ethereum network’s adoption or the price of ether. Any disruption of validation on the Ethereum network could interfere with network operations and cause the Ethereum network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of ether to decrease. The limited liquidity during the “activation” or “exiting” processes could dissuade potential validators from participating, which could interfere with network operations or security and cause the Ethereum network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of ether to decrease.

Proof-of-stake blockchains are a relatively recent innovation and have not been subject to as widespread use or adoption over as long of a period of time as proof-of-work blockchains.

Certain digital assets, such as bitcoin, use a “proof-of-work” consensus algorithm. The genesis block on the Bitcoin blockchain was mined in 2009, and Bitcoin’s blockchain has been in operation since then. Many newer blockchains enabling smart contract functionality, including the current Ethereum network following the completion of the Merge in 2022, use a newer consensus algorithm known as “proof-of-stake.” While their proponents believe that they may have certain advantages, the “proof-of-stake” consensus mechanisms and governance systems underlying many newer blockchain protocols, including the Ethereum network following the Merge, and their associated digital assets—including the ether held by the Trust—have not been tested at scale over as long of a period of time or subject to as widespread use or adoption as, for example, bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus mechanism has. This could lead to these blockchains, and their associated digital assets, having undetected vulnerabilities, structural design flaws, suboptimal incentive structures for network participants (e.g., validators), technical disruptions, or a wide variety of other problems, any of which could cause these blockchains not to function as intended; could lead to outright failure to function entirely causing a total outage or disruption of network activity; or could cause them to suffer other operational problems or reputational damage, leading to a loss of users or adoption or a loss in value of the associated digital assets, including the Trust’s assets. Over the long term, there can be no assurance that the proof-of-stake blockchain on which the Trust’s assets rely will achieve widespread scale or adoption or will perform successfully; any failure to do so could negatively impact the value of the Trust’s assets.

The Trust will not directly or indirectly participate in any staking program, and accordingly the Shareholders will not receive any staking rewards or other income.

Neither the Trust, the Sponsor, the Custodian nor any other person associated with the Trust will, directly or indirectly, engage in any action where any portion of the Trust’s ether is staked. The Trust’s inability to participate in staking will cause the Trust to not participate in any opportunity to receive additional ether, rewards or other income.

Centralization concerns around a single person or entity controlling a large percentage of the validating stake.

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 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 and the value of ether, and thus the value of the Shares.

Digital asset trading platforms are relatively new and, in some cases, unregulated or may not be complying with existing regulations. Several digital asset trading platforms are unlicensed, unregulated, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance.

In the U.S., digital asset trading platforms may not be subject to, or may not comply with, regulations governing the operation of national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. Furthermore, while many prominent digital asset trading platforms provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices and regulatory compliance, many digital asset trading platforms do not provide this information. Furthermore, because these platforms are largely unregulated or may not be complying with existing regulations, there is an increased risk of fraud, manipulation and other malfeasance on these platforms, both by malicious third-party actors and the platforms’ own personnel. For example, persons with access to trade order information on a digital asset trading platform may use such information to “front-run” those orders, which may go undetected in part due to the lack of regulations requiring those platforms to adopt deterrence mechanisms.

Outside the U.S., digital asset trading platforms may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these digital asset trading platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset trading platforms was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated platforms located outside of the United States. Such reports may indicate that the digital asset trading platform market is significantly smaller than expected and that the U.S. makes up a significantly larger percentage of the digital asset trading platform market than is commonly understood. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the digital asset trading platform market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of digital assets, including ether, and/or negatively affect the market perception of digital assets, including ether. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in digital asset trading platform, including prominent exchanges that handle a significant volume of ether trading.

The ether market globally and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many ether trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of ether on trading venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges. Tools to detect and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash-trading may not be available to or employed by digital asset exchanges, or may not exist at all. The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the digital asset markets generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in a digital asset manipulating the digital asset’s pricing; (3) hacking of the digital asset’s peer-to-peer network, protocols and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the digital asset network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in the digital asset, new sources of demand for the digital asset, etc.) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity

involving purported “stablecoins” (for more information, see “Prices of ether may be affected by stablecoins, the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment”); and (7) fraud and manipulation at digital asset trading platforms. The effect of potential market manipulation, front-running, wash-trading, and other fraudulent or manipulative trading practices may inflate the volumes actually present in the digital asset markets and/or cause distortions in price, which could adversely affect the Trust or cause losses to Shareholders.

In addition, over the past several years, some digital asset trading platforms have been closed due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such digital asset trading platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such digital asset trading platforms. While, generally speaking, smaller digital asset trading platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger digital asset trading platforms more stable, larger digital asset trading platforms are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and malware and may be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, the collapse of Mt. Gox, which filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan in late February 2014, demonstrated that even the largest digital asset trading platforms could be subject to abrupt failure with consequences for both users of digital asset trading platforms and the digital asset industry as a whole. In particular, in the two weeks that followed the February 7, 2014 halt of bitcoin withdrawals from Mt. Gox, the value of one bitcoin fell on other platforms from around $795 on February 6, 2014 to $578 on February 20, 2014. Additionally, in January 2015, Bitstamp announced that approximately 19,000 bitcoin had been stolen from its operational or “hot” wallets. Further, in August 2016, it was reported that almost 120,000 bitcoin worth around $78 million were stolen from Bitfinex, a large digital asset trading platform. The value of bitcoin and other digital assets immediately decreased over 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. In November 2022, FTX, one of the largest digital asset trading platforms by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO. Around the same time, there were reports that approximately $300-600 million of digital assets were removed from FTX and the full facts remain unknown, including whether such removal was the result of a hack, theft, insider activity, or other improper behavior.

Negative perception, a lack of stability in the digital asset markets and the closure or temporary shutdown of digital asset trading platforms due to fraud, failure or security breaches may reduce confidence in the Ethereum network and result in greater volatility or decreases in the prices of ether. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a digital asset trading platforms used in calculating the Index may result in a loss of confidence in the Trust’s ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. The potential consequences of a digital asset trading platform’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Furthermore, some spot markets, including both centralized and decentralized venues, lack certain safeguards put in place by more traditional exchanges to enhance the stability of trading on the exchange and prevent flash crashes, such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of digital assets such as ether on digital asset trading platforms may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges.

A lack of stability in the ether spot markets, including as a result of any manipulation of ether spot markets and the termination or suspension of spot market operations due to fraud, operational failures, cybersecurity breaches, or violations or alleged violations of laws and regulations, may reduce confidence in ether generally and result in greater volatility in the market price of ether and the Shares of the Trust. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of an ether spot market may impact the Trust’s ability to determine the value of its ether holdings or for the Trust’s Authorized Participants to effectively arbitrage the Trust’s Shares. The potential consequences of a spot market’s failure or failure to prevent market manipulation could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Momentum pricing.

The value of a single unit of ether as represented by the Index may also be subject to momentum pricing due to speculation regarding future appreciation in value, leading to greater volatility that could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Momentum pricing typically is associated with growth stocks and other assets whose valuation, as determined by the investing public, is impacted by appreciation in value. Momentum pricing may result in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of digital assets, which inflates prices and leads to increased volatility. As a result, ether may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence in future appreciation or depreciation in prices, which could adversely affect the price of ether, and, in turn, an investment in the Trust.

Some market observers have asserted that the ether market is experiencing a “bubble” and have predicted that, in time, the value of ether will fall to a fraction of its current value, or even to zero. Ether has not been in existence long enough for market participants to assess these predictions with any precision, but if these observers are even partially correct, an investment in the Shares may turn out to be substantially worthless.

Irrevocable nature of blockchain-recorded transactions.

Ether transactions recorded on the Ethereum network are not, from an administrative perspective, reversible, in theory, without the control or consent of a majority of the nodes on the Ethereum network. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to the blockchain, an incorrect transfer of an ether or a theft of ether generally will not be reversible, and the Trust may not be capable of seeking compensation for or return of any such transfer or theft. It is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s ether could be transferred from custody accounts in incorrect quantities or to unauthorized third parties. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek a corrective transaction with such third-party or is incapable of identifying the third-party that has received the Trust’s ether through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred ether. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek redress for such error or theft, such loss could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The loss or destruction of a private key required to access ether may be irreversible.

Digital assets, including ether, are controllable only by the possessor of both the unique public key and private key or keys relating to the “digital wallet” in 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. To the extent a private key is lost, destroyed or otherwise compromised and no backup of the private key is accessible, the Trust will be unable to access, and will effectively lose, the ether held in the related digital wallet. In addition, if the Trust’s private keys are misappropriated and the Trust’s ether holdings are stolen, including from or by the Custodian, the Trust could lose some or all of its ether holdings, which would adversely impact an investment in the Shares of the Trust. Any loss of private keys relating to digital wallets used to store the Trust’s ether would adversely affect the value of the Shares.

A disruption of the internet may affect Ethereum network operations, which may adversely affect the ether industry and an investment in the Trust.

The Ethereum network relies on the Internet. A significant disruption of Internet connectivity could disrupt the Ethereum network’s functionality and operations until the disruption in the Internet is resolved. A disruption in the Internet could adversely affect an investment in the Trust or the ability of the Trust to operate. In particular, some variants of digital assets have experienced a number of denial-of-service attacks, which have led to temporary delays in block creation and digital asset transfers. Moreover, it is possible that as ether increases in value, it may become a bigger target for hackers and subject to more frequent hacking and denial-of-service attacks.

Digital assets are also susceptible to border gateway protocol hijacking (“BGP hijacking”). Such an attack can be a very effective way for an attacker to intercept traffic en route to a legitimate destination. BGP hijacking impacts the way different nodes are connected to one another to isolate portions of them from the remainder of the network, which could lead to a risk of the network allowing double-spending and other security issues. If BGP hijacking occurs on the Ethereum network, participants may lose faith in the security of ether, which could affect ether’s value and consequently the value of the Shares.

Any future attacks that impact the ability to transfer ether could have a material adverse effect on the price of ether and the value of an investment in the Shares.

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 evolves 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 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, or security risks, or could 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.

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 is 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 those of 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.

Decentralized governance of the Ethereum network could have a negative impact on the performance of the Trust.

Governance of decentralized networks, such as the Ethereum network, is achieved through voluntary consensus and open competition. In other words, while the Ethereum Foundation does serve as a driver of implementation of certain upgrades, the Ethereum network has no central decision-making body or clear manner in which participants can come to an agreement other than through overwhelming consensus. The lack of clarity on governance may adversely affect ether’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges, both of which may require solutions and directed effort to overcome problems, especially long-term problems. For example, a seemingly simple technical issue once divided the Ethereum network community: namely, whether to increase the block size of the blockchain or implement another change to increase the scalability of ether.

To the extent lack of clarity in corporate governance of the Ethereum network leads to ineffective decision- making that slows development and growth, the value of the Shares may be adversely affected.

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, modifying it and then proposing that the other nodes (and users and validators of ether) support that modification (in the case of nodes, by downloading it into their own Ethereum Clients; in the case of validators and users who are not nodes, by continuing to use the Ethereum network rather than abandoning it or switching to a competing blockchain network).

The Ethereum Foundation and core developers 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 (although any user can do so). However, the release of proposed updates to the Ethereum network’s source code by core developers does not guarantee that the updates will be adopted. Nodes must accept any changes made to the Ethereum source code by choosing to download the proposed modification of the Ethereum network’s source code in their individual Ethereum Client, and ultimately a critical mass of validators and users—such as DApp and smart contract developers, as well as users of DApps and smart contracts, and anyone else who transacts on the Ethereum blockchain or within the Ethereum network—must support the shift, or the upgrades will lack adoption. 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. When a modification is introduced and a sufficiently broad critical mass of users and validators supports the modification and nodes download the modification into their individual Ethereum Clients, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. 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 and 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 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, the two networks would compete with each other for 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.

A future fork in the Ethereum network could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate. A hard fork could also adversely affect the price of ether at the time of announcement or adoption or subsequently. 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. For example, following the hack of The DAO in July 2016, holders of ether voted on-chain to reverse the hack, effectively causing a hard fork. For the days following the vote, the price of ether 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 (as discussed further below). By comparison, when Bitcoin Cash forked from the bitcoin network, the value of bitcoin went from $2,800 to $2,700. Examples listed above are for illustrative purposes only. Price movements of digital assets subject to or resulting from a hard fork cannot be predicted in advance. After a 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. If the hard fork caused operational problems for either the post-fork network or the 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, 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.

In September 2022, the Ethereum network transitioned to a proof-of-stake model, in an upgrade referred to as the “Merge.” Following the Merge, a hard fork of the Ethereum network occurred, as certain 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 was rebranded as “Ethereum Proof-of-Work.”

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

Furthermore, a hard fork can lead to new security concerns. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued Ethereum trading platforms through at least October 2016. An Ethereum trading platform announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of 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 validating power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less validating power, thereby making digital asset networks that rely on proof-of-stake more susceptible to attack.

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. 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.

The inability to recognize the economic benefit of a “fork” or an “air drop” could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.

Network Forks.

The Ethereum network is open source, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and validators of ether transactions adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and validators consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the Ethereum network remains uninterrupted. However, a “hard fork” occurs if less than a substantial majority of users and validators consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification. In other words, two incompatible networks would then exist: (1) one network running the pre-modified software and (2) another network running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of the network running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. This is in contrast to a “soft fork,” or a proposed modification to the software governing the network that results in a post-update network that is compatible with the network as it existed prior to the update, because it restricts the network operations that can be performed after the update.

The only digital asset that will be held by the Trust is ether. By investing in the Trust rather than directly in ether, Shareholders forgo potential economic benefits associated with forks. If ether were to fork into two digital assets, the Trust may hold, in addition to its existing ether balance, a right to claim an equivalent amount of the new “forked” asset following the hard fork. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any digital asset resulting from a fork in the Ethereum network (other than what the Sponsor determines to be ether). If the Trust were to change this policy, the Trust would need to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules.

Air Drops.

Ether may become subject to an occurrence similar to a fork, which is known as an “air drop.” In an air drop, the promotors of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that they 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. Air drops are not included in the Index under its current methodology. See “Prospectus Summary—The Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate.”

The Index does not track air drops involving ether. Accordingly, the Trust will disclaim, and the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon, all rights to digital assets air dropped to holders of ether. By investing in the Trust rather than directly in ether, Shareholders forgo potential economic benefits associated with air drops. Any change to the Trust’s policy on air dropped assets would require the Trust to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules.

In the event of a hard fork of the Ethereum network that results in the spinoff of another network, the Sponsor will, as 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.

The only digital asset that will be held by the Trust is ether. 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 sole 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 Ethereum, the developer roadmap, users of block space (available capacity within a block to store data and execute code) including services and businesses, suppliers of block space (i.e., validators) and their associated incentives, and other constituencies, as well as other non-fundamental factors, the Ethereum network, the Custodian’s ability and willingness to support the fork, 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 Custodian, other service providers, the Index Provider, cryptocurrency exchanges, 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. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any digital asset resulting from a fork in the Ethereum network (other than what the Sponsor determines to be ether). If the Trust were to change this policy, the Trust would need to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules.

Malicious actors may “double spend” ether by altering the formation of the blockchain.

A malicious actor may attempt to “double spend” (i.e., spend the same units in more than one transaction) ether by altering the formation of the blockchain. In this type of attack, a validator creates a valid new block containing a double-spend transaction and schedules the release of such attack block so that it is added to the blockchain before a target user’s legitimate transaction can be included in a block. All double-spend attacks require that the validator sequence and execute the steps of its attack with sufficient speed and accuracy. Double- spend attacks require extensive coordination and are very expensive. Typically, transactions that allow for a zero-confirmation acceptance tend to be prone to these types of attacks. Accordingly, traders and merchants may execute instantaneous/zero-confirmation transactions only if they are of sufficiently low-value. Users and merchants can take additional precautions by adjusting their network software programs to connect only to other well-connected participants in the Ethereum network and to disable incoming connections.

Flaws in source code for digital asset networks could adversely affect the value of ether and other digital assets.

In the past, flaws in the source code for digital asset networks have been exposed and exploited, including flaws that disabled some functionality for users, exposed users’ personal information and/or resulted in the theft of users’ digital assets. Discovery of flaws in or exploitations of the source code that allow malicious actors to take or create money in contravention of known network rules have occurred. The cryptography underlying ether could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, such as advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could make cryptography ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to steal ether held by others, which could adversely affect the demand for ether and therefore adversely impact the price of ether and the value of the Shares. Even if another digital asset other than ether were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the robustness of the source code or cryptography underlying digital assets generally could negatively affect the demand for all digital assets, including ether, and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Competition from central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) could adversely affect the value of ether and other digital assets.

Central banks in various countries have introduced digital forms of legal tender. China’s CBDC project, known as Digital Currency Electronic Payment, has reportedly been tested in a live pilot program conducted in multiple cities in China. Central banks representing at least 130 countries have published retail or wholesale CBDC work ranging from research to pilot projects. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could have an advantage in competing with, or could replace, ether and other cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange or store of value. Central banks and other governmental entities have also announced cooperative initiatives and consortia with private sector entities, with the goal of leveraging blockchain and other technology to reduce friction in cross-border and interbank payments and settlement, and commercial banks and other financial institutions have also recently announced a number of initiatives of their own to incorporate new technologies, including blockchain and similar technologies, into their payments and settlement activities, which could compete with, or reduce the demand for, ether. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the value of ether could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Prices of ether may be affected by stablecoins, the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment.

While the Trust does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to certain risks that stablecoins pose to the ether market. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and may be backed by a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar, commodities, such as gold, or other digital assets. Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity could have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for ether. Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins or potential manipulative activity when unbacked stablecoins are used to pay for other digital assets (including ether), or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as exchanges, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the ether market, and affect the value of ether, and in turn impact an investment in the Shares.

For example, because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in digital assets more broadly. Questions about the sufficiency of the backing of certain stablecoins has caused the prices for such stablecoins to fluctuate, which fluctuations may affect the price of ether. For example, some have argued that the issuance of Tether has been used to artificially increase demand for ether, thereby inflating its price. On February 17, 2021, the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue. In addition, a large amount of Tether is issued as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum network. If Tether were to no longer be issued or operating on the Ethereum network, there would be no need to use ether to pay the gas fees needed to record ERC-20 Tether transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, and a substantial source of demand for ether could be eliminated, which could cause the price of ether to decrease, affecting the value of the Shares.

USDC is a reserve-backed stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Financial that is commonly used as a method of payment in digital asset markets, including the ether market. An affiliate of the Sponsor acts as investment manager to a money market fund, the Circle Reserve Fund, which the issuer of USDC uses to hold cash, U.S. Treasury bills, notes and other obligations issued or guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements secured by such obligations or cash, which serve as reserves backing USDC stablecoins. While USDC is designed to maintain a stable value at 1 U.S. dollar at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 for multiple days after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that $3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) receivership earlier that day. Stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. banking system and U.S. treasuries, and the failure of either to function normally could impede the function of stablecoins, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares. An affiliate of the Sponsor has a minority equity interest in the issuer of USDC. Similar to Tether, a large amount of USDC is issued as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum network. If USDC were to no longer be issued or operating on the Ethereum network, there would be no need to use ether to pay the gas fees needed to record ERC-20 USDC transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, and a substantial source of demand for ether could be eliminated, which could cause the price of ether to decrease, affecting the value of the Shares.

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for ether. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in digital assets more broadly. Volatility in stablecoins; operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement); concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins or potential manipulative activity when unbacked stablecoins are used to pay for other digital assets (including ether); regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as exchanges, that support stablecoins; or the removal or migration of prominent stablecoins away from the Ethereum network, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins, reduce liquidity in the ether market, and affect the value of ether, and in turn impact an investment in the Shares.

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

As of June 30, 2024, ether was the second largest digital asset by market capitalization as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of June 30, 2024, there were over 10,000 alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com, having a total market capitalization of approximately $2.28 trillion (including the approximately $409 billion market cap of ether), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding tokens pegged to other assets. In addition, many consortia and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned smart contracts platforms rather than open platforms like the Ethereum network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Solana, Avalanche or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ether and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

In addition, some digital asset networks, including the Ethereum network, may be the target of ill will from users of other digital asset networks. For example, in July 2016, the Ethereum network underwent a contentious hard fork that resulted in the creation of a new digital asset network called Ethereum Classic. As a result, some users of the Ethereum Classic network may harbor ill will toward the Ethereum network. These users may attempt to negatively impact the use or adoption of the Ethereum network. For additional information on the hard fork that resulted in the creation of Ethereum Classic. See “Ether, Ether Markets and Regulation of Ether.”

Investors may invest in ether through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in ether and other potential financial vehicles, possibly including securities backed by or linked to ether and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust, or ether futures-based products. Market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Sponsor’s control, may make it more attractive to invest in other financial vehicles or to invest in ether directly, which could limit the market for, and reduce the liquidity of, the Shares. In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of ether are formed and represent a significant proportion of the demand for ether, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding ether, could negatively affect the Index, the Trust’s ether holdings, the price of the Shares, the net asset value of the Trust and the per share NAV of the Trust.

Additionally, the Trust and the Sponsor face competition with respect to the creation of competing exchange-traded ether products. If the SEC were to approve many or all of the currently pending applications for such exchange-traded ether products, many or all of such products, including the Trust, could fail to acquire substantial assets, initially or at all. The Trust’s competitors may also charge a substantially lower fee than the Sponsor’s Fee in order to achieve initial market acceptance and scale. Accordingly, the Sponsor’s competitors may commercialize a competing product more rapidly or effectively than the Sponsor is able to, which could adversely affect the Sponsor’s competitive position and the likelihood that the Trust will achieve initial market acceptance, and could have a detrimental effect on the scale and sustainability of the Trust. If the Trust fails to achieve sufficient scale due to competition, the Sponsor may have difficulty raising sufficient revenue to cover the costs associated with launching and maintaining the Trust and such shortfalls could impact the Sponsor’s ability to properly invest in robust ongoing operations and controls of the Trust to minimize the risk of operating events, errors, or other forms of losses to the Shareholders. In addition, the Trust may also fail to attract adequate liquidity in the secondary market due to such competition, resulting in a sub-standard number of Authorized Participants willing to make a market in the Shares, which in turn could result in a significant premium or discount in the Shares for extended periods and the Trust’s failure to reflect the performance of the price of ether.

Large-scale sales or distributions could significantly reduce the price of ether and adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Some entities hold large amounts of ether relative to other market participants, and to the extent such entities engage in large-scale hedging, sales or distributions on non-market terms, or sales in the ordinary course, it could result in a reduction in the price of ether and adversely affect the value of the Shares. Additionally, political or economic crises may motivate large-scale acquisitions or sales of such digital assets, including ether, either globally or locally. Such large-scale sales or distributions could result in selling pressure that may reduce the price of ether and adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

As of the date of this Prospectus, the 200 largest ether wallets held approximately half of the outstanding supply of ether and it is possible that some of these wallets are controlled by the same person or entity. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of ether, even if each wallet individually only holds a small amount. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of ether.

Congestion or delay in the Ethereum network may delay purchases or sales of ether by the Trust.

The size of each block on the Ethereum network is currently limited and the transaction rate is significantly below the level that centralized systems can provide. Increased transaction volume could result in delays in the recording of transactions due to congestion in the Ethereum network. Moreover, unforeseen system failures, disruptions in operations, or poor connectivity may also result in delays in the recording of transactions on the Ethereum network. Any delay in the Ethereum network could affect the Authorized Participant’s ability to buy or sell ether at an advantageous price resulting in decreased confidence in the Ethereum network. Over the longer term, delays in confirming transactions could reduce the attractiveness to merchants and other commercial parties as a means of payment. As a result, the Ethereum network and the value of the Trust would be adversely affected.

If the digital asset award or transaction fees for recording transactions on the Ethereum network are not sufficiently high to incentivize validators may 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 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 manipulate the Ethereum blockchain, which would 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.

•

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 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 revenue 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 mempool 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 publicly visible so-called memory pool (“mempool”) of pending but unexecuted transactions awaiting validation, 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’s possible regulators or legislators could enact rules that 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 the Ethereum network is used to facilitate illicit activities or evade sanctions, businesses that facilitate transactions in ether could be at increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having services cut off, which could negatively affect the price of ether and the value of the Shares.

Digital asset networks have in the past been, and may continue to be, used to facilitate illicit activities. If the Ethereum network is used to facilitate illicit activities or evade sanctions, businesses that facilitate transactions in ether could be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking or other services cut off, and ether could be removed from digital asset trading platforms as a result of these concerns. Other service providers of such businesses may also cut off services if there is a concern that the Ethereum network is being used to facilitate crime. Any of the aforementioned occurrences could increase regulatory scrutiny of the Ethereum network and/or adversely affect the price of ether, the attractiveness of the Ethereum network and an investment in the Shares of the Trust.

The Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, directly interact with parties that are themselves subject to AML program requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act or similar laws.

The Authorized Participants are registered broker-dealers or financial institutions exempt from broker-dealer registration and therefore are subject to AML and countering the financing of terrorism obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act as administered by FinCEN and further overseen by the SEC and FINRA. In accordance with its regulatory obligations, the Authorized Participants conduct customer due diligence.

When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, buy, sell or deliver, as applicable, ether, they transact directly with financial institution counterparties that are subject to U.S. federal and/or state licensing requirements or similar laws in non-U.S. jurisdictions and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations or similar laws in non-U.S. jurisdictions. The Trust will not hold any ether except those that have been delivered by the Trust’s ether trading counterparties in connection with creation requests.

If the Sponsor, the Trust, or an Authorized Participant were nevertheless to transact with such a sanctioned entity, the Sponsor, the Trust, and such Authorized Participant would be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits.

Risks Associated with Investing in the Trust

Investment-Related Risks.

Investing in ether and, consequently, the Trust, is speculative. The price of ether is volatile, and market movements of ether are difficult to predict. Supply and demand changes rapidly are affected by a variety of factors, including regulation and general economic trends, such as interest rates, availability of credit, credit defaults, inflation rates and economic uncertainty. All investments made by the Trust will risk the loss of capital. Therefore, an investment in the Trust involves a high degree of risk, including the risk that the entire amount invested may be lost. No guarantee or representation is made that the Trust’s investment program will be successful, that the Trust will achieve its investment objective or that there will be any return of capital invested to investors in the Trust, and investment results may vary.

The NAV may not always correspond to the market price of ether.

The NAV of the Trust will change as fluctuations occur in the market price of the Trust’s ether holdings. Shareholders should be aware that the public trading price per share may be different from the NAV for a number of reasons, including price volatility and the fact that supply and demand forces at work in the secondary trading market for shares are related, but not identical, to the supply and demand forces influencing the market price of ether.

An Authorized Participant may be able to create or redeem a Basket at a discount or a premium to the public trading price per share and the Trust will therefore maintain its intended fractional exposure to a specific amount of ether per share.

Different from directly owning ether.

The performance of the Trust will not reflect the specific return an investor would realize if the investor actually held or purchased ether directly. The differences in performance may be due to factors such as fees, transaction costs, and index tracking risk. Investors will also forgo certain rights conferred by owning ether directly, such as the right to claim air drops. See “The inability to recognize the economic benefit of a ‘fork’ or an ‘air drop’ could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.”

Index tracking risk.

The Trust may not achieve the desired degree of correlation between its performance and that of the Index and thus may not achieve its investment objective. The difference in performance may be due to factors such as fees, transaction costs, redemptions of, and subscriptions for, Shares, pricing differences, differences in the timing of the addition or removal of constituent exchanges underlying the Index or the cost to the Trust of complying with various new or existing regulatory requirements.

Liquidity risk.

The Trust’s and the Authorized Participants’ ability to buy or sell ether may be adversely affected by limited trading volume, lack of a market maker, or legal restrictions. It is also possible that an ether spot market or governmental authority may suspend or restrict trading in ether altogether. Therefore, it may not always be possible to execute a buy or sell order at the desired price or to liquidate an open position due to market conditions on spot markets, regulatory issues affecting ether or other issues affecting counterparties. Ether is a new asset with a very limited trading history. Therefore, the markets for ether may be less liquid and more volatile than other markets for more established products.

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the value of ether.

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of ether and the ether exchanges included in the Index that may have an adverse effect on the price of the Shares. These factors include, but are not limited to, the following factors:

•

Unanticipated problems or issues with respect to the mechanics of the Trust’s operations and the trading of the Shares may arise, in particular due to the fact that the mechanisms and procedures governing the creation and offering of the Shares and storage of ether have been developed specifically for this product;

•

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

•

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

•

Service providers may decide to terminate their relationships with the Trust due to concerns that the introduction of privacy enhancing features to the Ethereum network may increase the potential for ether to be used to facilitate crime, exposing such service providers to potential reputational harm.

Any of these factors could affect the value of the Shares, either directly or indirectly through their effect on the Trust’s assets.

Authorized Participants’ buying and selling activity associated with the creation and redemption of Baskets may adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

While the Trust currently only facilitates the creation and redemption of Baskets in exchange for cash, Authorized Participants may take long or short positions in ether for hedging or other purposes and in some cases those positions may be substantial relative to the ether market as a whole. Authorized Participants’ purchase of ether in connection with Basket creation orders may cause the price of ether to increase, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Increases in the ether prices may also occur as a result of ether purchases by other market participants who attempt to benefit from an increase in the market price of ether when baskets are created. The market price of ether may therefore decline immediately after Baskets are created.

Selling activity associated with sales of ether by Authorized Participants in connection with redemption orders may decrease ether prices, which will result in lower prices for the Shares. Decreases in ether prices may also occur as a result of selling activity by other market participants.

In addition to the effect that purchases and sales of ether by Authorized Participants may have on the price of ether, sales and purchases of ether by similar investment vehicles (if developed) could impact the price of ether. If the price of ether declines, the trading price of the Shares will generally also decline.

The inability of Authorized Participants and market makers to hedge their ether exposure may adversely affect the liquidity of Shares and the value of an investment in the Shares.

Authorized Participants and market makers will generally want to hedge their exposure in connection with Basket creation and redemption orders. To the extent Authorized Participants and market makers are unable to hedge their exposure due to market conditions (e.g., insufficient ether liquidity in the market, inability to locate an appropriate hedge counterparty, extreme volatility in the price of ether, wide spreads between prices quotes on different ether trading platforms, etc.), such conditions may make it difficult to create or redeem Baskets or cause them to not create or redeem Baskets. In addition, the hedging mechanisms employed by Authorized Participants and market makers to hedge their exposure to ether may not function as intended, which may make it more difficult for them to enter into such transactions. Such events could negatively impact the market price of Shares and the spread at which Shares trade on the open market. To the extent Authorized Participants wish to use futures to hedge their exposure, note that while growing in recent years, the market for exchange-traded ether futures has a limited trading history and operational experience and may be less liquid, more volatile and more vulnerable to economic, market and industry changes than more established futures markets. The liquidity of the market will depend on, among other things, the adoption of ether and the commercial and speculative interest in the market.

Arbitrage transactions intended to keep the price of Shares closely linked to the price of ether may be problematic if the process for the creation and redemption of Baskets encounters difficulties, which may adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

If the processes of creation and redemption of the Shares encounter any unanticipated difficulties, potential market participants who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Baskets to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying ether may not take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect. In addition, the Trust’s NAV and the price of a Basket Deposit (as defined below) could rise or fall substantially between the time a purchase order is submitted by an Authorized Participant and the time the amount of the purchase price in respect thereof is determined, and the risk of such price movements will be borne solely by the Authorized Participant. Such price movements may further frustrate efforts to effectively seize arbitrage opportunities. If this is the case, the liquidity of Shares may decline and the price of the Shares may fluctuate independently of the price of ether and may fall.

The use of cash creations and redemptions, as opposed to in-kind creations and redemptions, may adversely affect the arbitrage transactions by Authorized Participants intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of ether and, as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV.

The use of cash creations and redemptions, as opposed to in-kind creations and redemptions, could cause delays in trade execution due to potential operational issues arising from implementing a cash creation and redemption model, which involves more complex operational steps (and therefore execution risk) than the originally contemplated in-kind creation and redemption models. Such delays could cause the execution price associated with such trades to materially deviate from the Index price used to determine the NAV. Even though the Authorized Participant is responsible for the dollar cost of such difference in prices, Authorized Participants could default on

their obligations to the Trust, or such potential risks and costs could lead Authorized Participants, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Baskets to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying ether, to elect to not participate in the Trust’s Share creation and redemption processes. This may adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of ether, and as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. If the arbitrage mechanism is not effective, purchases or sales of Shares on the secondary market could occur at a premium or discount to NAV, which could harm Shareholders by causing them to buy Shares at a price higher than the value of the underlying ether held by the Trust or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying ether held by the Trust, causing Shareholders to suffer losses.

The Authorized Participants serve in such capacity for several competing exchange-traded ether products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and the secondary market for the Shares.

Only an Authorized Participant may engage in creation or redemption transactions directly with the Trust. The Trust may have a limited number of financial institutions that act as Authorized Participants, none of which are obligated to engage in creation and/or redemption transactions. Some or all of the Trust’s Authorized Participants are expected to serve as authorized participants or market makers for one or more exchange-traded ether products that compete with the Trust. This may make it more difficult to engage or retain Authorized Participants for the Trust. There is no guarantee that the Trust will be able to attract Authorized Participants. Furthermore, decisions by Authorized Participants to reduce their role with respect to market making or creation and redemption activities during times of market stress, or a decline in the number of Authorized Participants due to decisions to exit the business, bankruptcy, competing products in the same asset class or other factors, could inhibit the effectiveness of the arbitrage process in maintaining the relationship between the underlying value of the Trust’s ether and the market price of the Shares. To the extent that other Authorized Participants do not step forward to engage in creation and redemption orders, there may be a significantly diminished trading market for the Shares or the Shares may trade at a discount (or premium) to NAV and possibly face trading halts and/or de-listing.

Security threats and cyber-attacks 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 price of the Shares.

Security breaches, cyber-attacks, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in relation to digital assets. Multiple thefts of ether and other digital assets from other holders have occurred in the past. Because of the pseudonymous nature of the Ethereum Blockchain, thefts can be difficult to trace, which may make ether a particularly attractive target for theft. Cyber security failures or breaches of one or more of the Trust’s service providers (including, but not limited to, the Index Provider, the Transfer Agent, the Distributor, the Administrator, or the Custodian) have the ability to cause disruptions and impact business operations, potentially resulting in financial losses, violations of applicable privacy and other laws, regulatory fines, penalties, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs.

The Trust and its service providers’ use of internet, technology and information systems (including mobile devices and cloud-based service offerings) may expose the Trust to potential risks linked to cyber-security breaches of those technological or information systems. The Sponsor believes that the Trust’s ether held in the Trust’s account with the Custodian will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s ether or private keys and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. While the Trust, the Sponsor and the Custodian have implemented procedures to identify and or stop new security threats and expect to adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, to the extent such efforts are unsuccessful the Trust’s ether may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack.

Additionally, access to the Trust’s ether could be restricted by natural events (such as an earthquake or flood) or human actions (such as a terrorist attack). The Sponsor has evaluated the security procedures in place for safeguarding the Trust’s ether. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Trust.

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

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

While the Sponsor and the Trust’s service providers have established business continuity plans and systems that they respectively believe are reasonably designed to prevent cyber attacks, there are inherent limitations in such plans and systems including the possibility that certain risks have not been, or cannot be, identified. Service providers may have limited indemnification obligations to the Trust, which could be negatively impacted as a result, see “Liability and Indemnification” and “Material Contracts” below.

If the Trust’s holdings of ether are lost, stolen or destroyed under circumstances rendering a party liable to the Trust, the responsible party may not have the financial resources sufficient to satisfy the Trust’s claim. For example, as to a particular event of loss, the only source of recovery for the Trust may be limited to the relevant custodian or, to the extent identifiable, other responsible third parties (for example, a thief or terrorist), any of which may not have the financial resources (including liability insurance coverage) to satisfy a valid claim of the Trust. Similarly, as noted below, the Trust’s Custodian has limited liability to the Trust, which could adversely affect the Trust’s ability to seek recovery from them, even when the Custodian’s actions or failure to act are the cause of the Trust’s loss.

It may not be possible, either because of a lack of available policies or because of prohibitive cost, for the Trust to obtain insurance that would cover losses of the Trust’s ether. If an uninsured loss occurs or a loss exceeds policy limits, the Trust could lose all of its assets.

The Trust’s risk management processes and policies may prove to not be adequate to prevent any loss of the Trust’s ether.

Custody of digital assets presents inherent and unique risks relating to access loss, theft and means of recourse in such scenarios. These risks are applicable to the Trust’s use of FDAS, despite its status as an affiliate of the Sponsor. The Sponsor is continuing to monitor and evaluate the Trust’s risk management processes and policies and believes that the current risk management processes and procedures are reasonably designed and effective. The Trust does not normally interact with any digital asset trading platforms, and the Trust’s ether is held in a cold storage wallet with the Custodian, a duly chartered New York limited liability trust company, pursuant to an express custodial relationship. The Sponsor believes that the security procedures that the Sponsor and the Custodian utilize, such as hardware redundancy, segregation and offline data storage (i.e., the maintenance of data on computers and/or storage media that is not directly connected to or accessible from the internet and/or networked with other computers, also known as “cold storage”) protocols are reasonably designed to safeguard the Trust’s ether from theft, loss, destruction or other issues relating to hackers and technological attack. Despite the number of security procedures that the Sponsor and Custodian employ, it is impossible to guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect, act of God, pandemic or riot that may be borne by the Trust. Notwithstanding the above, the Sponsor and the Custodian are responsible for their own gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith. In the event that the Trust’s risk management processes and policies prove to not be adequate to prevent any loss of the Trust’s ether and such loss is not covered by insurance or is otherwise recoverable, the value of the Shares will decrease as a result and investors would experience a decrease in the value of their investment.

The Trust’s Custodian could become insolvent or become subject to a receivership or bankruptcy proceeding, which may result in a loss of or delay in access to Trust assets.

If the Custodian becomes insolvent or subject to a receivership or bankruptcy proceeding, the Trust’s operations may be adversely affected, and there is a risk that the insolvency, receivership or bankruptcy of the Custodian may result in the loss of all or a substantial portion of the Trust’s assets or in a significant delay in the Trust having access to those assets.

The Trust’s assets will be held in one or more accounts maintained for the Trust by the Custodian. The Custodian is a limited liability trust company organized under the New York Banking Law and is subject to the supervision of New York Department of Financial Services. The Custodial Services Agreement for Trust assets contains an agreement by the parties to treat the ether credited to the Trust as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the Custodian will serve as a securities intermediary with respect to such assets. Further, the Custodian has agreed to hold Trust assets for the benefit of the Trust as the entitlement holder, and while the Trust assets will be commingled with assets of the Custodian’s other customers in an omnibus account, such assets will not be commingled with the Custodian’s proprietary assets. While other types of assets held in a similarly-segregated manner have been deemed not to be part of the asset custodian’s bankruptcy estate under various regulatory regimes, bankruptcy courts have not yet fully addressed the appropriate treatment of custodial holdings of digital assets and any such determination may be highly fact-specific.

Given that the contractual protections and legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by third parties are relatively untested in a bankruptcy or receivership proceeding of an entity such as the Custodian, in the event of an insolvency, receivership or bankruptcy proceeding with respect to the Custodian, there is a risk that the Trust’s assets may be considered the property of the bankruptcy estate of the Custodian, and that customers of the Custodian – including the Trust – may be at risk of being treated as general unsecured creditors of the Custodian and subject to the risk of total loss or markdowns on value of such assets. Moreover, even if the Trust’s assets ultimately are not treated as part of the Custodian’s bankruptcy estate, the automatic stay could apply until the bankruptcy court made such a determination, and the limited precedent and fact-dependent nature of the determination could delay or preclude the return of such assets to the Trust. Further, the bankruptcy court may permit the Custodian to retain possession or custody of its customers’ assets until any claims the estate may have against the customers (including the Trust) are resolved.

An actual or perceived business failure or interruption, default, failure to perform security breach or other problems affecting the Custodian could harm the Trust’s operations, result in partial or total loss of the Trust’s assets, damage the Trust’s reputation and negatively affect the market perception of the effectiveness of the Trust, all of which could in turn reduce demand for the Shares, resulting in a reduction in the price of the Shares.

The Trust may change the custodial arrangements described in this Prospectus at any time without notice to Shareholders.

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

The Cash Custodian is necessary to facilitate the creation and redemption of Baskets (in exchange for cash subscriptions by Authorized Participants, or in exchange for redemptions of Shares by Authorized Participants), and other cash movements, including in connection with the purchase of ether by the Sponsor to effectuate subscriptions for cash and the selling of ether to effect redemptions for cash and, to the extent applicable, other Trust expenses,

and in extraordinary circumstances, to effect the liquidation of the Trust’s ether. The Trust relies on the Cash Custodian to hold any cash related to the purchase or sale of ether. To the extent that the Trust or Sponsor face difficulty establishing or maintaining banking relationships, the loss of the Trust’s banking partners, including the Cash Custodian, or the imposition of operational restrictions by these banking partners and the inability of the Trust to utilize other financial institutions may result in a disruption of creation and redemption activity of the Trust, or cause other operational disruptions or adverse effects for the Trust. In the future, it is possible that the Trust could be unable to establish accounts at new banking partners, or that the banks with which the Trust is able to establish relationships may not be as large or well-capitalized or subject to the same degree of prudential supervision as the existing providers.

The Trust could also suffer losses in the event that a bank in which the Trust holds customer cash, including the Cash Custodian, fails, becomes insolvent, enters receivership, is taken over by regulators, enters financial distress, or otherwise suffers adverse effects to its financial condition or operational status. Recently, some banks have experienced financial distress. If the Cash Custodian were to experience financial distress or its financial condition is otherwise affected, the Cash Custodian’s ability to provide services to the Trust could be affected. Moreover, the future failure of the Cash Custodian or other bank at which the Trust maintains cash could result in losses to the Trust, to the extent the balances are not covered by deposit insurance. As a result, the Trust could suffer losses.

The Trust is subject to risks due to its concentration of investments in a single asset class.

Unlike other funds that may invest in diversified assets, the Trust’s investment strategy is concentrated in a single asset within a single asset class. This concentration maximizes the degree of the Trust’s exposure to a variety of market risks associated with ether and digital assets. By concentrating its investment strategy solely in ether, any losses suffered as a result of a decrease in the value of ether can be expected to reduce the value of an interest in the Trust and will not be offset by other gains if the Trust were to invest in underlying assets that were diversified.

The lack of active trading markets for the Shares may result in losses on Shareholders’ investments at the time of disposition of Shares.

Although Shares of the Trust are expected to be publicly listed and traded on an exchange, there can be no guarantee that an active trading market for the Shares will develop or be maintained. If Shareholders need to sell their Shares at a time when no active market for them exists, the price Shareholders receive for their Shares, assuming that Shareholders are able to sell them, may be lower than the price that Shareholders would receive if an active market did exist and, accordingly, a Shareholder may suffer losses.

Several factors may affect the Trust’s ability to achieve its investment objective on a consistent basis.

There can be no assurance that the Trust will achieve its investment objective. Prospective investors should read this entire Prospectus and consult with their own advisers before subscribing for Shares. Factors that may affect the Trust’s ability to meet its investment objective include: (1) Authorized Participants’ ability to purchase and sell ether in an efficient manner to effectuate creation and redemption orders; (2) transaction fees associated with the Ethereum network; (3) the ether market becoming illiquid or disrupted; (4) the need to conform the Trust’s portfolio holdings to comply with investment restrictions or policies or regulatory or tax law requirements; (5) early or unanticipated closings of the markets on which ether trades, resulting in the inability of Authorized Participants to execute intended portfolio transactions; and (6) accounting standards.

The amount of ether represented by the Shares will decline over time.

Each outstanding Share represents a fractional, undivided interest in the ether held by the Trust. The Trust does not generate any income and transfers ether to pay for the Sponsor Fee and other liabilities. Therefore, the amount of ether represented by each Share will gradually decline over time. Assuming a constant ether price, the trading price of the Shares is expected to gradually decline relative to the price of ether as the amount of ether represented by the Shares gradually declines.

Shareholders should be aware that the gradual decline in the amount of ether represented by the Shares will occur regardless of whether the trading price of the Shares rises or falls in response to changes in the price of ether.

The development and commercialization of the Trust is subject to competitive pressures.

The Trust and the Sponsor face competition with respect to the creation of competing products. The Sponsor’s competitors may have greater financial, technical and human resources than the Sponsor. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be effective competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. In addition, the timing of the Trust in reaching the market and the fee structure of the Trust relative to similar products may have a detrimental effect on the scale and sustainability of the Trust. The Sponsor’s competitors may be able to launch similar products to the Trust before the launch of the Trust due to, for example, the satisfaction of all regulatory requirements required to launch before the Trust is able to do so. Accordingly, the Sponsor’s competitors may commercialize a product involving ether more rapidly or effectively than the Sponsor is able to, which could adversely affect the Sponsor’s competitive position, the likelihood that the Trust will achieve initial market acceptance and the Sponsor’s ability to generate meaningful revenues from the Trust (i.e., revenues that would commercially justify the Sponsor continuing to devote time and resources to the operation of the Trust), which in turn could cause the Sponsor to dissolve and terminate the Trust.

In addition, to the extent that the Trust incurs transaction expenses in connection with the creation and redemption process, litigation expenses, indemnification obligations under the Trust’s service provider agreements and other Extraordinary Expenses that are not Sponsor-paid Expenses, such expenses will be borne by the Trust. To the extent that the Trust fails to attract a sufficiently large amount of investors, the effect of such expenses on the value of the Shares may be significantly greater than would be the case if the Trust had attracted more assets.

The Sponsor may need to find and appoint a replacement custodian quickly, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s ether.

The Sponsor could decide to replace the Custodian as the custodian of the Trust’s ether, or the Custodian may cease providing the custodial services necessary for the Trust’s normal operations. For example, the Trust’s custodian may become insolvent and enter bankruptcy or receivership proceedings, or discontinue business operations with little or no warning to the Sponsor or the Trust. Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Trust’s account with the Custodian to another party will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s ether to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Trust’s assets.

The Sponsor may not be able to find a party willing to serve as the custodian under the same terms as the current Custodial Services Agreement. To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s ether.

Limited recourse.

The Custodian has limited liability for any loss, claim, or damage to the Trust, impairing the ability of the Trust to recover losses relating to its ether and any recovery may be limited, except to the extent of a final, non-appealable judicial determination that such loss, claim or damage directly resulted from the gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud of the Custodian. In addition, the Custodian is generally not be liable for any loss caused, directly or indirectly, by the failure of the Trust to adhere to the Custodian’s policies and procedures that have been disclosed to the Trust, a force majeure event or certain actions determined by the Custodian to be necessary or advisable to inspect and protect the security of the Trust’s assets. Furthermore, the Custodian is generally not liable for a loss caused, directly or indirectly, by any failure or delay to act by any service provider to the Custodian or any system failure (other than a system failure caused by the gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud of the Custodian or the Custodian’s affiliates), that prevents the Custodian from fulfilling its obligations.

Under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee and the Sponsor will not be liable for any liability or expense incurred absent fraud, gross negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct on the part of the Trustee or the Sponsor or breach by the Sponsor of the Trust Agreement, as the case may be. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the Shareholder to Trustee or the Sponsor may be limited.

The Index Provider has limited liability relating to the use of the Index, impairing the ability of the Trust to recover losses relating to its use of the Index. The Index Provider does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or performance of the Index or the data included therein and shall have no liability in connection with the Index or index calculation, errors, omissions or interruptions of any Fidelity index or any data included therein. The Index could be calculated now or in the future in a way that adversely affects an investment in the Trust.

The Calculation Agent also has limited liability, impairing the ability of the Trust to recover losses relating to the calculation of the Index.

The value of the Shares will be adversely affected if the Trust is required to indemnify the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent or the Custodian.

Each of the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent and the Custodian has a right to be indemnified by the Trust for certain liabilities or expenses that it incurs without gross negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct on its part. Therefore, the Sponsor, Trustee, Transfer Agent or the Custodian may require that the assets of the Trust be sold in order to cover losses or liability suffered by it. Any sale of that kind would reduce the ether holdings of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Intellectual property rights claims may adversely affect the Trust and the value of the Shares.

The Sponsor is not aware of any intellectual property rights claims that may prevent the Trust from operating and holding ether. However, third parties may assert intellectual property rights claims relating to the operation of the Trust and the mechanics instituted for the investment in, holding of and transfer of ether. Regardless of the merit of an intellectual property or other legal action, any legal expenses to defend or payments to settle such claims would be Extraordinary Expenses that would be borne by the Trust through the sale or transfer of its ether and any threatened action that reduces confidence in long-term viability or the ability of end-users to hold and transfer ether may adversely affect the value of the Shares. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property rights claim could prevent the Trust from operating and force the Sponsor to terminate the Trust and liquidate its ether. As a result, an intellectual property rights claim against the Trust could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Unforeseeable risks.

Ether has gained commercial acceptance only within recent years and, as a result, there is little data on its long-term investment potential. Additionally, due to the rapidly evolving nature of the ether market, including advancements in the underlying technology, changes to ether may expose investors in the Trust to additional risks which are impossible to predict.

The Sponsor’s policies and procedures may not fully mitigate the risk of conflicts of interest.

The Sponsor does not have operating practices that require personnel to pre-clear personal trading activity in which ether is the referenced asset. In general, pre-clearance policies prohibit employees and agents from engaging in certain personal trading activity without first obtaining pre-clearance of the transaction from the firm’s chief compliance officer, chief financial officer, or some senior officer with similar responsibilities.

Without implementing pre-clearance requirements, the Sponsor may not be able to fully mitigate the risk of conflicts of interest or avoid the appearance of impropriety in connection with the purchase and sale of ether. There is no guarantee that every employee, officer, director, or similar person associated with the Sponsor, or its affiliates will refrain from engaging in insider trading in violation of their duties to the Trust and Sponsor.

This risk is present in traditional financial markets and is not unique to ether. If such employees or others affiliated with the Sponsor engage in illegal conduct or conduct which fails to meet applicable regulatory standards, the Sponsor and its affiliates could be the target of civil or criminal fines, penalties, punishments, or other regulatory sanctions or lawsuits or could be the target of an investigation. Any of these outcomes could cause the Trust and Shareholders to suffer harm.

The Sponsor and its affiliates may also participate in transactions related to ether, either for their own account (subject to certain internal employee trading operating practices) or for the account of others, such as clients, and such transactions may occur prior to, during, or after the commencement of this offering. Such transactions may not serve to benefit the Shareholders of the Trust and may have a positive or negative effect on the value of the ether held by the Trust and, consequently, on the market value of ether.

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

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

•

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

•

the Trust has agreed to indemnify the Sponsor, the Trustee and their respective affiliates pursuant to the Trust Agreement;

•

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

•

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

•

Fidelity Product Services LLC, the Index Provider of the Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate, Fidelity Digital Asset Services, LLC, the Custodian of the Trust, and Fidelity Service Company, Inc., the Administrator of the Trust, are all affiliates of the Sponsor, and as such the Sponsor is disincentivized from replacing them as the Trust’s service providers;

•

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

•

affiliates of the Sponsor may start to have substantial direct investments in ether, or other digital assets or companies in the digital assets ecosystem that they are permitted to manage taking into account their own interests without regard to the interests of the Trust or its Shareholders, and any increases, decreases or other changes in such investments could affect the Index price and, in turn, the value of the Shares; and

•

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

By purchasing the Shares, Shareholders agree and consent to the provisions set forth in the Trust Agreement.

Risks Associated with the Index and Index Pricing

The Index was developed by an affiliate of the Sponsor, the Index Provider. The Index Provider has substantial discretion at any time to change the methodology used to calculate the Index, including the spot markets that contribute prices to the Trust’s NAV. Any such changes could affect the present, past and expected levels of the Index and could adversely affect performance of the Index. The Index Provider does not have any obligation to take the needs of the Trust, the Trust’s Shareholders, or anyone else into consideration in connection with such changes. There is no guarantee that the methodology currently used in calculating the Index will appropriately track the price of ether in the future. The Index Provider has no obligation to take the needs of the Trust or the Shareholders into consideration in determining, composing, or calculating the Index. By investing in the Trust, Shareholders will have no rights against the Index Provider or any other persons that have discretion over the Index, even though these entities administer, oversee and determine the Index.

Pricing sources used by the Index are digital asset spot markets that facilitate the buying and selling of ether and other digital assets. Although many pricing sources refer to themselves as “exchanges,” they are not registered with, or supervised by, the SEC or CFTC and do not meet the regulatory standards of a national securities exchange or designated contract market. For these reasons, among others, purchases and sales of ether may be subject to temporary distortions or other disruptions due to various factors, including the lack of liquidity in the markets and government regulation and intervention. For example, on June 5, 2023, the SEC filed lawsuits against cryptocurrency exchanges Coinbase and Binance alleging, among other things, their operation of an unlicensed securities exchange. These circumstances could affect the price of ether used in Index calculations and, therefore, could adversely affect the level of the Index.

The Index is based on various inputs which include price data from various third-party ether spot markets. The Index Provider does not guarantee the validity of any of these inputs, which may be subject to technological error, manipulative activity, or fraudulent reporting from their initial source.

Right to change index.

The Sponsor, in its sole discretion, may cause the Trust to track (or price its portfolio based upon) an index or standard other than the Index at any time, with notice to the Shareholders, if investment conditions change or the Sponsor believes that another index or standard better reflects the price of ether. The Sponsor, however, is under no obligation whatsoever to make such changes in any circumstance.

Risks related to pricing.

As set forth under “Calculation of NAV” below, the Trust’s portfolio will be priced, including for purposes of determining the NAV, based upon the VWMP of ether used for the calculation of the Index as of the time of such valuation.

Using a VWMP methodology and price feeds from eligible ether spot markets, the Index intends to represent the U.S. dollar value of one ether every 15 seconds based on VWMP spot market data over rolling sixty-minute increments. As such, the VWMP methodology used to determine the NAV may not be reflective of market events and other developments that occur after its pricing window and thus this methodology may not be reflective of the then-available market price of ether in periods between its calculation. Additionally, as the methodology references a median price, it may not reflect the price of ether available for the Trust to transact on any single spot market. The Sponsor does not intend, and disclaims any obligation, to determine whether the methodology used to determine the level of the Index accurately reflects the value of ether or the price at which market transactions in ether could be readily effected at any given time.

Because the NAV of the Trust will be based almost entirely on the value of the Trust’s ether portfolio as determined by such VWMP methodology, and subscriptions and redemptions are processed based on the NAV of the Trust, if the methodology does not reflect the market value of ether at a given time, subscription and redemption transactions will be effected at prices that may adversely affect the Trust.

The NAV of the Trust will change as fluctuations occur in the market price of the Trust’s ether holdings. Shareholders should be aware that the public trading price per Share may be different from the NAV for a number of reasons, including price volatility, trading activity, the closing of ether trading platforms due to fraud, failure, security breaches or otherwise, and the fact that supply and demand forces at work in the secondary trading market for Shares are related, but not identical, to the supply and demand forces influencing the market price of ether.

An Authorized Participant may be able to create or redeem a Basket at a discount or a premium to the public trading price per Share and the Trust will therefore maintain its intended fractional exposure to a specific amount of ether per Share.

Shareholders also should note that the size of the Trust in terms of total ether held may change substantially over time and as Baskets are created and redeemed.

In the event that the value of the Trust’s ether holdings or ether holdings per Share is incorrectly calculated, neither the Sponsor nor the Administrator will be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Regulatory Risk

As ether and digital assets have grown in both popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset spot market. Many of these state and federal agencies have brought enforcement actions and issued advisories and rules relating to digital asset markets. The SEC has recently charged certain large U.S. digital asset trading platforms of supporting trading and settlement of securities in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws. Specifically, the SEC has alleged that these exchanges are operating as unregistered securities exchanges, brokers and clearing agencies. For example, on June 5, 2023, the SEC filed lawsuits against cryptocurrency exchanges Coinbase and Binance alleging, among other things, their operation of an unlicensed securities exchange. Although the SEC has not alleged that ether is a security, the outcome of these enforcement actions and others may result in the substantial restructuring of the digital asset market in the United States. Moreover, until these actions are resolved, the structure of the digital asset market in the United States will remain subject to substantial regulatory risk, which may impact the demand for digital assets and the continued availability of existing exchanges and offerings. The U.S. Congress is also actively preparing new legislation to address certain market structure issues relating to digital assets and stablecoins. The outcome of this legislation is unknown. Both the outcome of the pending SEC enforcement actions and federal legislation are highly uncertain and may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares and/or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate.

Although neither the SEC nor the CFTC has exerted direct authority over ether or ether spot trading activity, the SEC and CFTC have broad authority over the regulation of issuances of securities (including digital asset securities) and commodity interests (including derivative instruments utilizing or referencing digital assets). The SEC and CFTC’s engagement with the digital asset industry has had a material impact on the development of digital asset markets, including initial coin offerings, margin trading, regulated and unregulated derivatives markets, and decentralized finance markets. For example, the SEC has issued guidance as to the application of the securities laws to digital assets and initiated enforcement actions against certain digital asset issuers and offerings on the basis that such digital assets and offerings are securities under U.S. securities laws. In these actions, the SEC reasoned that the unregistered offer and sale of digital assets can, in certain circumstances, including ICOs, be considered an illegal

public offering of securities. Similarly, the CFTC, together with the Department of Justice, has initiated enforcement actions against digital asset trading platforms relating to violations of the CEA, on the basis that such platforms engaged in illegal, off-exchange retail commodity transactions in digital assets and digital asset derivative transactions. Further enforcement actions against participants in the digital asset industry could have negative impacts the price of digital assets, including ether.

In August 2021, Gary Gensler, the Chairman of the SEC, stated that he believed investors using digital asset trading platforms are not adequately protected, and that activities on the platforms can implicate the securities laws, commodities laws and banking laws, raising a number of issues related to protecting investors and consumers, guarding against illicit activity, and ensuring financial stability. Chair Gensler expressed a need for the SEC to have additional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from “falling between regulatory cracks,” as well as for more resources to protect investors in “this growing and volatile sector.” Chair Gensler called for federal legislation centering on digital asset trading, lending, and decentralized finance platforms, seeking “additional plenary authority” to write rules for digital asset trading and lending. It is not possible to predict whether the U.S. Congress will grant additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how they might impact the ability of digital assets markets to function or how any new regulations that may flow from such authorities might impact the value of digital assets generally and ether held by the Trust specifically. Subsequent to Chair Gensler’s assertions in August 2021, in April 2022, he announced that he instructed the SEC staff to work (i) to register and regulate digital asset platforms like securities exchanges; (ii) with the CFTC on how to jointly address digital asset platforms that trade both securities and non-securities; (iii) on segregating out digital asset platforms’ custody of customer assets, if appropriate; and (iv) on segregating out the market making functions of digital asset platforms, if appropriate. At the same time and continuing through the date of this Prospectus, the U.S. Congress continues to consider and debate a variety of proposals regarding how digital assets should be characterized and regulated.

In addition to the SEC’s actions targeting digital assets and trading platforms directly, the SEC has also targeted regulated investments that provide exposure to digital assets indirectly. For example, in a recent letter regarding the SEC’s review of proposed rule changes to list and trade shares of certain ether-related investment vehicles on public markets, the SEC staff stated that it has significant investor protection concerns regarding the markets for digital assets, including the potential for market manipulation and fraud. In March 2018, it was reported that the SEC was examining as many as 100 investment funds with strategies focused on digital assets. The reported focus of the examinations is on the accuracy of risk disclosures to investors in these funds, digital asset pricing practices, and compliance with rules meant to prevent the theft of investor funds, as well as on information gathering so that the SEC can better understand new technologies and investment products. It has further been reported that some of these funds have received subpoenas from the SEC’s Enforcement Division. Additionally, the SEC’s Division of Examinations (then the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”)) stated that digital assets remain an examination priority for 2024. In particular, the Division of Examinations intends to focus its examinations on the offer, sale, recommendation of, advice regarding, trading in, and other activities in crypto assets or related products.

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

In December 2020, FinCEN, a bureau within the U.S. Treasury Department, proposed a rule that would require financial institutions to submit reports, keep records, and verify the identity of customers for certain transactions to or from so-called “unhosted” wallets, also commonly referred to as self-hosted wallets. In May 2021, the U.S. Department of Treasury proposed new rules potentially requiring businesses to record transactions in digital assets that exceed $10,000 in value. It remains unclear if these proposed rules will ultimately be adopted.

President Biden’s March 9, 2022 Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets outlined a unified federal regulatory approach to addressing the risks and benefits of digital assets. The Executive Order articulated various policy objectives related to digital assets, including investor protections, financial and national security risks, and responsible development and use of digital assets. The Executive Order directed federal government departments and agencies to produce various reports, frameworks, analyses, and regulatory and legislative recommendations to the Biden Administration. The policies and objectives of the Executive Order are broad and, at this time, it is unclear what impact it may have on the regulation of ether and other digital assets. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Trust and the Shares. If the Sponsor determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, it may seek to cease certain or all of the Trust’s operations. Any such action could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The entire cryptocurrency industry experienced a significant drawdown in 2022, particularly throughout the latter half of the year. The decline was due to numerous factors, including a slowing macroeconomic environment, rising interest rates, expiring pandemic financial assistance, and the public collapse of several major industry participants, including Three Arrows Capital, Voyager, Celsius, and most recently, FTX and Genesis. The cryptocurrency industry’s turbulent drawdown in 2022 is expected to draw increased regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. Congress, SEC, and CFTC in the remainder of 2024 and beyond.

Under regulations from the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), businesses involved in certain digital asset business activity involving New York or a New York resident must apply for a license, commonly known as a BitLicense, from the NYDFS and must comply with anti-money laundering, cyber security, consumer protection, and financial and reporting requirements, among others. As an alternative to a BitLicense, a firm can apply for a charter to become a limited purpose trust company under New York law qualified to engage in digital asset business activity. Other states have considered or approved digital asset business activity statutes or rules, passing, for example, regulations or guidance indicating that certain digital asset business activities constitute money transmission requiring licensure. The regulation of digital asset activity under state money transmission laws varies substantially. Differences between state regimes increase the complexity and compliance burden of operating digital asset businesses across the U.S., which may affect consumer adoption of ether and its price. In an attempt to address these issues, the Uniform Law Commission passed a model law in July 2017, the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act, which has many similarities to the BitLicense and features a multistate reciprocity licensure feature, wherein a business licensed in one state could apply for accelerated licensure procedures in other states. As of June 30, 2024, only California, Louisiana and Rhode Island has adopted the model law, while Iowa has introduced the model law. It is still unclear; however, how many states will ultimately adopt some or all of the model legislation.

On February 15, 2022, Representative Warren Davidson introduced the “Keep Your Coins Act,” which is intended “[t]o prohibit Federal agencies from restricting the use of convertible virtual currency by a person to purchase goods or services for the person’s own use, and for other purposes.” That same day, Congressman Josh Gottheimer also announced a discussion draft of the “Stablecoin Innovation and Protection Act,” which is intended to define “qualified stablecoins” to differentiate them from “more volatile cryptocurrencies.”

On March 17, 2022, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Jack Reed, Mark Warner, and Jon Tester introduced the Digital Asset Sanctions Compliance Enhancement Act in an attempt to ensure blacklisted Russian individuals and businesses do not use cryptocurrency to evade economic sanctions. The bill does not come without controversy, however, as it “would place sweeping restrictions on persons who build, operate and use cryptocurrency networks even if they have no knowledge or intent to help anyone evade sanctions,” according to policy group Coin Center.

On March 28, 2022, Representative Stephen Lynch, along with co-sponsors Jesús G. García, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and Alma Adams, introduced H.R. 7231, the Electronic Currency and Secure Hardware Act (ECASH Act), which would direct the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (not the Federal Reserve) to develop and issue a digital analogue to the U.S. dollar, or “e-cash,” which is intended to “replicate and preserve the privacy, anonymity-respecting, and minimal transactional data-generating properties of physical currency instruments such as coins and notes to the greatest extent technically and practically possible,” all without requiring a bank account. E-cash would be legal tender, payable to the bearer and functionally identical to physical U.S. coins and notes, “capable of instantaneous, final, direct, peer-to-peer, offline transactions using secured hardware devices that do not involve or require subsequent or final settlement on or via a common or distributed ledger, or any other additional approval or validation by the United States Government or any other third-party payments processing intermediary,” including fully anonymous transactions, and “interoperable with all existing financial institutions and payment systems and generally accepted payments standards and network protocols, as well as other public payments programs.”

On April 6, 2022, Senator Pat Toomey released a draft of his Stablecoin Transparency of Reserves and Uniform Safe Transactions Act, or Stablecoin TRUST Act. The draft bill contemplates a “payment stablecoin,” which is convertible directly to fiat currency by the issuer. Only an insured depositary institution, a money transmitting business (authorized by its respective state authority) or a new “national limited payment stablecoin issuer” would be eligible to issue payment stablecoins. Additionally, payment stablecoins would be exempt from the federal securities requirements, including the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”).

On June 7, 2022, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Cynthia Lummis introduced the “Responsible Financial Innovation Act,” which was drafted to “create a complete regulatory framework for digital assets that encourages responsible financial innovation, flexibility, transparency and robust consumer protections while integrating digital assets into existing law.” Importantly, the legislation would assign regulatory authority over digital asset spot markets to the CFTC and codify that digital assets that meet the definition of a commodity, such as ether, would be regulated by the CFTC.

In 2023, Congress continued to consider several stand-alone digital asset bills, including a formal process to determine when digital assets will be treated as either securities to be regulated by the SEC or commodities under the purview of the CFTC, what type of federal/state regulatory regime will exist for payment stablecoins and the how the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) will apply to cryptocurrency providers. The Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (“FIT for the 21st Century Act”) advanced through the House in a vote along bipartisan lines. The FIT for the 21st Century Act would require the SEC and the CFTC to jointly issue rules or guidance that would outline their process in delisting a digital asset that they deem inconsistent with the CEA, federal securities laws and the FIT for the 21st Century Act. The bill, in part, would also provide a certification process for blockchains to be recognized as decentralized, which would allow the SEC to challenge claims made by token issuers about meeting the outlined standards.

Legislative efforts have also focused on setting criteria for stablecoin issuers and what rules will govern redeemability and collateral. The Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act of 2023, as introduced by House Finance Committee Chair Patrick McHenry (the “McHenry bill”), would make it unlawful for any entity other than a permitted payment stablecoin issuer to issue a payment stablecoin. The McHenry bill would establish bank-like regulation and supervision for federal qualified nonbank payment stablecoin issuers. These requirements include capital, liquidity and risk management requirements, application of the Bank Secrecy Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s customer privacy requirements, certain activities limits, and broad supervision and enforcement authority. The McHenry bill would grant state regulators primary supervision, examination and enforcement authority over state stablecoin issuers, leaving the Federal Reserve Board with secondary, backup enforcement authority for “exigent” circumstances. The McHenry bill would also amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the 1940 Act, the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act and the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 to specify that payment stablecoins are not securities for purposes of those federal securities laws.

Several other bills have advanced through Congress to curb crypto as a payment gateway for illicit activity and money laundering. The “Blockchain Regulatory Clarity Act” would provide clarity to the regulatory classification of digital assets, providing market certainty for innovators and clear jurisdictional boundaries for regulators by affirming that blockchain developers and other related service providers that do not custody customer funds are not money transmitters. The “Financial Technology Protection Act,” another bipartisan measure, would set up an independent Financial Technology Working Group to combat terrorism and illicit financing in cryptocurrency. The “Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act” aims to protect certain blockchain platforms from being designated as money-services businesses. Both acts advanced through the House with bipartisan support.

In a similar effort to prevent money laundering and stop crypto-facilitated crime and sanctions violations, bipartisan legislation was introduced to require DeFi services to meet the same anti-money laundering and economic sanctions compliance obligations as other financial companies. DeFi generally refers to applications that facilitate peer-to-peer financial transactions that are recorded on blockchains. By design, DeFi provides anonymity, which can allow malicious and criminal actors to evade traditional financial regulatory tools. Noting that transparency and sensible rules are vital for protecting the financial system from crime, the “Crypto-Asset National Security Enhancement and Enforcement (CANSEE) Act” was introduced. The CANSEE Act would end special treatment for DeFi by applying the same national security laws that apply to banks and securities brokers, casinos and pawn shops, and other cryptocurrency companies like centralized trading platforms. DeFi services would be forced to meet basic obligations, most notably to maintain anti-money laundering programs, conduct due diligence on their customers, and report suspicious transactions to FinCEN.

The continued evolution of federal, state and foreign government regulators and policymakers will continue to impact the viability and success of digital asset markets, broadly, and ether, specifically.

Shareholders do not have the protections associated with ownership of shares in an investment company registered under the 1940 Act or commodity pools under the Commodity Exchange Act.

The 1940 Act establishes a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for investment companies. Regulation of investment companies under the 1940 Act is designed to, among other things: prevent insiders from managing the companies to their benefit and to the detriment of public investors; prevent the inequitable or discriminate issuance of investment company securities and prevent the use of unsound or misleading methods of computing asset values. For example, registered investment companies subject to the 1940 Act must have a board of directors, a certain minimum percentage of whom must be independent (generally, at least a majority). Further, after an initial two-year period, such registered investment companies’ advisory and sub-advisory contracts must be annually reapproved by a majority of (1) the entire board of directors and (2) the independent directors. Additionally, such registered investment companies are subject to prohibitions and restrictions on transactions with their affiliates and required to maintain fund assets with special types of custodians (generally, banks or broker-dealers). Moreover, such registered investment companies are subject to significant limits on the use of leverage, as well as limits on the form of capital structure and the types of securities a registered fund can issue.

The Trust is not registered as an investment company under the 1940 Act, and the Sponsor believes that the Trust is not permitted or required to register under such act. Consequently, Shareholders do not have the regulatory protections provided to investors in investment companies.

The Trust will not hold or trade in commodity interests regulated by the CEA, as administered by the CFTC. Furthermore, the Sponsor believes that the Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the CEA, and that neither the Sponsor nor the Trustee is subject to regulation by the CFTC as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading advisor in connection with the operation of the Trust. Consequently, Shareholders will not have the regulatory protections provided to investors in CEA-regulated instruments or commodity pools.

Future and current regulations by a United States or foreign government or quasi-governmental agencies could have an adverse effect on an investment in the Trust.

The regulation of ether and related products and services continues to evolve, may take many different forms and will, therefore, impact ether and its usage in a variety of manners. The inconsistent, unpredictable, and sometimes conflicting regulatory landscape may make it more difficult for ether businesses to provide services, which may impede the growth of the ether economy and have an adverse effect on consumer adoption of ether. There is a possibility of future regulatory change altering, perhaps to a material extent, the nature of an investment in the Trust or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate. Additionally, changes to current regulatory determinations of ether’s status as not being a security, changes to regulations surrounding ether futures or related products, or actions by a United States or foreign government or quasi-governmental agencies exerting regulatory authority over ether, the Ethereum network, ether trading, or related activities impacting other parts of the digital asset market, may adversely impact ether and therefore may have an adverse effect on the value of your investment in the Trust.

Ether and other digital assets currently face an uncertain regulatory landscape in many foreign jurisdictions such as the European Union, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Russia, Israel, Poland, India, Hong Kong, Canada and Singapore. Cybersecurity attacks by state actors, particularly for the purpose of evading international economic sanctions, are likely to attract additional regulatory scrutiny to the acquisition, ownership, sale and use of digital assets, including ether. The effect of any existing regulation or future regulatory change on the Trust or ether is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Various foreign jurisdictions have adopted, and may continue to adopt in the near future, laws, regulations or directives that affect ether, particularly with respect to ether spot markets, trading venues and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of ether by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the ether economy in these jurisdictions as well as in the United States and elsewhere, or otherwise negatively affect the value of ether, and, in turn, the value of the Shares.

Future regulations may require the Trust or the Sponsor to become registered, which may cause the Trust to liquidate.

Current and future legislation, SEC and CFTC rulemaking, and other regulatory developments may impact the manner in which ether is treated. While the SEC has not officially affirmed that ether is not a security under U.S. federal securities laws, public statements by senior officials at the SEC, including a June 2018 speech by the director of the SEC’s division of Corporation Finance, indicate that such officials do not believe that ether is a security; however, more recently statements by other SEC officials have shown reluctance to agree with that assessment Such statements are not official policy statements by the SEC and reflect only the speaker’s views, which are not binding on the SEC or any other agency or court. If ether is determined to be a “security” under federal or state securities laws by the SEC or any other agency, or in a proceeding in a court of law or otherwise, it may have material adverse consequences for ether’s utility as a means of exchange and accordingly for its continued adoption. In the face of such developments, the required registrations and compliance steps may result in extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust. Specifically, the Trust and the Sponsor may be subject to additional regulatory requirements including under the 1940 Act, and the Sponsor may be required to register as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act. If the Sponsor determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s ether at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders. Alternatively, compliance with these requirements could result in additional expenses to the Trust or significantly limit the ability of the Trust to pursue its investment objective. These additional requirements may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or nonrecurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor and/or the Trust determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor may terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s ether at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders.

If regulatory changes or interpretations of an Authorized Participant’s, the Trust’s or the Sponsor’s activities require the regulation of an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor as a money services business under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act or as a money transmitter or digital asset business under state regimes for the licensing of such businesses, an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may be required to register and comply with such regulations, which could result in extraordinary, recurring and/or nonrecurring expenses to the Authorized Participant, Trust or Sponsor or increased commissions for the Authorized Participant’s clients, thereby reducing the liquidity of the Shares.

To the extent that the activities of any Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor cause it to be deemed a “money services business” under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, such Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate the implementation of an anti-money laundering program, the submission of certain reports to FinCEN and the maintenance of certain records. Similarly, the activities of an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may require it to be licensed as a money transmitter or as a digital asset business, such as under NYDFS’ BitLicense regulation.

Such additional regulatory obligations may cause the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to incur Extraordinary Expenses. If the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor decide to seek the required licenses, there is no guarantee that they will receive them in a timely manner. In addition, to the extent an Authorized Participant, the Trust, or the Sponsor is found to have operated without appropriate state or federal licenses, it may be subject to investigation, administrative or court proceedings, and civil or criminal monetary fines and penalties, all of which could harm the reputation of the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor and affect the value of the Shares. Furthermore, an Authorized Participant, the Trust, or the Sponsor may not be able to acquire necessary state licenses or be capable of complying with certain federal or state regulatory obligations applicable to money services businesses, money transmitters, and businesses engaged in digital asset activity in a timely manner. The Authorized Participant may also instead decide to terminate its role as Authorized Participant of the Trust, or the Sponsor may decide to terminate the Trust. Termination by the Authorized Participant may decrease the liquidity of the Shares, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares, and any termination of the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to the Shareholders.

Tax Risk

The ongoing activities of the Trust may generate tax liabilities for Shareholders.

As described below under “United States Federal Income Tax Consequences—Taxation of U.S. Shareholders,” it is expected that each Shareholder will include in the computation of their taxable income their proportionate share of the taxable income and expenses of the Trust and amounts realized in connection with the use of ether or the sale of ether to pay Trust expenses or facilitate redemption transactions. The Trust does not anticipate making distributions to Shareholders, so any tax liability that a Shareholder incurs as a result of holding Shares will need to be satisfied from some other source of funds. Sales of ether to fund cash redemptions are expected to result in gains and losses, with such gains and losses expected to be treated as incurred by the Shareholder that is being redeemed. These gains or losses generally would equal the difference between the amount realized from the sale of the ether and the Shareholder’s tax basis for the portion of the Shareholder’s pro rata share of the ether held in the Trust that is sold to fund the redemption, as determined in the manner described above. A redemption of some or all of a Shareholder’s Shares in exchange for the cash received from such sale is not expected to be treated as a separate taxable event for the Shareholder. If a Shareholders sells Shares in order to raise funds to satisfy such a tax liability, the sale itself may generate additional taxable gain or loss.

The tax treatment of ether and transactions involving ether for United States federal income tax purposes may change.

Under current IRS guidance, ether is treated as property, not as currency, for U.S. federal income tax purposes and transactions involving payment in ether in return for goods and services are treated as barter exchanges. Such exchanges result in capital gain or loss measured by the difference between the price at which ether is exchanged

and the taxpayer’s basis in the ether. However, because ether is a new technological innovation, because IRS guidance has taken the form of administrative pronouncements that may be modified without prior notice and comment, and because there is as yet little case law on the subject, the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in ether or in transactions relating to investments in ether may change from that described in this Prospectus, possibly with retroactive effect. Any such change in the U.S. federal income tax treatment of ether may have a negative effect on prices of ether and may adversely affect the value of the Shares. In this regard, the IRS has indicated that it has made it a priority to issue additional guidance related to the taxation of virtual currency transactions, such as transactions involving ether. While it has started to issue such additional guidance, whether any future guidance will adversely affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in ether or in transactions relating to investments in ether is unknown. Moreover, future developments that may arise with respect to digital currencies may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

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

Because ether is a new technological innovation, the tax treatment of ether for state and local tax purposes, including, without limitation state and local income and sales and use taxes, is not settled. It is uncertain what guidance, if any, on the treatment of ether for state and local tax purposes may be issued in the future. A state or local government authority’s treatment of ether may have negative consequences, including the imposition of a greater tax burden on investors in ether or the imposition of a greater cost on the acquisition and disposition of ether generally. Any such treatment may have a negative effect on prices of ether and may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

A hard “fork” of the Ethereum Blockchain could result in Shareholders incurring a tax liability.

Except for cash temporarily held to pay Trust expenses, facilitate redemption transactions, or received in creation transactions, the Trust will only invest in ether. The Trust has no obligation to claim a digital asset created by a fork of the Ethereum network. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any digital asset resulting from a fork in the Ethereum network (other than what the Sponsor determines to be ether). If the Trust were to change this policy, the Trust would need to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules. Under current IRS guidance, a hard fork resulting in the receipt of new units of cryptocurrency is a taxable event giving rise to ordinary income equal to the value of the new cryptocurrency. The Trust Agreement requires that if, despite abandoning such digital asset, the Trust receives or claims a forked asset, the Sponsor will cause the forked asset to be sold and have the proceeds distributed to the Shareholders. Such a sale will give rise to gain or loss, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, if the amount realized on the sale differs from the value of the new forked or air dropped asset at the time it was received by the Trust. A hard fork may therefore give rise to additional tax liabilities for Shareholders.

The intended tax treatment of the Trust will limit the flexibility of the Trust’s investment decisions.

The Trust is intended to be a grantor trust for Federal income tax purposes. A grantor trust is not permitted to change the investment of the Shareholders to take advantage of market fluctuations. Thus, the Sponsor may allow the Trust to hold when an actively managed fund would sell. The Sponsor may distribute proceeds when an actively managed fund would reinvest the proceeds. In addition, a fund treated as a grantor trust may not participate in trading or lending activity without raising a risk of change in status. This means that the returns of the Trust may be less than a successfully actively managed fund.

Other Risks

The Exchange on which the Shares are listed may halt trading in the Trust’s Shares, which would adversely impact a Shareholder’s ability to sell Shares.

The Trust’s Shares are listed for trading on the Exchange under the market symbol “FETH.” Trading in Shares may be halted due to market conditions or, in light of the Exchange rules and procedures, for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in Shares inadvisable. In addition, trading is subject to trading halts or pauses caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to “circuit breaker” rules and/or “limit up/limit down” rules that require trading to be halted or paused for a specified period based on a specified market decline. Additionally, there can be no assurance that the requirements necessary to maintain the listing of the Trust’s Shares will continue to be met or will remain unchanged.

The liquidity of the Shares may also be affected by the withdrawal from participation of Authorized Participants, which could adversely affect the market price of the Shares.

In the event that one or more Authorized Participants or market makers that have substantial interests in the Trust’s Shares withdraw or “step away” from participation in the purchase (creation) or sale (redemption) of the Trust’s Shares, the liquidity of the Shares will likely decrease, which could adversely affect the market price of the Shares and result in Shareholders incurring a loss on their investment.

The market infrastructure of the ether spot market could result in the absence of active Authorized Participants able to support the trading activity of the Trust.

Ether is extremely volatile, and concerns exist about the stability, reliability and robustness of many spot markets where ether trade. In a highly volatile market, or if one or more spot markets supporting the ether market faces an issue, it could be extremely challenging for any Authorized Participants to provide continuous liquidity in the Shares. There can be no guarantee that the Sponsor will be able to find an Authorized Participant to actively and continuously support the Trust.

Shareholders that are not Authorized Participants may only purchase or sell their Shares in secondary trading markets, and the conditions associated with trading in secondary markets may adversely affect Shareholders’ investment in the Shares.

Only Authorized Participants may create or redeem Baskets. All other Shareholders that desire to purchase or sell Shares must do so through the Exchange or in other markets, if any, in which the Shares may be traded. Shares may trade at a premium or discount to the NAV per Share.

The Sponsor relies heavily on key personnel.

The Sponsor relies heavily on key personnel to manage its activities. These key personnel intend to allocate their time managing the Trust in a manner that they deem appropriate. If such key personnel were to leave or be unable to carry out their present responsibilities, it may have an adverse effect on the management of the Sponsor.

Shareholders have no right or power to take part in the management of the Trust. Accordingly, no investor should purchase Shares unless such investor is willing to entrust all aspects of the management of the Trust to the Trustee and the Sponsor.

Additionally, there can be no assurance that all of the personnel who provide services to the Trust will continue to be associated with the Trust for any length of time. The loss of the services of one or more such individuals could have an adverse impact on the Trust’s ability to realize its investment objective.

The Trust is new, and if it is not profitable, the Trust may terminate and liquidate at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders.

The Trust is new. If the Trust does not attract sufficient assets to remain open, or if the trust experiences excessive withdrawals, then the Trust could be terminated and liquidated at the direction of the Sponsor (or required to do so because it is delisted by the Exchange). Termination and liquidation of the Trust could occur at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders. When the Trust’s assets are sold as part of the Trust’s liquidation, the resulting proceeds distributed to Shareholders may be less than those that may be realized in a sale outside of a liquidation context.

Shareholders do not have the rights enjoyed by investors in certain other vehicles and may be adversely affected by a lack of statutory rights and by limited voting and distribution rights.

The Shares have limited voting and distribution rights. For example, Shareholders do not have the right to elect directors, the Trust may enact splits or reverse splits without Shareholder approval, and the Trust is not required to pay regular distributions, although the Trust may pay distributions at the discretion of the Sponsor.

Shareholders may be adversely affected by creation or redemption orders that are subject to postponement, suspension or rejection under certain circumstances.

The Trust may, in its discretion, suspend the right of creation or redemption or may postpone the redemption or purchase settlement date, for (1) any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which the fulfillment of a purchase order or the redemption distribution is not reasonably practicable, or (2) such other period as the Sponsor determines to be necessary for the protection of the Shareholders of the Trust. When determining whether such an emergency exists, the Sponsor may consider, among other things, the overall impact such emergency has had on price, volume, volatility and liquidity in ether markets; the Sponsor’s view on the how long such emergency will persist; and the Sponsor’s view on whether such emergency is likely to ease or worsen. An emergency could include situations where the Trust is unable to transact in ether or where the Trust is unable to value its ether holdings, such as a circumstance where a digital asset trading platform experiences technical failure, power outage, network error or other circumstance resulting in a market-wide halt to trading, or the Trust is unable to access the ether in the Trust’s ether custody account at the Custodian due to technical or operating issues at the Trust or the Custodian. Such disruptions may have an effect on overall ether liquidity or cause price spreads of ether to widen, which may have a detrimental effect on the value of the Shares.

In addition, the Trust may reject a redemption order if the order is not in proper form as described in the Authorized Participant Agreement or if the fulfillment of the order might be unlawful. Any such postponement, suspension or rejection could adversely affect a redeeming Authorized Participant. Suspension of creation privileges may adversely impact how the Shares are traded and arbitraged on the secondary market, which could cause them to trade at levels materially different (premiums and discounts) from the fair value of their underlying holdings.

Shareholders may be adversely affected by an overstatement or understatement of the NAV calculation of the Trust due to the valuation methodology employed on the date of the NAV calculation.

If the Index is not available or the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that the Index should not be used, the Trust’s ether investments may be valued using techniques other than reliance on the price established by the Index. The value established by using the Index may be different from what would be produced through the use of another methodology. Ether valued using techniques other than those employed by the Index, including ether investments that are “fair valued,” may differ from the value established by the Index.

The Trust Agreement includes provisions that limit Shareholders’ voting rights and restrict Shareholders’ right to bring a derivative action.

Under the Trust Agreement, Shareholders generally have no voting rights and the Trust will not have regular Shareholder meetings. Shareholders take no part in the management or control of the Trust. Accordingly, Shareholders do not have the right to authorize actions, appoint service providers or take other actions as may be taken by shareholders of other trusts or companies where shares carry such rights. The Sponsor may take actions in the operation of the Trust that may be adverse to the interests of Shareholders and may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, Shareholders’ statutory right under Delaware law to bring a derivative action (i.e., to initiate a lawsuit in the name of the Trust in order to assert a claim belonging to the Trust against a fiduciary of the Trust or against a third-party when the Trust’s management has refused to do so) is restricted. Under Delaware law, a shareholder may bring a derivative action if the shareholder is a shareholder at the time the action is brought and either (i) was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue or (ii) acquired the status of shareholder by operation of law or the Trust’s governing instrument from a person who was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue. Additionally, Section 3816(e) of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act specifically provides that a “beneficial owner’s right to bring a derivative action may be subject to such additional standards and restrictions, if any, as are set forth in the governing instrument of the statutory trust, including, without limitation, the requirement that beneficial owners owning a specified beneficial interest in the statutory trust join in the bringing of the derivative action.” In addition to the requirements of applicable law and in accordance with Section 3816(e), the Trust Agreement provides that no Shareholder will have the right, power or authority to bring or maintain a derivative action, suit or other proceeding on behalf of the Trust unless two or more Shareholders who (i) are not “Affiliates” (as defined in the Trust Agreement) of one another and (ii) collectively hold at least 10.0% of the outstanding Shares join in the bringing or maintaining of such action, suit or other proceeding. This provision applies to any derivative actions brought in the name of the Trust other than claims under the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Due to this additional requirement, a Shareholder attempting to bring or maintain a derivative action in the name of the Trust will be required to locate other Shareholders with which it is not affiliated and that have sufficient Shares to meet the 10.0% threshold based on the number of Shares outstanding on the date the claim is brought and thereafter throughout the duration of the action, suit or proceeding. This may be difficult and may result in increased costs to a Shareholder attempting to seek redress in the name of the Trust in court. Moreover, if Shareholders bringing a derivative action, suit or proceeding pursuant to this provision of the Trust Agreement do not hold 10.0% of the outstanding Shares on the date such an action, suit or proceeding is brought, or such Shareholders are unable to maintain Share ownership meeting the 10.0% threshold throughout the duration of the action, suit or proceeding, such Shareholders’ derivative action may be subject to dismissal. As a result, the Trust Agreement limits the likelihood that a Shareholder will be able to successfully assert a derivative action in the name of the Trust, even if such Shareholder believes that he or she has a valid derivative action, suit or other proceeding to bring on behalf of the Trust.

THE TRUST AND ETHER PRICES

Overview of the Trust

The Trust is an exchange-traded product that issues Shares that trade on the Exchange. The Trust’s investment objective is to reflect the performance of ether, as measured by the performance of the Index, adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and liabilities. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold ether and will value its Shares daily based on the same methodology used to calculate the Index. The Trust is sponsored by FD Funds Management LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FMR LLC.

The Sponsor believes that the Trust will provide a cost-efficient way for Shareholders to implement strategic and tactical asset allocation strategies that use ether by investing in the Trust’s Shares rather than purchasing, holding and trading ether directly. An alternative would require selecting and using an ether spot market and establishing and funding a digital asset account.

Description of the Index Construction and Maintenance

The Index is designed to reflect the performance of ether in U.S. dollars. The Index is constructed using ether price feeds from eligible ether spot markets and the VWMP methodology, calculated every 15 seconds based on VWMP exchange data over rolling sixty-minute increments to develop an ether price composite. The Index methodology was developed by the Index Provider and is monitored by the Committee.

Eligible spot markets include all U.S. digital asset trading platforms and/or regulated digital asset trading platforms selected by the Committee. Such markets will be evaluated quarterly, and the final selections will be made on the third Friday of March, June, September, and December or during market disruptions where a market review is warranted, as determined by the Committee. New exchanges that meet the eligibility requirements will be considered for inclusion at the quarterly review once there is one week of pricing data available. The current ether spot markets included in the Index calculation are Bitstamp, Coinbase, Gemini, itBit, Kraken, and LMAX Digital. As further described below, the Sponsor and the Trust reasonably believe each of these digital asset trading platforms maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations.

•

Bitstamp in the U.S. is a digital asset exchange operated by Bitstamp USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Bitstamp Ltd., which operates a Luxembourg-based exchange. Bitstamp USA is registered as a money services business with FinCEN and holds licenses to engage in money transmission, or the state equivalent, in applicable U.S. states.

•

Coinbase is a digital asset exchange operated by Coinbase, Inc., which is incorporated in Delaware, registered as a money services business with FinCEN, and holds licenses to engage in money transmission, or the state equivalent, in the majority of U.S. states.

•

Gemini is a digital asset exchange operated by Gemini Trust Company, LLC, a New York limited purpose trust company regulated by the NYDFS, which is registered as a money services business with FinCEN and holds state licenses to engage in money transmission, or the state equivalent, in applicable U.S. states.

•

itBit is a digital asset exchange operated by Paxos Trust Company, LLC, a New York limited purpose trust company regulated by the NYDFS, which is registered as a money services business with FinCEN and holds state licenses to engage in money transmission, or the state equivalent, in applicable U.S. states.

•

Kraken is a digital asset exchange operated in the United States by Payward Ventures, Inc., which is registered as a money services business with FinCEN and holds licenses to engage in money transmission, or the state equivalent, in the majority of U.S. states.

•

LMAX Digital is a Gibraltar based exchange regulated by the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission as a DLT provider for execution and custody services. LMAX Digital is part of LMAX Group, a U.K-based operator of an FCA-regulated Multilateral Trading Facility and Broker-Dealer.

The Committee may from time to time add or remove other digital asset trading platforms from the Index calculation without prior notice to the Trust or the Shareholders, and the Trust will not notify Shareholders of any such addition or removal unless the addition or removal is deemed material by Sponsor in light of all the facts and circumstances. In addition, the Committee reviews the Index every six months for potential updates needed to account for the evolution and maturation of the digital assets industry. The below table reflects the average closing sixty-minute window of trading volume in ether and market share of the ETH-U.S. dollar trading pairs of each of the digital asset trading platforms included in the Index as of and for the three-month period ending on June 30, 2024, using data reported by the Index Provider:


Digital asset trading platforms included in the Index as of June 30, 2024	Volume (USD)		Market Share
Bitstamp	$	1,346,563		4.45	%
Coinbase	$	20,503,088		67.75	%
Gemini	$	1,275,510		4.21	%
itBit	$	304,032		1.0	%
Kraken	$	2,579,910		8.53	%
LMAX	$	4,255,024		14.06	%
Total	$	30,264,126		100.00	%

The Index is calculated using a volume-weighted median price approach. The Index market value is the volume-weighted median price of ether in U.S. dollars over the previous sixty minutes (i.e., the time window between 3:00 p.m. EST and 4:00 p.m. EST), which is calculated by (1) ordering all individual transactions on eligible spot markets over the previous sixty minutes by price, and then (2) selecting the price associated with the 50th percentile of total volume. The following example is for illustrative purposes only is not representative of the actual price or trading data of ether:


Trades within sixty-minute window at June 30, 2024 close sorted by price
Amount	Market	Price	UTC time	Ascending Volume Share	Descending Volume Share
0.00004	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3412.75	2024-06-30 19:14:37.884738+00:00	0.000%	100.000%
2.16797	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3412.75	2024-06-30 19:14:43.808440+00:00	0.100%	100.000%
1.35066	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3412.75	2024-06-30 19:14:43.808440+00:00	0.162%	99.900%
…
0.00391	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3420.11	2024-06-30 19:35:06.616716+00:00	49.952%	50.048%
1.07315	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3420.11	2024-06-30 19:42:59.026700+00:00	50.001%	50.048%
0.14936	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3420.11	2024-06-30 19:36:00.606725+00:00	50.008%	49.999%
…
0.00068	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3428.2	2024-06-30 19:55:23.885188+00:00	100.000%	0.000%
0.00016	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3428.2	2024-06-30 19:55:23.885188+00:00	100.000%	0.000%
0.00777	coinbase-eth-usd-spot	3428.2	2024-06-30 19:55:23.885188+00:00	100.000%	0.000%

In this example, the 50th percentile of total volume lies within the volume share at a price of $3,420.11.

As the Index is calculated as a price return, it does not track forks or air drops involving ether. Accordingly, the Trust will not normally hold forked or air dropped assets, as further described below in “Risk Factors – The inability to recognize the economic benefit of a ‘fork’ or an ‘air drop’ could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.”

The Index methodology and constituent digital asset trading platforms may be changed from time to time at the discretion of the Index Provider without Shareholder approval. For example, if the Index Provider determines that there have been material efforts to manipulate the price of ether on a constituent digital asset trading platform or that the data feeds from such trading platform are unreliable, the Index Provider may remove such trading platform for the Index methodology. To the extent that such changes to the methodology result in a more limited set of constituent digital asset trading platforms, there is an increased risk that the price of ether used in Trust’s calculation of NAV would deviate from the price quoted on digital asset trading platforms not included within the Index methodology. Shareholders will be notified of changes to the Index methodology only if the Sponsor determines that such changes are material with respect to an investment decision regarding the Shares. Once it has actual knowledge of material changes to the Index methodology, the Trust will notify Shareholders in a Prospectus supplement and/or a current report on Form 8-K or in its annual or quarterly reports. The current Index methodology and constituent digital assets are available on the Index Provider’s website at i.fidelity.com/indices. The information on or available through any such website is not deemed incorporated in this Prospectus and does not form part of this Prospectus.

The use of the Index is designed to eliminate from the NAV calculation pursuant to which the Trust prices its Shares those ether spot markets with indicia of suspicious, fake, or non-economic volume. In addition, the use of eligible ether spot markets is designed to mitigate the potential for idiosyncratic market risk, as the failure of any individual ether spot market in and of itself should not materially impact pricing for the Trust. Moreover, any attempt to manipulate the NAV would require a substantial amount of capital distributed across a majority of the eligible spot markets, and potentially coordinated activity across those markets, making it more difficult to conduct, profit from, or avoid the detection of market manipulation. The Sponsor believes that this is especially true in a well-arbitraged and distributed market, as the Index Provider believes the ether market to be.

In addition to the above safeguards, the Index is calculated using a VWMP methodology and price feeds from eligible ether spot markets. The Index is designed to represent the U.S. dollar value of one ether every 15 seconds based on VWMP spot market data over rolling sixty-minute increments. The use of rolling sixty-minute increments means a malicious actor would need to sustain efforts to manipulate the market over an extended period of time, or would need to replicate efforts multiple times, potentially triggering review from the spot market or regulators, or both. The use of a “median” price by its nature limits the ability of outlier prices that may have been caused by attempts to manipulate the price on a particular market, to impact the NAV, as it systematically excludes those prices from the NAV calculation.

Coin Metrics, Inc. is the third-party, independent calculation agent for the Index. The Index is not sold, endorsed, sponsored, promoted or supported in any other manner by the Calculation Agent nor does Calculation Agent offer any express or implicit guarantee or assurance either with regard to the results of using the Index and/or Index trademark or the Index price. The Calculation Agent’s only relationship to the Index Provider with respect to the Index is the licensing of the Index, certain trademarks, service marks and trade names of Coin Metrics, Inc., and the provision of the calculation services related to the Index.

The Calculation Agent does not guarantee the accuracy, timeliness and/or the completeness of any data supplied by it or any data included therein. The Calculation Agent shall not be subject to any damages or liability for any errors, omissions, or delays therein. The Calculation Agent makes no express or implied warranties, and expressly disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to the data supplied or any data included therein. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event whatsoever shall the Calculation Agent be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, loss of profits, trading losses, lost time, or goodwill) even if the Calculation Agent has been notified of the possibility of such damages.

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, choose to substitute the Index or Index Provider. The Sponsor may do so, for example, if it determines that the Index no longer reliably reflects the price of ether or if the Index is no longer available. The Trust will notify Shareholders of any such change in a Prospectus supplement and/or a current report on Form 8-K or in its annual or quarterly reports.

CALCULATION OF NAV

For purposes of calculating the Trust’s NAV per Share, the Trust’s holdings of ether will be valued using the same methodology as used to calculate the Index. The Index is constructed using ether price feeds from eligible spot markets and the VWMP methodology, calculated every 15 seconds based on VWMP market data over rolling sixty-minute increments.

The Sponsor believes that use of the Index mitigates against idiosyncratic market risk, as the failure of any individual spot market will not materially impact pricing for the Trust. It also allows the Administrator to calculate the NAV in a manner that significantly deters manipulation.

As discussed elsewhere in this Prospectus, the fact that there are multiple ether spot markets contributing prices to the NAV makes manipulation more difficult in a well-arbitraged and fractured market, as a malicious actor would need to manipulate multiple spot markets simultaneously to impact the NAV, or dramatically skew the historical distribution of volume between the various markets.

Since the Index is intended to represent the U.S. dollar value of one ether every 15 seconds based on VWMP spot market data over rolling sixty-minute increments, malicious actors would need to sustain efforts to manipulate the market over an extended period of time, or would need to replicate efforts multiple times across markets, potentially triggering review. This extended period also supports Authorized Participant activity by capturing volume over a longer time period, rather than forcing Authorized Participants to mark an individual close or auction. The use of a median price eliminates the ability of outlier prices to impact the NAV, as it systematically excludes those prices from the NAV calculation. The use of a volume-weighted median (as opposed to a traditional median) protects against attempts to manipulate the NAV by executing a large number of low-dollar trades, because any manipulation attempt would have to involve a majority of global spot ether volume in a narrow window to have any influence on the NAV.

The Trust’s NAV per Share is calculated by:

•

taking the fair market value of its total assets based on the volume-weighted median price of ether used for the calculation of the Index;

•

subtracting any liabilities; and

•

dividing that total by the total number of outstanding Shares.

The Administrator calculates the NAV of the Trust once each Exchange trading day. The NAV for a normal trading day will be released after 4:00 p.m. EST. Trading during the core trading session on the Exchange typically closes at 4:00 p.m. EST. However, NAVs are not officially struck until after 4:00 p.m. EST. The pause after 4:00 p.m. EST provides an opportunity for the Sponsor to algorithmically detect, flag, investigate, and correct unusual pricing should it occur. The Sponsor has established a Valuation Committee to carry out the day-to-day fair valuation responsibilities and has adopted policies and procedures to govern the fair valuation process and the activities of the Valuation Committee. If the Valuation Committee determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate ether price, then the Valuation Committee will instruct the Administrator to employ an alternative method to determine the fair value of the Trust’s assets. In determining an alternative fair value method, the Valuation Committee generally considers such criteria as observable market-based inputs, including market quotations and last sale information from third-party pricing services and/or trading platforms on which ether are traded. The Valuation Committee’s selection of third-party pricing services used considers the qualifications, experience, and history of the pricing services and whether their valuation methodologies and procedures are reasonably designed to produce prices that reflect fair value under the prevailing market conditions. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the Index or other valuation method used to calculate the NAV of the Trust. Any such change in the Index or other valuation method could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. In the event of a material change, the Sponsor will notify Shareholders in a Prospectus supplement and/or a current report on Form 8-K or in its annual or quarterly reports, as applicable.

In addition, in order to provide updated information relating to the Trust for use by Shareholders and market professionals, a third-party financial data provider will calculate and disseminate throughout the core trading session on each trading day an updated intraday indicative value (“IIV”). The IIV will be calculated based on the Trust’s ether holdings and any other assets expected to comprise that day’s NAV calculation. The third-party financial data provider will use the Blockstream Crypto Data Feed Streaming Level 1 as the pricing source for the spot ether. The Blockstream Crypto Data Feed Streaming Level 1 calculates an average of current ether price levels of the ether trading platforms that are available on its feed. The ether trading platforms included in the Blockstream Crypto Data Feed Streaming Level 1 include Bitflyer, Bitfinex, Binance US, Bitso, Bitstamp, BTSE, CEX IO, Exmo, Gemini, itBit, LMAX Digital and OK Coin. The Trust will provide an IIV per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange’s regular trading hours of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST (“Regular Trading Hours”). The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours 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 as described herein. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours through the facilities of the consolidated tape association (CTA) and Consolidated Quotation System (CQS) high speed lines. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters.

The Trust’s periodic financial statements may not utilize the NAV of the Trust determined by reference to the Index 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 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 either the market the Trust normally transacts in for ether or, if the Trust does not normally transact in any market or such market suffers an operational interruption and is unavailable, 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.

The Sponsor reserves the right to adjust the Share price of the Trust in the future to maintain convenient trading ranges for Shareholders. Any adjustments would be accomplished through stock splits or reverse stock splits. Such splits would decrease (in the case of a split) or increase (in the case of a reverse split) the proportionate NAV per Share, but would have no effect on the net assets of the Trust or the proportionate voting rights of Shareholders or the value of any Shareholder’s investment.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUST

The Trust

The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust, formed on October 31, 2023, pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act. The Trust continuously issues shares representing fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust that may be purchased and sold on the Exchange. The Trust will operate pursuant to Trust Agreement, as amended and/or restated from time to time. CSC Delaware Trust Company, a Delaware trust company, is the Delaware trustee of the Trust. The Trust is managed and controlled by the Sponsor. The Sponsor is a limited liability company formed in the state of Delaware on August 23, 2019.

The number of outstanding Shares is expected to increase and decrease from time to time as a result of the creation and redemption of Baskets. The creation and redemption of Baskets requires the delivery to the Trust or the distribution by the Trust of the amount of cash represented by the NAV of the Baskets being created or redeemed. The total amount of cash required for the creation of Baskets will be based on the combined net assets represented by the number of Baskets being created or redeemed. The Sponsor recognizes that the size of the Baskets may impact the effectiveness of the arbitrage mechanism of the Trust’s creation and redemption process, and accordingly may adjust the size of the Baskets to enhance the activities of the Authorized Participants in the secondary market for the Trust’s Shares.

The Trust has no fixed termination date.

The Trust’s Fees and Expenses

As partial consideration for its receipt of the Sponsor Fee, the Sponsor is obligated under the Trust Agreement to assume and pay all fees and other expenses incurred by the Trust in the ordinary course of its affairs, excluding taxes, but including: (i) the fees of the Trust’s third-party service providers including, but not limited to, the Distributor, the Administrator, the Custodian, the Cash Custodian, the Transfer Agent, the Index Provider, and the Trustee, (ii) the fees and expenses related to the listing, quotation or trading of the Shares on the Exchange (including customary legal, marketing and audit fees and expenses), (iii) legal fees and expenses incurred in the ordinary course, (iv) audit fees, (v) regulatory fees, including, if applicable, any fees relating to the registration of the Trust and Shares, including any ongoing filings related to the offering of Shares, under the 1933 Act or the 1934 Act, (vi) printing and mailing costs, (vii) costs of maintaining the Trust’s website and (viii) applicable license fees (each, a “Sponsor-paid Expense” and collectively, the “Sponsor-paid Expenses”), provided that any expense that qualifies as an Extraordinary Expense (as defined below) will not be deemed to be a Sponsor-paid Expense. There is no cap on the amount of Sponsor-paid Expenses. The Sponsor has also assumed all fees and expenses related to the organization and offering of the Trust and the Shares.

To the extent it does not have cash readily available, the Sponsor shall cause the transfer or sale of ether in such quantity as may be necessary to permit the payment of Trust expenses and liabilities not assumed by the Sponsor or for payment of redemption proceeds to Authorized Participants. The Trust will not bear any costs associated with the transfer or sale of ether to pay the Sponsor Fee. To the extent the Trust incurs any Extraordinary Expenses, the Trust will bear the costs of any transfers or sales of ether to pay such expenses. The Trust will seek to transfer ether at such times and in the smallest amounts required to permit such payments as they become due. With respect to transfers or sales necessary to pay Trust expenses and liabilities that are denominated other than in ether, the amount of ether transferred or sold may vary from time to time depending on the actual sales price of ether relative to the Trust’s expenses and liabilities (e.g., if the price of ether falls, the amount of ether needed to be transferred or sold to pay an expense denominated in U.S. dollars will increase). To the extent the Trust must buy or sell ether, the Trust may do so through a third-party digital asset broker or dealer. When the Trust buys or sells ether, the Sponsor seeks quotes from its ether trading counterparties. Such transactions are typically conducted over the counter rather than over a trading platform or similar order matching service. The Sponsor will select third party brokers or dealers that it believes have implemented adequate anti-money laundering, know-your-customer and other legal compliance policies and procedures.

Termination of the Trust

The Sponsor will notify Shareholders at least thirty (30) days before the date for termination of the Trust Agreement and the Trust if any of the following occurs:

•

Shares are delisted from the Exchange and are not approved for listing on another national securities exchange within five business days of their delisting;

•

180 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 determines that the Trust is an investment company under the 1940 Act, and the Sponsor has made the determination that termination of the Trust is advisable;

•

the CFTC determines that the Trust is a commodity pool under the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Sponsor has made the determination that termination of the Trust is advisable;

•

the Trust is determined to be a “money service business” under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN under the authority of the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act and is required to comply with certain FinCEN regulations thereunder or is determined to be a “money transmitter” (or equivalent designation) under the laws of any state in which the Trust operates and is required to seek licensing or otherwise comply with state licensing requirements, and the Sponsor has made the determination that termination of the Trust is advisable;

•

a United States regulator requires the Trust to shut down or forces the Trust to liquidate its ether or seizes, impounds or otherwise restricts access to the Trust Estate (as defined in the Trust Agreement);

•

any ongoing event exists that either prevents the Trust from making or makes impractical the Trust’s reasonable efforts to make a fair determination of the price of ether for purposes of determining the NAV of the Trust;

•

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

•

the Trust fails to qualify for treatment, or ceases to be treated, as a “grantor trust” under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) or any comparable provision of the laws of any State or other jurisdiction where that treatment is sought, and the Sponsor determines that, because of that tax treatment or change in tax treatment, termination of the Trust is advisable;

•

60 days have elapsed since DTC or another depository has ceased to act as depository with respect to the Shares, and the Sponsor has not identified another depository that is willing to act in such capacity;

•

the Trustee elects to terminate the Trust after the Sponsor is conclusively deemed to have resigned effective immediately as a result of the Sponsor being adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or a receiver of the Sponsor or of its property being appointed, or a trustee or liquidator or any public officer taking charge or control of the Sponsor or of its property or affairs for the purpose of rehabilitation, conservation or liquidation and a successor sponsor has not been appointed; or

•

the Sponsor elects to terminate the Trust after the Trustee, Administrator or the Custodian (or any successor trustee, administrator or custodian) resigns or otherwise ceases to be the trustee, administrator or custodian of the Trust, as applicable, and no replacement trustee, administrator and/or custodian acceptable to the Sponsor is engaged.

In addition, the Trust may be dissolved at any time for any reason by the Sponsor in its sole discretion. In respect of termination events that rely on Sponsor determinations to terminate the Trust (e.g., if the SEC determines that the Trust is an investment company under the 1940 Act; the CFTC determines that the Trust is a commodity pool under the CEA; the Trust is determined to be a money transmitter under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN; the Trust fails to qualify for treatment, or ceases to be treated, as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes; or, following a resignation by a trustee or custodian, the Sponsor determines that no replacement is acceptable to it), the Sponsor may consider, without limitation, the profitability to the Sponsor and other service providers of the operation of the Trust, any obstacles or costs relating to the operation or regulatory compliance of the Trust relating to the determination’s triggering event, and the ability to market the Trust to investors. To the extent that the Sponsor determines to continue operation of the Trust following a determination’s triggering event, the Trust will be required to alter its operations to comply with the triggering event. In the instance of a determination that the Trust is an investment company, the Trust and Sponsor would have to comply with the regulations and disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to investment companies and investment advisers. In the instance of a determination that the Trust is a commodity pool, the Trust and the Sponsor would have to comply with regulations and disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to commodity pools and commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisers. In the event that the Trust is determined to be a money transmitter, the Trust and the Sponsor will have to comply with applicable federal and state registration and regulatory requirements for money transmitters and/or money service businesses. In the event that the Trust ceases to qualify for treatment as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the Trust will be required to alter its disclosure and tax reporting procedures and may no longer be able to operate or to rely on pass-through tax treatment. In each such case and in the case of the Sponsor’s determination as to whether a potential successor trustee or custodian is acceptable to it, the Sponsor will not be liable to anyone for its determination of whether to continue or to terminate the Trust.

Upon termination of the Trust, the affairs of the Trust shall be wound up and all assets owned by the Trust shall be liquidated as promptly as is consistent with obtaining the fair value thereof. The proceeds of the liquidation of the Trust’s assets will be distributed in cash. The Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will sell the Trust’s ether assets at market prices and will distribute to the Shareholders any amounts of the cash proceeds of the liquidation remaining after the satisfaction of all outstanding liabilities of the Trust and the establishment of reserves for applicable taxes, other governmental charges and contingent or future liabilities as the Sponsor will determine. Shareholders are not entitled to any of the Trust’s underlying ether holdings upon the dissolution of the Trust. Following completion of winding up of its business by the Sponsor, the Trustee, upon written directions of the Sponsor, will cause a certificate of cancellation of the Trust’s Certificate of Trust to be filed in accordance with applicable Delaware law. Upon the termination of the Trust, the Sponsor will be discharged from all obligations under the Trust Agreement except for its certain obligations that survive termination of the Trust Agreement.

Amendments

The Trust Agreement can be amended by the Sponsor in its sole discretion and without the Shareholders’ consent by making an amendment, a Trust Agreement supplemental thereto, or an amended and restated trust agreement. Any such restatement, amendment and/or supplement to the Trust Agreement will be effective on such date as designated by the Sponsor in its sole discretion. However, any amendment to the Trust Agreement that affects the duties, liabilities, rights or protections of the Trustee will require the Trustee’s prior written consent, which it may grant or withhold in its sole discretion. Every Shareholder, at the time any amendment so becomes effective, will be deemed, by continuing to hold any Shares or an interest therein, to consent and agree to such amendment and to be bound by the Trust Agreement as amended thereby. In no event will any amendment impair the right of Authorized Participants to surrender baskets and receive therefor the amount of Trust assets represented thereby (less fees in connection with the surrender of Shares and any applicable taxes or other governmental charges), except in order to comply with mandatory provisions of applicable law. The Trust will notify Shareholders of any amendments to the Trust Agreement in a Prospectus supplement and/or a current report on Form 8-K or in its annual or quarterly reports.

THE TRUST’S SERVICE PROVIDERS

The Sponsor

The Sponsor arranged for the creation of the Trust and is responsible for the ongoing registration of the Shares for their public offering in the United States and the listing of Shares on the Exchange. The Sponsor will not exercise day-to-day oversight over the Trustee, the Custodian, or the Index Provider. The Sponsor, or its agent, will develop a marketing plan for the Trust, will prepare marketing materials regarding the Shares of the Trust, and will exercise the marketing plan of the Trust on an ongoing basis. The Sponsor has agreed to pay all normal operating expenses except for Extraordinary Expenses out of the Sponsor’s unified fee.

The Sponsor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FMR LLC. At present, the primary business activities of FMR LLC and its subsidiaries are: (i) the provision of investment advisory, management, shareholder, investment information and assistance and certain fiduciary services for individual and institutional investors; (ii) the provision of securities brokerage services; (iii) the management and development of real estate; and (iv) the investment in and operation of a number of emerging businesses. FMR LLC and its subsidiaries have significant experience sponsoring exchange-traded funds, and the Sponsor has managed several digital asset-focused funds since its formation in 2019, which include Wise Origin Bitcoin Index Fund I, LP, Wise Origin Ethereum Index Fund, LP, and Wise Origin BTC & ETH Equal Weight Index Fund, LP. The Sponsor is the sponsor of the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund, an exchange-traded product that seeks to track the performance of bitcoin.

The principal office of the Sponsor is:

FD Funds Management LLC

245 Summer Street

Boston, MA 02210

The Trustee

CSC Delaware Trust Company, a Delaware trust company, acts as the trustee of the Trust for the purpose of creating a Delaware statutory trust in accordance with the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (“DSTA”). The Trustee is appointed to serve as the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware for the sole purpose of satisfying the requirement of Section 3807(a) of the DSTA that the Trust have at least one trustee with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware.

Duties of the Trustee.

The Trustee is appointed to serve as the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware for the sole purpose of satisfying the requirement of Section 3807(a) of the DSTA that the Trust have at least one trustee with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware. The duties of the Trustee will be limited to (i) accepting legal process served on the Trust in the State of Delaware and (ii) the execution of any certificates required to be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State which the Delaware Trustee is required to execute under the DSTA.

Resignation, discharge or removal of Trustee; successor Trustees.

The Trustee may resign at any time by giving at least one hundred eighty (180) days’ advance written notice to the Sponsor. The Sponsor may remove the Trustee at any time by giving at least sixty (60) days’ advance written notice to the Trustee. Upon effective resignation or removal, the Trustee will be discharged of its duties and obligations.

If the Trustee resigns or is removed, the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Shareholders, is required to use reasonable efforts to appoint a successor trustee. Any successor Trustee must satisfy the requirements of Section 3807 of the DSTA. Any resignation or removal of the Trustee and appointment of a successor Trustee cannot become effective until a written acceptance of appointment is delivered by the successor Trustee to the outgoing Trustee and the Sponsor and any fees and expenses due to the outgoing Trustee are paid or waived by the outgoing Trustee. Following compliance with the preceding sentence, the successor will become fully vested with the rights, powers, duties and obligations of the outgoing Trustee under the Trust Agreement, with like effect as if originally named as Trustee, and the outgoing Trustee shall be discharged of its duties and obligations herein. If no successor Trustee shall have been appointed and shall have accepted such appointment within forty-five (45) days after the giving of such notice of resignation or removal, the Trustee may petition any court of competent jurisdiction for the appointment of a successor Trustee.

If the Trustee resigns and no successor trustee is appointed within one hundred eighty (180) days after the date the Trustee issues its notice of resignation, the Sponsor will terminate and liquidate the Trust and distribute its remaining assets.

Liability of the Trustee.

The Trustee shall not be liable under any circumstances, except for its own fraud, willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence with respect to its express duties under the Trust Agreement. The Trustee will have no obligation to monitor or supervise the obligations of the Sponsor, Transfer Agent, Administrator, Custodian, or any other person.

Trustee’s Fee and Indemnity.

The Trustee will be compensated by the Trust, out of the Sponsors Fee, for the Trustee’s fees. The Trustee will be indemnified by the Trust for any expenses it incurs that arise out of or are imposed upon or asserted at any time against it in connection with the execution or delivery of the Trust Agreement relating to or arising out of the creation, operation or termination of the Trust, or the performance of its obligations pursuant to the Trust Agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby, except to the extent that such expenses result from gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith of the Trustee; provided that any such indemnification will be recoverable only from the assets of the Trust.

The Trustee and any of the officers, directors, affiliates, employees and agents of the Trustee shall be indemnified by the Trust and held harmless against any loss, damage, liability (including liability under state or federal securities laws), claim, action, suit, cost, expense, disbursement (including the reasonable fees and expenses of counsel generally and in connection with its enforcement of its indemnification rights), tax or penalty of any kind and nature whatsoever, to the extent arising out of, imposed upon or asserted at any time against such indemnified person in connection with the execution or delivery of the Trust Agreement, the performance of its obligations under the Trust Agreement, the creation, operation or termination of the Trust or the transactions contemplated therein; provided, however, that (i) the Trust shall not be required to indemnify any such indemnified person for any such expenses which are a result of the willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence related to the express duties of the Trustee and (ii) any such indemnification will be recoverable only from the assets of the Trust; provided however that, to the extent that the Trust has not satisfied such indemnification obligation by the sixtieth (60th) day following written demand therefor, the Sponsor shall indemnify and hold the Trustee harmless from and against any such amounts. As security for any amounts owing to the Trustee under the above-referenced indemnity, the Trustee shall have a lien against the Trust property. The obligations of the Trust to indemnify such indemnified persons under the Trust Agreement shall survive resignation or removal of the Trustee and the termination of the Trust Agreement.

The Administrator

Under the Administration Agreement, the Administrator provides necessary administrative, tax and accounting services and financial reporting for the maintenance and operations of the Trust. In addition, the Administrator makes available the office space, equipment, personnel and facilities to provide such services. The Administrator will also facilitate the instruction to transfer ether required for the operation of the Trust.

The Custodian

The Custodian is responsible for safekeeping all of the ether owned by the Trust. The Custodian was selected by the Sponsor. The Sponsor has responsibility for opening the Ether Account with the Custodian. In addition, the Custodian facilitates the transfer of ether required for the operation of the Trust upon instructions from the Sponsor or the Administrator.

The Transfer Agent

State Street serves as the transfer agent for the Trust. The Transfer Agent: (1) facilitates the issuance and redemption of Shares of the Trust; (2) responds to correspondence by Trust Shareholders and others relating to its duties; (3) maintains Shareholder accounts; and (4) makes periodic reports to the Trust. The Trust’s Transfer Agent will facilitate the settlement of Shares in response to the placement of creation orders and redemption orders from financial firms that are authorized to purchase or redeem Shares with the Authorized Participants.

The Cash Custodian

State Street also serves as the cash custodian for the Trust. The Cash Custodian is responsible for safekeeping all cash and other non-ether assets of the Trust.

Index Services

The Index Provider, an affiliate of the Sponsor, is responsible for analyzing ether market data relating to the calculation and maintenance of the Index. Coin Metrics, Inc. is the third-party, independent calculation agent for the Index.

The Distributor

The Distributor is responsible for working with the Administrator to review and approve, or reject, purchase and redemption orders of Baskets placed by Authorized Participants and for reviewing and approving the marketing materials prepared by the Sponsor for compliance with applicable SEC and FINRA advertising laws, rules, and regulations.

Ether Trading Counterparties

The Trust buys and sells ether through ether trading counterparties selected by the Sponsor (not any Authorized Participant). The Trust does not currently intend to engage a prime broker or other liquidity provider providing similar services. As of July 17, 2024, the Trust has entered into agreements with each of Cumberland DRW LLC, Flow Traders B.V., JSCT, LLC, Virtu Financial Singapore Pte. Ltd., and Wintermute Trading Ltd. to serve as an ether trading counterparty to the Trust. 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. The Sponsor is not aware of, nor has it requested any information relating to, any other affiliation or material relationship between such ether trading counterparties and the Authorized Participants or other service providers of the Trust in executing a transaction in ether with the Trust. The agreements with the ether trading counterparties provide that once the Sponsor determines based on its execution procedures which counterparty to execute a trade with and the Sponsor has placed a trade with a specific counterparty, that counterparty is contractually obligated to settle that trade. The ether trading counterparties will have no obligation to participate in cash orders for creations and redemptions. Each of these third parties are, and any other trading counterparty the Trust places orders with in the future will be, subject to U.S. federal and/or state licensing requirements or similar laws in non-U.S. jurisdictions and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations or similar laws in non-U.S. jurisdictions.

CUSTODY OF THE TRUST’S ASSETS

The Trust’s Custodian will keep custody of the Trust’s ether. The Trust’s ether will be held in a segregated account opened in the name of the Trust on the Custodian’s books and records. Under the Custodial Services Agreement, the Custodian will maintain the Trust’s ether in omnibus wallets along with the assets of other customers of the Custodian, and the Trust’s ether will be treated as fungible with the ether of other customers of the Custodian.

Key Generation

Private keys are generated by the Custodian in key generation ceremonies at secure locations using offline devices that have never been connected to a network. Private keys are generated according to detailed procedures using specialized offline devices and within these secure facilities to mitigate risk of hacks, errors, or other unintended external exposure. Key ceremony processes are highly controlled, require segregation of duties across multiple parties and are reviewed and witnessed by designated oversight personnel. Thorough validations and signoffs are performed to verify the integrity and security of key generation ceremonies.

Key Storage

The Custodian will hold a majority of ether in cold storage and is responsible for managing the allocation of ether between cold and hot storage for the omnibus wallets. Private keys for both hot and cold storage are stored on secure devices. While cold storage requires keys to be held in an offline manner, hot storage requires private keys to be held online on the Custodian’s intranet, where they are more accessible and can be used for more efficient ether transfers. Some portion of ether in omnibus wallets will be held in hot storage for the purpose of satisfying client demands for transfers including in facilitation of redemptions. Within such omnibus hot and cold wallets, the Custodian has represented to the Sponsor that it keeps a substantial majority of assets in cold

wallets (generally targeting greater than 98%), to promote security, while the balance of assets is kept in hot wallets to facilitate timely withdrawals. The Custodian has represented to the Sponsor that the percentage of assets maintained in cold versus hot storage including target percentages may change over time and is determined by ongoing risk analysis and market dynamics, in which the Custodian balances anticipated liquidity needs for its customers as a class against the anticipated greater security of cold storage. The Sponsor has no control over the percentage of ether that the Custodian maintains in omnibus cold wallets versus omnibus hot wallets.

The Custodian has multiple, redundant cold storage sites, which are geographically distributed including sites within the United States. Cold storage locations of the Custodian are monitored by 24x7 on-site security, video surveillance and alarms, hardened room structures, and access to these facilities is controlled by multi-person controls, multi-team access rules, and multi-factor authentication. The locations of the cold storage sites may change at the discretion of the Custodian and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes. Transactions from cold to hot storage require physical access, according to the above controls, to one or more cold storage facilities, as well as systematically enforced approvals and integrity verifications, before the secure device can be used to cryptographically complete the transaction. At no point during this process is the private key removed from the secure device(s) nor the cold storage facility. Once these security processes have been completed, a transfer on the Ethereum network can be executed, as signed using the private keys held offline in cold storage.

The Custodian also maintains geographically dispersed backups of private keys, which are cryptographically generated into shards and stored in separate locations; multiple locations must be accessed to reconstruct a single key. The storage facilities are highly secured, and include 24x7 on-premises security presence, video surveillance, and alarms for unexpected entry. Access to facilities is controlled by multi-person controls, multi-team access rules, and multi-factor authentication.

Security Procedures

The Custodian is the custodian of the Trust’s private ether in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Custodial Services Agreement. Transfers from the Ether Account require certain security procedures, including authorization controls to validate client requests and private key security procedures for ether network transaction signing as described above. Authorization controls may include usernames, passwords, two-step verification, and telephone call-backs to ensure proper authorization of transaction requests from the Sponsor or its authorized agents.

Transfers of ether to the Ether Account will be available to the Trust once processed on the Ethereum network, subject to successful completion of processes required by the Custodian.

Forks and Air Drops

In the event of a fork, the Custodial Services Agreement provides that the Custodian may evaluate the consequences of a fork and determine which chain resulting from the fork it will support as an eligible asset for its customers including the Trust. The Custodian will determine in its sole discretion whether to support and make available to clients assets resulting from forks or air drops. In the event that the Trust may have a right to claim assets resulting from a fork or air drop, the Custodian will seek approval of the Trust before claiming such assets on behalf of the Trust and making an entry of ownership on the Custodian’s books and records for the Trust’s account. The Sponsor will disclaim such assets except as described herein. The Sponsor has not communicated any anticipatory disclaimer to the Custodian regarding forked or air dropped assets and will disclaim or claim them on a case-by-case basis.

Custody of the Trust’s Cash

FORM OF SHARES

Registered Form

Shares are issued in registered form in accordance with the Trust Agreement. The Transfer Agent has been appointed registrar and transfer agent for the purpose of transferring Shares in certificated form. The Transfer Agent keeps a record of all Shareholders and holders of the Shares in certified form in the registry. The Sponsor recognizes transfers of Shares in certificated form only if done in accordance with the Trust Agreement. The beneficial interests in such Shares are held in book-entry form through participants and/or accountholders in DTC.

Book Entry

Individual certificates are not issued for the Shares. Instead, Shares are represented by one or more global certificates, which are deposited by the Administrator with DTC and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC. The global certificates evidence all of the Shares outstanding at any time. Shareholders are limited to (1) participants in DTC such as banks, brokers, dealers and trust companies (“DTC Participants”), (2) those who maintain, either directly or indirectly, a custodial relationship with a DTC Participant (“Indirect Participants”), and (3) those who hold interests in the Shares through DTC Participants or Indirect Participants, in each case who satisfy the requirements for transfers of Shares. DTC Participants acting on behalf of Shareholders holding Shares through such participants’ accounts in DTC will follow the delivery practice applicable to securities eligible for DTC’s Same-Day Funds Settlement System. Shares are credited to DTC Participants’ securities accounts following confirmation of receipt of payment.

DTC

DTC has advised us as follows: It is a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York and is a member of the Federal Reserve System, a “clearing corporation” within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code and a “clearing agency” registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the 1934 Act. DTC holds securities for DTC Participants and facilitates the clearance and settlement of transactions between DTC Participants through electronic book-entry changes in accounts of DTC Participants.

TRANSFER OF SHARES

The Shares are only transferable through the book-entry system of DTC. Shareholders who are not DTC Participants may transfer their Shares through DTC by instructing the DTC Participant holding their Shares (or by instructing the Indirect Participant or other entity through which their Shares are held) to transfer the Shares. Transfers are made in accordance with standard securities industry practice.

Transfers of interests in Shares with DTC are made in accordance with the usual rules and operating procedures of DTC and the nature of the transfer. DTC has established procedures to facilitate transfers among the participants and/or accountholders of DTC. Because DTC can only act on behalf of DTC Participants, who in turn act on behalf of Indirect Participants, the ability of a person or entity having an interest in a global certificate to pledge such interest to persons or entities that do not participate in DTC, or otherwise take actions in respect of such interest, may be affected by the lack of a certificate or other definitive document representing such interest.

DTC has advised us that it will take any action permitted to be taken by a Shareholder (including, without limitation, the presentation of a global certificate for exchange) only at the direction of one or more DTC Participants in whose account with DTC interests in global certificates are credited and only in respect of such portion of the aggregate principal amount of the global certificate as to which such DTC Participant has or DTC Participants have given such direction.

SEED CAPITAL INVESTOR

On May 24, 2024, FMR Capital, Inc. (the “Seed Capital Investor”), an affiliate of the Sponsor, purchased 1 Share at a per-Share price of $40 (the “Seed Share”). Delivery of the Seed Share was made on May 24, 2024. Total proceeds to the Trust from the sale of the Seed Share were $40. On June 4, 2024, the Seed Share was redeemed for cash and the Seed Capital Investor purchased 125,000 Shares at a per-Share price of $37.9998 (the “Seed Baskets”). Total proceeds to the Trust from the sale of the Seed Baskets were $4,749,975.00. On June 4, 2024, the Trust purchased 1,250 ether with the proceeds of the Seed Baskets. As of the date of the Prospectus, these 125,000 Shares represent all of the outstanding Shares. The Seed Capital Investor will act as a statutory underwriter in connection with the Seed Baskets. See “Plan of Distribution” for additional information. The Seed Capital Investor may offer all of the Shares comprising the Seed Share and the Seed Baskets to the public pursuant to this Prospectus.

The Seed Capital Investor will not receive from the Trust, the Sponsor or any of their affiliates any fee or other compensation in connection with the sale of the Seed Baskets. The Seed Capital Investor will be acting as a statutory underwriter with respect to the Seed Baskets.

The Seed Capital Investor will not act as an Authorized Participant with respect to the Seed Baskets, and its activities with respect to the Seed Baskets will be distinct from those of an Authorized Participant. Unlike most Authorized Participants, the Seed Capital Investor is not in the business of purchasing and selling securities for its own account or the accounts of others. The Seed Capital Investor will not act as an Authorized Participant to purchase (or redeem) Baskets in the future.

PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION

Buying and Selling Shares

Most investors buy and sell Shares of the Trust in secondary market transactions through brokers. Shares trade on the Exchange under the ticker symbol “FETH.” Shares are bought and sold throughout the trading day like other publicly traded securities. When buying or selling Shares through a broker, most investors incur customary brokerage commissions and charges. Shareholders are encouraged to review the terms of their brokerage account for details on applicable charges.

Authorized Participants

The offering of the Trust’s Shares is a best efforts offering. In addition to, and independent of the initial purchase of the Seed Baskets (described above), the Trust continuously offers Baskets consisting of 25,000 Shares to Authorized Participants. Authorized Participants pay a transaction fee for each order they place to create or redeem one or more Baskets.

The Authorized Participants will deliver only cash to create Shares and will receive only cash when redeeming Shares. Further, Authorized Participants will not directly or indirectly purchase, hold, deliver, or receive ether as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Trust or a third party with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving ether as part of the creation or redemption process.

The offering of Baskets is being made in compliance with Rule 2310 of the FINRA Rules. Accordingly, Authorized Participants will not make any sales to any account over which they have discretionary authority without the prior written approval of a purchaser of Shares.

The per share price of Shares offered in Baskets on any subsequent day will be the total NAV of the Trust calculated shortly after the close of the Exchange on that day divided by the number of issued and outstanding Shares of the Trust. An Authorized Participant is not required to sell any specific number or dollar amount of Shares.

By executing an Authorized Participant Agreement, an Authorized Participant becomes part of the group of parties eligible to purchase Baskets from, and put Baskets for redemption to, the Trust. An Authorized Participant is under no obligation to create or redeem baskets or to offer to the public Shares of any Baskets it does create.

Because new Shares can be created and issued on an ongoing basis, at any point during the life of the Trust, a “distribution,” as such term is used in the 1933 Act, will be occurring. Authorized Participants, other broker- dealers and other persons are cautioned that some of their activities may result in their being deemed participants in a distribution in a manner that would render them statutory underwriters and subject them to the prospectus- delivery and liability provisions of the 1933 Act. For example, the initial Authorized Participant will be a statutory underwriter with respect to the initial purchase of Baskets and the Seed Capital Investor will be a statutory underwriter with respect to the Seed Basket. Any purchaser who purchases Shares with a view towards distribution of such Shares may be deemed to be a statutory underwriter. In addition, an Authorized Participant, other broker-dealer firm or its client will be deemed a statutory underwriter if it purchases a basket from the Trust, breaks the basket down into the constituent Shares and sells the Shares to its customers; or if it chooses to couple the creation of a supply of new Shares with an active selling effort involving solicitation of secondary market demand for the Shares. In contrast, Authorized Participants may engage in secondary market or other transactions in Shares that would not be deemed “underwriting.” For example, an Authorized Participant may act in the capacity of a broker or dealer with respect to Shares that were previously distributed by other Authorized Participants. A determination of whether a particular market participant is an underwriter must take into account all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the activities of the broker-dealer or its client in the particular case, and the examples mentioned above should not be considered a complete description of all the activities that would lead to designation as an underwriter and subject them to the prospectus-delivery and liability provisions of the 1933 Act.

Dealers who are neither Authorized Participants nor “underwriters” but are nonetheless participating in a distribution (as contrasted to ordinary secondary trading transactions), and thus dealing with Shares that are part of an “unsold allotment” within the meaning of Section 4(a)(3)(C) of the 1933 Act, would be unable to take advantage of the prospectus-delivery exemption provided by Section 4(a)(3) of the 1933 Act.

While the Authorized Participants may be indemnified by the Sponsor, they will not be entitled to receive a discount or commission from the Trust or The Sponsor for their purchases of Baskets.

As of July 17, 2024, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Virtu Americas LLC, JP Morgan Securities LLC, Jane Street Capital, LLC, ABN AMRO Clearing USA LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp. and Jefferies LLC have each executed an Authorized Participant Agreement.

Selling Shareholders

Selling shareholders (each, a “Selling Shareholder”) may sell Shares owned by them directly or through broker-dealers, in accordance with applicable law, on any national securities exchange on which the Shares may be listed or quoted at the time of sale, through trading systems, in the OTC market or in transactions other than on these exchanges or systems at fixed prices, at prevailing market prices at the time of the sale, at varying prices determined at the time of sale, or at negotiated prices. These sales may be effected through brokerage transactions, privately negotiated trades, block sales, entry into options or other derivatives transactions or through any other means authorized by applicable law. Selling Shareholders may redeem Shares held in Basket size through an Authorized Participant. See “Conflicts of Interest.”

CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF SHARES

The Trust creates and redeems Shares from time to time, but only in one or more Baskets. Baskets are only made in exchange for delivery to the Trust or the distribution by the Trust of the amount of cash represented by the Baskets being created or redeemed (the “Basket Deposit”). The amount of cash required in a Basket Deposit (the “Basket Cash Deposit”) is based on the value of the quantity of ether and cash attributable to each Share of the Trust (net of accrued but unpaid Sponsor Fees and any accrued but unpaid Extraordinary Expenses) being created or redeemed determined as of 4:00 p.m. EST on the day the order to create or redeem Baskets is properly received.

Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Baskets. Authorized Participants must be (1) registered broker-dealers or other securities market participants, such as banks and other financial institutions, that are not required to register as broker-dealers to engage in securities transactions described below and (2) DTC Participants. To become an Authorized Participant, a person must enter into an Authorized Participant Agreement with the Distributor. As of the Trust’s commencement of operations, Baskets may only be purchased or redeemed by Authorized Participants for cash.

In connection with a Cash Creation Order (as defined below) or Cash Redemption Order (as defined below), an Authorized Participant is responsible for any operational processing and brokerage costs, transfers fees, network fees and stamp taxes (the “Transaction Fee”). The Transaction Fee may be reduced, increased or otherwise changed by the Sponsor. Authorized Participants who make deposits with the Trust in exchange for Baskets receive no fees, commissions or other form of compensation or inducement of any kind from either the Trust or the Sponsor, and no such person will have any obligation or responsibility to the Sponsor or the Trust to effect any sale or resale of Shares.

Certain Authorized Participants and their agents and affiliates are expected to be capable of participating directly in the spot markets. Some Authorized Participants or their agents and affiliates may from time to time buy or sell ether and may profit in these instances. To the extent that the activities of Authorized Participants or their agents and affiliates have a meaningful effect on the ether market, it could affect the price of ether and impact the ability of the Authorized Participants to effectively arbitrage the difference between the price at which the shares trade and the NAV of the Trust. While the Sponsor currently expects that Authorized Participants’ and their agents’ and affiliates’ direct activities in the ether or securities markets in connection with the creation and redemption activities of the Trust will not significantly affect the price of ether or the Shares, the impact of the activities of the Trust and its Authorized Participants and their agents and affiliates on ether or securities markets is unknown and beyond the control of the Sponsor.

Each Authorized Participant will be required to be registered as a broker-dealer under the 1934 Act and a member in good standing with FINRA, or exempt from being or otherwise not required to be licensed as a broker-dealer or a member of FINRA, and will be qualified to act as a broker or dealer in the states or other jurisdictions where the nature of its business so requires. Certain Authorized Participants may also be regulated under federal and state banking laws and regulations. Each Authorized Participant has its own set of rules and procedures, internal controls and information barriers as it determines is appropriate in light of its own regulatory regime.

The following description of the procedures for the creation and redemption of Baskets is only a summary and a Shareholder should refer to the form of Authorized Participant Agreement for more detail. A form of Authorized Participant Agreement will be filed as an exhibit to the registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part.

Creation Procedures

On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent to create one or more Baskets. For purposes of processing creation and redemption orders, a “business day” means any day other than a day when the Exchange is closed for regular trading. Purchase orders must be placed by the close of Regular Trading Hours on the Exchange or an earlier time as determined and communicated by the Sponsor and its agent. A purchase order will be effective on the date it is received in good order by the Transfer Agent (“Purchase Order Date”).

The manner by which creations are made is dictated by the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement. Creation orders are denominated and settled in cash (“Cash Creation Order”). By placing a Cash Creation Order, an Authorized Participant agrees to facilitate the deposit of cash with the Cash Custodian. If an Authorized Participant fails to consummate the foregoing, the order will be cancelled or delayed until the full cash deposit has been received. An Authorized Participant may not withdraw a creation order without the prior consent of the Sponsor in its discretion.

Following an Authorized Participant’s Cash Creation Order, the Trust’s account at the Cash Custodian must be credited with the Basket Cash Deposit amount by the end of the following business day or such earlier or later time as may be agreed upon by the Authorized Participant and the Sponsor following the Purchase Order Date. Upon receipt of the Basket Cash Deposit amount in the Trust’s account at the Cash Custodian, the Transfer Agent will notify the Distributor, the Authorized Participant, and the Sponsor that the Basket Cash Amount has been deposited. The Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will instruct an ether trading counterparty to purchase the amount of ether equivalent in value to the cash deposit amount associated with the creation order, with such purchase transaction prearranged to be executed, in the Sponsor’s reasonable efforts, at the Index price used by the Trust to calculate NAV, taking into account any spread, commissions, or other trading costs on the applicable Purchase Order Date. The resulting ether will be deposited in the Trust’s account with the Ether Custodian. Any slippage incurred (including, but not limited to, any trading fees, spreads, or commissions), on a cash equivalent basis, will be the responsibility of the Authorized Participant and not of the Trust or Sponsor. To the extent the execution price of the ether acquired by the trading counterparty exceeds the cash deposit amount, such cash difference will be the responsibility of the Authorized Participant and not the Trust or Sponsor. The Transfer Agent will then direct DTC to credit the number of Shares created to the Authorized Participant’s DTC account.

Determination of Required Deposits

The amount of the Basket Deposit changes from day to day. On each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading, the Administrator adjusts the quantity of cash constituting the Basket Deposit as appropriate to reflect the value of the Trust’s ether and cash less accrued expenses. The computation is made by the Administrator as promptly as practicable after 4:00 p.m. EST or at an earlier time set forth in the Authorized Participant Agreement or otherwise provided to all Authorized Participants on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Baskets to be effected based on the NAV of Shares as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form.

The Basket Cash Deposit is an amount of cash that is in the same proportion to the total assets of the Trust, net of accrued expenses and other liabilities, on the Purchase Order Date, as the number of Shares constituting a Basket is in proportion to the total number of Shares outstanding on the Purchase Order Date, plus the amount of any Transaction Fee. For a discussion of how the Trust determines the value of ether, see “Calculation of NAV” above. The Basket Cash Deposit so determined is communicated via electronic mail message to all Authorized Participants.

To the extent the price at which the Trust executes an ether purchase in connection with a Cash Creation exceeds the amount described in the paragraph above, the Authorized Participant that placed such order will be responsible for any such difference in price. The Sponsor expects that its ether trading counterparties will be able to provide pricing based on the Index price at 4:00 p.m. EST, which would minimize or eliminate any such shortfall. However, there can be no guarantee that the price at which the Trust executes ether trades will be the Index price at 4:00 p.m. EST, and Authorized Participants bear the risk of any such differences in price.

Delivery of Required Deposits

An Authorized Participant who places a purchase order must follow the procedures outlined in the “Creation Procedures” section of this Prospectus. Upon receipt of the deposit amount by the Cash Custodian, the Transfer Agent will direct DTC to credit the number of Shares ordered to the Authorized Participant’s DTC account on the following business day or such later time as may be agreed upon by the Authorized Participant and the Sponsor, following the Purchase Order Date. The Sponsor has the authority to set or modify the cut-off time for purchase orders in order for the creation of Baskets to be effected based on the Index price at 4:00 p.m. EST as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. For example, the Sponsor may modify the cut-off time in the event of an early market close, perceived capacity constraints from the Trust’s ether trading counterparties, or highly volatile markets. Cut-off times are communicated periodically to Authorized Participants. In circumstances where purchase orders are due before 4:00 p.m. EST, Authorized Participants will not know the total Basket Deposit at the time they submit a purchase order for the Basket. The Trust’s NAV and the price of a Basket Deposit could rise or fall substantially between the time a purchase order is submitted and the time the amount of the purchase price in respect thereof is determined, and the risk of such price movements will be borne solely by the Authorized Participant.

Rejection of Purchase Orders

The Sponsor or its designee has the absolute right, but does not have any obligation, to reject any purchase order or Basket Deposit if the Sponsor determines that:

the purchase order is not in proper form;

the Basket Deposit delivered is not as specified by the Trust through the Sponsor and/or Transfer Agent, and the Sponsor has not consented to acceptance of a deposit that varies from the designated portfolio;

the acceptance of the Basket Deposit would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Trust;

the acceptance of the Basket Deposit would, in the opinion of counsel, be unlawful;

the acceptance of the Basket Deposit would otherwise, in the discretion of the Trust or the Sponsor, have an adverse effect on the Trust or the rights of beneficial owners of the Trust; or

there exist circumstances outside the control of the Trust, the Transfer Agent, or the Sponsor that make it impossible to process purchase orders for all practical purposes.

The Sponsor may in its sole discretion limit the number of Shares created pursuant to purchase orders on any specified day without notice to the Authorized Participants and may direct the Distributor to reject any purchase orders in excess of such capped amount. The Sponsor may choose to limit the number of Shares created pursuant to purchase orders when it deems so doing to be in the best interest of Shareholders. It may choose to do so when it believes the market is too volatile to execute an ether transaction, when it believes the price of ether is being inconsistently, irregularly, or discontinuously published from ether trading venues and other data sources, or when it believes other similar circumstances may create a scenario in which accepting purchase orders would not be in the best interests of the Shareholders. The Sponsor does not believe that the Trust’s ability to arrive at such a determination will have a significant impact on the Shares in the secondary market because it believes that the ability to create Shares would be reinstated shortly after such determination is made, and any entity desiring to create Shares would be able to do so once the ability to create Shares is reinstated. However, it is possible that such a determination would cause the Shares to trade at premiums or discounts relative to the Trust’s NAV on the secondary market if arbitrageurs believe that there is risk that the creation and redemption process is not available, as this process is a component of keeping the price of the Shares on the secondary market closely aligned to the Trust’s NAV.

Neither the Sponsor, nor the Transfer Agent, nor the Trust will be liable for the rejection of any purchase order or Basket Deposit.

Redemption Procedures

The procedures by which an Authorized Participant can redeem one or more Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Baskets. On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent to redeem one or more Baskets. Redemption orders must be placed by the close of Regular Trading Hours on the Exchange or an earlier time as determined and communicated by the Sponsor and its agent. A redemption order will be effective on the date it is received by the Transfer Agent (“Redemption Order Date”).

The manner by which redemptions are made is dictated by the terms of the Authorized Participant Agreement. Redemption orders are denominated and settled in cash (“Cash Redemption Order”). By placing a Cash Redemption Order, an Authorized Participant agrees to facilitate the deposit of Shares with the Transfer Agent. If an Authorized Participant fails to consummate the foregoing, the order will be cancelled or delayed until the required Shares have been received. An Authorized Participant may not withdraw a redemption order without the prior consent of the Sponsor in its discretion.

In the case of a Cash Redemption Order, the redemption distribution from the Trust consists of a transfer to the Authorized Participant of an amount of cash that is in the same proportion to the total assets of the Trust, net of accrued expenses and other liabilities, on the Redemption Order Date, as the number of Shares to be redeemed under the purchase order is in proportion to the total number of Shares outstanding on the Redemption Order Date. The redemption distribution due from the Trust will be delivered once the Transfer Agent notifies the Cash Custodian, the Distributor and the Sponsor that the Authorized Participant has delivered the Shares represented by the Baskets to be redeemed to the Transfer Agent’s DTC account. If the Transfer Agent’s DTC account has not been credited with all of the Shares of the Baskets to be redeemed, the redemption distribution will be cancelled or delayed until such time as the Transfer Agent confirms receipt of all such Shares.

By placing a redemption order, an Authorized Participant agrees to deliver the Baskets to be redeemed through DTC’s book-entry system to the Trust by the end of the following business day or such later time as may be agreed upon by the Authorized Participant and the Sponsor following the Redemption Order Date. An Authorized Participant may not withdraw a redemption order without the prior consent of the Sponsor in its discretion.

Determination of Redemption Distribution

The redemption distribution from the Trust will consist of a transfer to the redeeming Authorized Participant of an amount of cash that is determined in the same manner as the determination of Basket Deposits discussed above.

Delivery of Redemption Distribution

Once the Transfer Agent notifies the Custodian, the Cash Custodian, the Distributor and the Sponsor that the Shares have been received in the Transfer Agent’s DTC account, the Administrator instructs the Custodian to transfer cash amount from the Trust’s Cash Custodian account to the Authorized Participant. For a Cash Redemption Order, the redemption distribution due from the Trust will be sent by the Cash Custodian to the Authorized Participant on the following business day or such later time as may be agreed upon by the Authorized Participant and the Sponsor, following the Redemption Order Date if, by 4:00 p.m. EST, on such business day, the Transfer Agent’s DTC account has been credited with the Baskets to be redeemed. If the Transfer Agent’s DTC account has not been credited with all of the Baskets to be redeemed by such time, the redemption distribution will be cancelled or delayed until such time as the Transfer Agent confirms receipt of all such Shares.

Rejection of Redemption Orders

Redemption orders must be made in whole Baskets. The Distributor acting by itself or through the person authorized to take redemption orders in the manner provided in the Authorized Participant Agreement may, in its sole discretion, reject any redemption order (1) the Sponsor determines not to be in proper form or (2) if requested by the Distributor, the Authorized Participant fails to deliver or execute supporting documentation evidencing ownership or the Authorized Participant’s right to deliver sufficient Shares.

Suspension of Orders

The Sponsor may, in its discretion, suspend redemption or creation transactions during any period when the transfer books of the Transfer Agent are closed or if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor or its delegate make it for all practicable purposes not feasible to process Redemption Orders or for any other reason at any time or from time to time. For example, the Sponsor may determine that it is necessary to suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of the Trust’s assets. If the Sponsor has difficulty liquidating the Trust’s positions, e.g., because of a market disruption event or an unanticipated delay in the liquidation of a position in an over-the-counter contract, it may be appropriate to suspend creations and redemptions until such time as such circumstances are rectified. Neither the Distributor, the person authorized to take redemption orders in the manner provided in the Authorized Participant Agreement, nor the Custodian will be liable to any person or in any way for any loss or damages that may result from any such suspension or postponement. Any such suspension may cause to price of the Shares to deviate more significantly from the Trust’s NAV per Share than would be the case if such suspension had not occurred. The Trust will notify Shareholders of any such suspension in a Prospectus supplement and/or a current report on Form 8-K or in its annual or quarterly reports.

Creation and Redemption Transaction Fees

In connection with a Cash Creation Order or Cash Redemption Order, an Authorized Participant is responsible for the Transaction Fee, which consist of the operational processing and brokerage costs, transfers fees, network fees and stamp taxes. The Transaction Fee may be reduced, increased or otherwise changed by the Sponsor.

Tax Responsibility

Authorized Participants are responsible for any transfer tax, sales or use tax, stamp tax, recording tax, value added tax or similar tax or governmental charge applicable to the creation or redemption of baskets, regardless of whether or not such tax or charge is imposed directly on the Authorized Participant, and agree to indemnify the Sponsor and the Trust if they are required by law to pay any such tax, together with any applicable penalties, additions to tax and interest thereon.

Secondary Market Transactions

As noted, the Trust will create and redeem Shares from time to time, but only in one or more Baskets. The creation and redemption of baskets are only made in exchange for delivery to the Trust or the distribution by the Trust of the amount of cash equal to the number of Shares included in the Baskets being created or redeemed determined on the day the order to create or redeem Baskets is properly received.

As discussed above, Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Baskets. Authorized Participants must be registered broker-dealers or other securities market participants, such as banks and other financial institutions that are not required to register as broker-dealers to engage in securities transactions. An Authorized Participant is under no obligation to create or redeem Baskets, and an Authorized Participant is under no obligation to offer to the public Shares of any Baskets it does create.

Authorized Participants that do offer to the public Shares from the Baskets they create will do so at per-Share offering prices that are expected to reflect, among other factors, the trading price of the Shares on the Exchange, the NAV of the Trust at the time the Authorized Participant purchased the Baskets, the NAV of the Shares at the time of the offer of the Shares to the public, the supply of and demand for Shares at the time of sale, and the liquidity of ether. Baskets are generally redeemed when the price per Share is at a discount to the NAV per Share. Shares initially comprising the same basket but offered by Authorized Participants to the public at different times may have different offering prices. An order for one or more Baskets may be placed by an Authorized Participant on behalf of multiple clients. Authorized Participants who make deposits with the Trust in exchange for Baskets receive no fees, commissions or other forms of compensation or inducement of any kind from either the Trust or the Sponsor and no such person has any obligation or responsibility to the Sponsor or the Trust to effect any sale or resale of Shares.

Shares are expected to trade in the secondary market on the Exchange. Shares may trade in the secondary market at prices that are lower or higher relative to their NAV per Share. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the NAV per Share may be influenced by various factors, including the number of Shareholders who seek to purchase or sell Shares in the secondary market and the liquidity of ether.

USE OF PROCEEDS

OWNERSHIP OR BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE TRUST

The beneficial interest in the Trust is divided into Shares. Each Share of the Trust represents an equal beneficial interest in the net assets of the Trust, and each holder of Shares is entitled to receive such holder’s pro rata share of distributions of income and capital gains, if any.

All Shares are fully paid and non-assessable. No Share will have any priority or preference over any other Share of the Trust. All distributions, if any, will be made ratably among all Shareholders from the assets of the Trust according to the number of Shares held of record by such Shareholders on the record date for any distribution or on the date of termination of the Trust, as the case may be. Except as otherwise provided by the Sponsor, Shareholders will have no preemptive or other right to subscribe to any additional Shares or other securities issued by the Trust.

The Sponsor will have full power and authority, in its sole discretion, without seeking the approval of the Trustee or the Shareholders (a) to establish and designate and to change in any manner and to fix such preferences, voting powers, rights, duties and privileges of the Trust as the Sponsor may from time to time determine, (b) to divide the beneficial interest in the Trust into an unlimited amount of shares, with or without par value, as the Sponsor will determine, (c) to issue shares without limitation as to number (including fractional shares), to such persons and for such amount of consideration, subject to any restriction set forth in the By-Laws, if any, at such time or times and on such terms as the Sponsor may deem appropriate, (d) to divide or combine the shares into a greater or lesser number without thereby materially changing the proportionate beneficial interest of the shares in the assets held, and (e) to take such other action with respect to the shares as the Sponsor may deem desirable. The ownership of Shares will be recorded on the books of the Trust or a transfer or similar agent for the Trust. No certificates certifying the ownership of Shares will be issued except as the Sponsor may otherwise determine from time to time. The Sponsor may make such rules as it considers appropriate for the issuance of share certificates, transfer of Shares and similar matters. The record books of the Trust as kept by the Trust, or any transfer or similar agent, as the case may be, will be conclusive as to the identity of the Shareholders and as to the number of Shares held from time to time by each.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There are present and potential future conflicts of interest inherent in the Trust’s structure and operation you should consider before you purchase Shares. The Sponsor will use this notice of conflicts as a defense against any claim or other proceeding made. If the Sponsor is not able to resolve these conflicts of interest adequately, it may impact the Trust’s ability to achieve its investment objective.

The Sponsor and its affiliates engage in a broad spectrum of activities and may expand the range of services that they provide over time. The Sponsor and its affiliates will generally not be restricted in the scope of their business or in the performance of any such services (whether now offered or undertaken in the future), even if such activities could give rise to conflicts of interest, and whether or not such conflicts are described herein. In the ordinary course of their business activities, the Sponsor and its affiliates may engage in activities where the interests of the Sponsor and its affiliates or the interests of their clients conflict with the interests of the Trust. Certain employees of the Sponsor also have responsibilities relating to the business of one or more affiliates. These employees are not restricted in the amount of time that may be allocated to the business activities of the Sponsor’s affiliates, and the allocation of such employees’ time between the Sponsor and its affiliates may change over time.

In addition, the Sponsor and its affiliates may also be responsible for managing other accounts in addition to the services that they provide to the Trust, including other accounts of the Sponsor or its affiliates. Other accounts may include, without limitation, private or SEC-registered funds, separately managed accounts, or investments owned by the Sponsor or its affiliates. Management of other accounts in addition to services provided to the Trust can present certain conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof. The other accounts might have similar or different investment objectives or strategies as the Trust, or otherwise hold, purchase or sell investments that are eligible to be held, purchased or sold by the Trust, or may take positions that are opposite in direction from those taken by the Trust.

The Sponsor and its affiliates may from time to time obtain exposure to ether through investments in the Trust and may hold a material position in the Trust. The Trust will not receive any of the proceeds from the resale by the Sponsor or its affiliates of these Shares, and the sale of such Shares may impact the price at which Shareholders may be able to sell their Shares. In addition, the Sponsor and its affiliates may have substantial direct investments in ether outside of the Trust. The Sponsor and its affiliates are permitted to manage such investments, taking into account their own interests, without regard to the interests of the Trust or its Shareholders. The Sponsor and its affiliates reserve the right, subject to compliance with applicable law, to sell into the market or redeem through an Authorized Participant at any time some or all of the Shares of the Trust acquired for their own accounts. The Sponsor and its affiliates face potential conflicts of interest in determining whether, when and in what amount to sell or redeem Shares of the Trust. The Sponsor and its affiliates are under no obligation to consider the effect of sales or redemptions on the Trust and other Shareholders in deciding whether to sell or redeem their Shares. The Sponsor and its affiliates may invest or trade in digital assets for their own accounts, which activities may conflict or compete with the Trust. Additionally, the Sponsor does not have policies and procedures requiring that personnel pre-clear trading activity in certain digital assets, including ether. The Sponsor may not be able to fully mitigate the risk of conflicts of interest in connection with the purchase and sale of digital assets. There is no guarantee that every employee, officer, director, or similar person associated with the Sponsor and its affiliates will refrain from engaging in impermissible activity in violation of their duties to the Trust and Sponsor.

The Sponsor will have the authority to manage the operations of the Trust, and this may create or give the appearance of a conflict with shareholders’ best interests. The Sponsor may select service providers that are affiliates, including the Custodian, the Index Provider, the Distributor, and the Administrator. The Sponsor may have a conflict of interest in selecting an affiliated service provider because doing so increases the overall revenue for its affiliates. You should be aware that there may be less expensive service providers or parties with greater experience or expertise than the affiliates selected by the Sponsor. Because of the Sponsor’s affiliated status, it may be disincentivized from replacing affiliated service providers. In connection with this conflict of interest, Shareholders should understand that affiliated service providers will be compensated for providing services to the Trust. Clients of the affiliated service providers may pay commissions at negotiated rates which are greater or less than the rate paid by the Sponsor. The Sponsor and any affiliated service provider may, from time to time, have conflicting demands in respect of their obligations to the Trust and, in the future, to other clients.

The Sponsor may indemnify its officers, directors and key employees with respect to their activities on behalf of other funds, if the need for indemnification arises. This potential indemnification could cause the Sponsor’s assets to decrease. If the Sponsor’s other sources of income are not sufficient to compensate for the indemnification, it could cease operations, which could in turn result in Trust losses and/or termination of the Trust.

Fidelity Product Services LLC is the Index Provider for the Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate and an affiliate of the Sponsor, which may create conflicts of interest as a result of such relationship. The Index Provider does not share officers or personnel with the Sponsor. The Index Provider restricts membership of the Committee to members who do not manage money in any product and who are not employees of the Sponsor. Pursuant to the Index Provider’s policies, Index Provider personnel that possess knowledge of a material change to the Index are restricted from trading in Shares of the Trust during periods in which a such a change had occurred but before such change is made public. However, Shareholders should be aware that the Index Provider has not taken the interests of the Shareholders into consideration when creating the Index, and the Index Provider will have no obligation to take the interests of the Shareholders into account when maintaining, modifying, reconstituting or discontinuing the Index. Actions taken by the Index Provider in respect of the Index may have an adverse impact on the value or liquidity of the Shares. The interests of the Index Provider and the Shareholders may not be aligned. The Index Provider will have no responsibility or liability to the Shareholders.

Resolution of Conflicts Procedures

The Trust Agreement will provide that whenever a conflict of interest exists between the Sponsor or any of its affiliates, on the one hand, and the Trust or any Shareholders or any other person, on the other hand, the Sponsor will resolve such conflict of interest considering the relative interest of each party (including its own interest) and the benefits and burdens relating to such interests, any customary or accepted industry practices, and any applicable accepted accounting practices or principles.

Issues Relating to Valuations of Assets

To the extent it is required to do so, the Sponsor will value the Trust’s assets in accordance with the valuation policies of the Sponsor; however, the manner in which the Sponsor exercises its discretion with respect to valuation decisions will impact the valuation of assets of the Trust. To the extent that fees are based on valuations, the exercise of discretion in valuation by the Sponsor will give rise to conflicts of interest including in connection with the calculation of Sponsor Fees. In addition, various divisions and units within the Sponsor and its affiliates are required to value assets, including in connection with managing or advising other accounts for clients, such as registered and unregistered funds and owners of separately managed accounts. These various divisions, units and affiliated entities may, but are under no obligation to, share information regarding valuation techniques and models or other information relevant to the valuation of a specific asset or category of assets. Regardless of whether or not the Sponsor has access to such information, to the extent the Sponsor values the assets held by the Trust, the Sponsor will value investments according to its valuation policies, and may value an identical asset differently than such other divisions, units or affiliated entities.

DUTIES OF THE SPONSOR

The general fiduciary duties that would otherwise be imposed on the Sponsor (which would make its operation of the Trust as described herein impracticable due to the strict prohibition imposed by such duties on, for example, conflicts of interest on behalf of a fiduciary in its dealings with its beneficiaries), will be replaced entirely by the terms of the Trust Agreement (to which terms all Shareholders, by subscribing to the Shares, are deemed to consent).

Additionally, under the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor will have the following obligations as a sponsor of the Trust:

•

Execute, file, record and/or publish all certificates, statements and other documents and do any and all other things as may be appropriate for the formation, qualification and operation of the Trust and for the conduct of its business in all appropriate jurisdictions;

•

Retain independent public accountants to audit the accounts of the Trust;

•

Employ attorneys to represent the Trust;

•

Select the Trust’s Trustee, Administrator, Transfer Agent, Custodian, Distributor, Index Provider, insurer(s) and any other service provider(s) and cause the Trust to enter into contracts with such service provider(s);

•

Provide for the safekeeping and use of the Trust’s assets;

•

Not employ or permit others to employ the Trust’s assets in any manner except for the benefit of the Trust;

•

At all times act with integrity and good faith and exercise due diligence in all activities relating to the Trust and in resolving conflicts of interest;

•

Enter into directly or through its delegates an Authorized Participant Agreement with each Authorized Participant and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the Trust and the Sponsor thereunder;

•

Receive directly or through its delegates from Authorized Participants and process or cause its delegates to process properly submitted purchase orders, as will be described in the Trust Agreement and in the Authorized Participant Agreement;

•

In connection with purchase orders, receive directly or through its delegates the amount of cash in a Basket;

•

In connection with purchase orders, after accepting a purchase order and receiving the corresponding amount of cash, either directly or through its delegates, direct the Trust’s Transfer Agent to credit the Baskets to fill the Authorized Participant’s purchase order;

•

Receive directly or through its delegates from Authorized Participants and process or cause its delegates to process properly submitted redemption orders, as will be described in the Trust Agreement and in the Authorized Participant Agreement;

•

In connection with redemption orders, after receiving a redemption order specifying the number of Baskets that the Authorized Participant wishes to redeem and after the Transfer Agent’s DTC account has been credited with the Baskets to be redeemed, directly or through its delegates transfer to the redeeming Authorized Participant the quantity of ether attributable to the Shares redeemed;

•

Interact with the Custodian and any other party as required;

•

Cause the Trust to comply with all rules, orders and regulations of the Exchange, and take all such other actions that may reasonably be taken and are necessary for the Shares to remain listed, quoted or traded on the Exchange until the Trust is terminated or the Shares are no longer listed, quoted or traded on the Exchange;

•

Assist in the preparation and filing of reports and proxy statements (if any) to the Shareholders, the periodic updating of the Registration Statement and Prospectus and other reports and documents for the Trust required to be filed by the Trust with the SEC and other governmental bodies;

•

Use its best efforts to maintain the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, including making such elections, filing such tax returns, and preparing, disseminating and filing such tax reports, as it is advised by its counsel or accountants are from time to time required by any statute, rule or regulation of the United States, any State or political subdivision thereof, or other jurisdiction having taxing authority in respect of the Trust or its administration. The expense of accountants employed to prepare such tax returns and tax reports will be an expense of the Trust;

•

Perform such other services as the Sponsor believes the Trust may from time to time require; and

•

In general, to carry out any other business in connection with or incidental to any of the foregoing powers, to do everything necessary, suitable or proper for the accomplishment of any purpose or the attainment of any object or the furtherance of any power herein set forth, either alone or in association with others, and to do every other act or thing incidental or appurtenant or growing out of or connected with the aforesaid business or purposes, objects or powers.

Consistent with the intention to maintain the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the Sponsor will not have the power to vary the investments of the Trust and must manage the Trust’s assets in accordance with the strict limitations set forth in the Trust Agreement.

To the extent that a law (common or statutory) or in equity, the Sponsor has duties (including fiduciary duties) and liabilities relating thereto to the Trust, the Shareholders or to any other person, the Sponsor will not be liable to the Trust, the Shareholders or to any other person for its good faith reliance on the provisions of the Trust Agreement or this Prospectus unless such reliance constitutes gross negligence, bad faith, or willful misconduct on the part of the Sponsor.

LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION

Trustee

The Trustee will not be liable for the acts or omissions of the Sponsor, nor will the Trustee be liable for supervising or monitoring the performance and the duties and obligations of the Sponsor or the Trust under the Trust Agreement. The Trustee will not be personally liable under any circumstances, except for its own fraud, willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence. In particular, but not by way of limitation:

(a) the Trustee will not be personally liable for any error of judgment made in good faith except to the extent such error of judgment constitutes gross negligence on its part;

(b) no provision of the Trust Agreement will require the Trustee to expend or risk its personal funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance of its rights or powers under the Trust Agreement;

(c) under no circumstances will the Trustee be personally liable for any representation, warranty, covenant, agreement, or indebtedness of the Trust;

(d) the Trustee will not be personally responsible for or in respect of the validity or sufficiency of the Trust Agreement or for the due execution hereof by the Sponsor;

(e) the Trustee will incur no liability to anyone in acting upon any signature, instrument, notice, resolution, request, consent, order, certificate, report, opinion, bond or other document or paper reasonably believed by it to be genuine and reasonably believed by it to be signed by the proper party or parties. The Trustee may accept a certified copy of a resolution of any governing body of any corporate party as conclusive evidence that such resolution has been duly adopted by such body and that the same is in full force and effect. As to any fact or matter the manner of ascertainment of which is not specifically prescribed herein, the Trustee may for all purposes hereof rely on a certificate, signed by an authorized officer of the Sponsor or any other corresponding directing party, as to such fact or matter, and such certificate will constitute full protection to the Trustee for any action taken or omitted to be taken by it in good faith in reliance thereon;

(f) in the exercise or administration of the trust hereunder, the Trustee (i) may act directly or through agents or attorneys pursuant to agreements entered into with any of them, and the Trustee will not be liable for the default or misconduct of such agents or attorneys if such agents or attorneys will have been selected by the Trustee in good faith and with due care and (ii) may consult with counsel, accountants and other skilled persons to be selected by it in good faith and with due care and employed by it, and it will not be liable for anything done, suffered or omitted in good faith by it in accordance with the advice or opinion of any such counsel, accountants or other skilled persons;

(g) except as will be expressly provided in the Trust Agreement, the Trustee will act solely as a trustee under the Trust Agreement and not in its individual capacity, and all persons having any claim against the Trustee by reason of the transactions contemplated by the Trust Agreement will look only to the Trust’s property for payment or satisfaction thereof; and

(h) the Trustee will not be liable for punitive, exemplary, consequential, special or other similar damages under any circumstances.

The Trustee or any officer, affiliate, director, employee, or agent of the Trustee (each, an “Indemnified Person”) will be entitled to indemnification from the Sponsor or the Trust, to the fullest extent permitted by law, from and against any and all losses, claims, taxes, damages, reasonable expenses, and liabilities (including liabilities under State or federal securities laws) of any kind and nature whatsoever (collectively, “Expenses”), to the extent that such Expenses arise out of or are imposed upon or asserted against such Indemnified Persons with respect to the creation, operation or termination of the Trust, the execution, delivery or performance of the Trust Agreement or the transactions contemplated in the Trust Agreement; provided, however, that the Sponsor and the Trust will not be required to indemnify any Indemnified Person for any Expenses that are a result of the willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence of such Indemnified Person.

The obligations of the Sponsor and the Trust to indemnify the Indemnified Persons will survive the termination of the Trust Agreement.

Sponsor

The Sponsor will not be under any liability to the Trust, the Trustee or any Shareholder for any action taken or for refraining from the taking of any action in good faith pursuant to the Trust Agreement, or for errors in judgment or for depreciation or loss incurred by reason of the sale of any ether or other assets held in trust hereunder; provided, however, this provision will not protect the Sponsor against any liability to which it would otherwise be subject by reason of its own gross negligence, bad faith, or willful misconduct. The Sponsor may rely in good faith on any paper, order, notice, list, affidavit, receipt, evaluation, opinion, endorsement, assignment, draft or any other document of any kind prima facie properly executed and submitted to it by the Trustee, the Trustee’s counsel or by any other Person for any matters arising hereunder. The Sponsor will in no event be deemed to have assumed or incurred any liability, duty, or obligation to any Shareholder or to the Trustee other than as expressly provided for herein. The Trust will not incur the cost of that portion of any insurance which insures any party against any liability, the indemnification of which is herein prohibited.

In addition, as will be described in the Trust Agreement, (i) whenever a conflict of interest exists or arises between the Sponsor or any of its affiliates, on the one hand, and the Trust, on the other hand; or (ii) whenever the Trust Agreement or any other agreement contemplated herein or therein provides that the Sponsor will act in a manner that is, or provides terms that are, fair and reasonable to the Trust, the Sponsor will resolve such conflict of interest, take such action or provide such terms, considering in each case the relative interest of each party (including its own interest) to such conflict, agreement, transaction or situation and the benefits and burdens relating to such interests, and any applicable generally accepted accounting practices or principles. In the absence of bad faith by the Sponsor, the resolution, action or terms so made, taken or provided by the Sponsor will not constitute a breach of the Trust Agreement or any other agreement contemplated herein or of any duty or obligation of the Sponsor at law or in equity or otherwise.

The Sponsor and its shareholders, members, directors, officers, employees, affiliates and subsidiaries (each a “Sponsor Indemnified Party”) will be indemnified by the Trust and held harmless against any loss, liability or expense incurred hereunder without gross negligence, bad faith, or willful misconduct on the part of such Sponsor Indemnified Party arising out of or in connection with the performance of its obligations under the Trust Agreement or any actions taken in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement. Any amounts payable to a Sponsor Indemnified Party under Section 6.7 of the Trust Agreement may be payable in advance or will be secured by a lien on the Trust. The Sponsor will not be under any obligation to appear in, prosecute or defend any legal action that in its opinion may involve it in any expense or liability; provided, however, that the Sponsor may, in its discretion, undertake any action that it may deem necessary or desirable in respect of the Trust Agreement and the rights and duties of the parties hereto and the interests of the Shareholders and, in such event, the legal expenses and costs of any such action will be expenses and costs of the Trust and the Sponsor will be entitled to be reimbursed therefor by the Trust. The obligations of the Trust to indemnify the Sponsor Indemnified Parties will survive the termination of the Trust Agreement.

Custodian

The Custodian has limited liability, impairing the ability of the Trust to recover losses relating to its ether and any recovery may be limited, even in the event of fraud. In addition, the Custodian may not be liable for any delay in performance of any of its custodial obligations by reason of any cause beyond its reasonable control, including force majeure events, war or terrorism, and may not be liable for any system failure or third-party penetration of its systems. As a result, the recourse of the Trust to Custodian may be limited.

Cash Custodian

In carrying out its duties and obligations under the Cash Custody Agreement, the Cash Custodian shall exercise reasonable care, prudence and diligence and shall be liable to the Trust for all loss, damage and expense suffered or incurred by the Trust resulting from the failure of the Cash Custodian to exercise such reasonable care, prudence and diligence. The Trust has agreed to indemnify the Cash Custodian and its nominees from all loss, damage and expense suffered or incurred by the Cash Custodian or its nominee in the performance of its duties.

The Index Provider

The Index Provider has no obligation to take the needs of the Trust or the Shareholders into consideration in determining, composing, or calculating the Index. The Index Provider does not make any express or implied warranties, and expressly disclaims all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use with respect to the Index or any data included therein. The Index Provider does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or performance of the Index or the data included therein and shall have no liability in connection with the Index or index calculation, errors, omissions or interruptions of any Fidelity index or any data included therein. The Index Provider has contracted with an independent calculation agent to calculate the Index. Without limiting any of the foregoing, in no event shall the Index Provider have any liability for any special, punitive, direct, indirect or consequential damages (including lost profits) arising out of matters relating to the use of the Index, even if notified of the possibility of such damages.

PROVISIONS OF LAW

According to applicable law, indemnification of the Sponsor is payable only if the Sponsor determined, in good faith, that the act, omission or conduct that gave rise to the claim for indemnification was in the best interest of the Trust and the act, omission or activity that was the basis for such loss, liability, damage, cost or expense was not the result of negligence or misconduct and such liability or loss was not the result of negligence or misconduct by the Sponsor, and such indemnification or agreement to hold harmless is recoverable only out of the assets of the Trust.

Provisions of Federal and State Securities Laws

This offering is made pursuant to federal and state securities laws. The SEC and state securities agencies take the position that indemnification of the Sponsor that arises out of an alleged violation of such laws is prohibited unless certain conditions are met.

These conditions require that no indemnification of the Sponsor or any underwriter for the Trust may be made in respect of any losses, liabilities or expenses arising from or out of an alleged violation of federal or state securities laws unless: (i) there has been a successful adjudication on the merits of each count involving alleged securities law violations as to the party seeking indemnification and the court approves the indemnification; (ii) such claim has been dismissed with prejudice on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction as to the party seeking indemnification; or (iii) a court of competent jurisdiction approves a settlement of the claims against the party seeking indemnification and finds that indemnification of the settlement and related costs should be made, provided that, before seeking such approval, the Sponsor or other indemnitee must apprise the court of the position held by regulatory agencies against such indemnification. These agencies are the SEC and the securities administrator of the State or States in which the plaintiffs claim they were offered or sold interests.

MANAGEMENT; VOTING BY SHAREHOLDERS

The Sponsor will generally have the right to amend the Trust Agreement as it applies to the Trust provided that the Shareholders have the right to vote only if expressly required under Delaware or federal law or rules or regulations of the Exchange, or if submitted to the Shareholders by the Sponsor in its sole discretion. No amendment affecting the Trustee will be binding upon or effective against the Trustee unless consented to by the Trustee in the form of an instruction letter.

The Trust does not have any directors, officers or employees. The creation and operation of the Trust has been arranged by the Sponsor. The Sponsor is governed by a board of directors. The President and Treasurer of the Sponsor are as follows:

Cynthia Lo Bessette, 1969, serves as President of the Sponsor. She has been Head of Fidelity’s Digital Asset Management division since 2023, leading teams responsible for the management and development of the investment framework and infrastructure for crypto research, asset tokenization, digital asset/crypto trading, and settlement and the development and implementation of new investment capabilities and investment products and solutions, business development, and digital asset education. Previously, in her role as Head of Fidelity’s Asset Management and Digital Assets Legal, Ms. Lo Bessette led a team providing legal and regulatory guidance across Asset Management and built a team providing legal and regulatory guidance and support to the Fidelity Digital Assets business and blockchain-related technology research and development in the Fidelity Center for Applied Technology. Prior to joining Fidelity in August 2019, Ms. Lo Bessette was Executive Vice President and General Counsel of OppenheimerFunds, and a Director of OFI International, Ltd, the U.K. affiliate of OppenheimerFunds, and OppenheimerFunds ICAV.

Heather Bonner, 1977, serves as Treasurer of the Sponsor. She is a Senior Vice President in Fidelity’s Asset Management Treasurer’s office responsible for oversight of internal controls impacting the Fidelity funds’ financial reporting, as well as policy setting and interpretation with respect to certain fund accounting, tax, and reporting matters. She also regularly interacts with the Fidelity funds’ Board of Trustees. Additionally, Ms. Bonner oversees the operations of the Fidelity alternative funds’ various service providers, including independent accountants, pricing and bookkeeping agents, and custodians. Prior to joining Fidelity in September 2022, Ms. Bonner was Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of the AQR Funds.

BOOKS AND RECORDS

The Trust keeps its books of record and account at the office of the Sponsor located at 245 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210, or at the offices of the Administrator, or such office, including of an administrative agent, as it may subsequently designate upon notice. The books and records are open to inspection by any person who establishes to the Trust’s satisfaction that such person is a Shareholder upon reasonable advance notice at all reasonable times during usual business hours of the Trust.

The Trust will keep a copy of the Trust Agreement on file in the Sponsor’s office which will be available for inspection by any Shareholder at all times during its usual business hours upon reasonable advance notice.

STATEMENTS, FILINGS, AND REPORTS TO SHAREHOLDERS

After the end of each fiscal year, the Sponsor will cause to be prepared an annual report for the Trust containing audited financial statements. The annual report will be in such form and contain such information as will be required by applicable laws, rules and regulations and may contain such additional information which the Sponsor determines shall be included. The annual report will be filed with the SEC and the Exchange and will be distributed to such persons and in such manner, as is required by applicable laws, rules and regulations.

The Sponsor is responsible for the registration and qualification of the Shares under the federal securities laws. The Sponsor will also prepare, or cause to be prepared, and file any periodic reports or updates required under the 1934 Act. The Administrator will assist and support the Sponsor in the preparation of such reports.

The Administrator will make such elections, file such tax returns, and prepare, disseminate and file such tax reports, as it is advised to by its counsel or accountants or as required from time to time by any applicable statute, rule or regulation.

FISCAL YEAR

The fiscal year of the Trust is the calendar year. The Sponsor may select an alternate fiscal year to the extent permitted under applicable law.

GOVERNING LAW; CONSENT TO DELAWARE JURISDICTION

The rights of the Sponsor, the Trust, DTC (as registered owner of the Trust’s global certificate for Shares) and the Shareholders are governed by the laws of the State of Delaware. The Sponsor, the Trust and DTC and, by accepting Shares, each DTC Participant and each Shareholder, consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Delaware and any federal courts located in Delaware, provided that (i) the forum selection provisions do not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the 1934 Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction and (ii) the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the 1933 Act, or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Such consent is not required for any person to assert a claim of Delaware jurisdiction over the Sponsor, the Trust. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Section 22 of the 1933 Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the 1933 Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. Investors cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Further, there is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce the exclusive forum jurisdiction for actions arising under the 1933 Act or 1934 Act.

LEGAL MATTERS

Litigation and Claims

Within the past five years of the date of this Prospectus, there have been no material administrative, civil or criminal actions against the Sponsor, the Trust or any principal or affiliate of any of them. This includes any actions pending, on appeal, concluded, threatened, or otherwise known to them.

Legal Opinion

Chapman and Cutler LLP has advised the Sponsor in connection with the Shares being offered. Chapman and Cutler LLP also advises the Sponsor with respect to its responsibilities as sponsor of, and with respect to matters relating to, the Trust. Chapman and Cutler LLP will render an opinion regarding the material U.S. federal income tax consequences of ownership of the Shares. Certain opinions of counsel will be filed with the SEC as exhibits to the Registration Statement of which this Prospectus is a part.

EXPERTS

The financial statement as of May 24, 2024, included in this Prospectus has been so included in reliance on the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, given on the authority of said firm as experts in auditing and accounting.

MATERIAL CONTRACTS

Administration Agreement

Under the Administration Agreement, the Administrator provides necessary administrative, tax and accounting services and financial reporting for the maintenance and operations of the Trust, including valuing the Trust’s ether and calculating the NAV per Share of the Trust and the NAV of the Trust and supplying pricing information to the Sponsor for the relevant website. In addition, the Administrator makes available the office space, equipment, personnel and facilities required to provide such services. The Administrator will also facilitate the instruction to transfer ether required for the operation of the Trust.

Standard of Care; Limitations of Liability

The Administrator shall exercise reasonable care, prudence and diligence in carrying out all of its duties and obligations under the Administration Agreement, and shall be liable to the Trust only for direct losses suffered or incurred by the Trust resulting from the failure of the Administrator to exercise its standard of care.

The Administrator shall be responsible for the performance only of such duties as are set forth in the Administration Agreement and, except as otherwise provided in the Administration Agreement, shall have no responsibility for the actions or activities of any other party, including other service providers.

The Administrator shall have no liability in respect of any loss, damage or expense suffered by the Trust insofar as such loss, damage or expense arises from the performance of the Administrator’s duties hereunder in reliance upon records that were maintained for the Trust by entities other than the Administrator prior to the Administrator’s appointment as administrator for the Trust. Unless directly caused by or resulting from, the failure of the Administrator to exercise its standard of care, the Administrator shall have no liability for errors of judgment or for any loss or damage resulting from the performance or nonperformance of its duties under the Administration Agreement.

Neither the Trust nor the Administrator shall be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, punitive or consequential damages, including lost profits, of any kind whatsoever (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees) arising in connection with the Administration Agreement even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

The Administrator shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in performance of its obligations under the Administration Agreement arising out of or caused, directly or indirectly, by circumstances beyond its control, including, without limitation, work stoppage, power or other mechanical failure, computer virus, natural disaster, governmental action or communication disruption.

Indemnity

The Trust will indemnify the Administrator against, and hold Administrator harmless from, any loss, damage, or expense that may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against the Administrator as a result of any action or omission taken in accordance with any instruction, except to the extent that such loss, damage, or expense is caused by the negligence, misfeasance or willful misconduct of the Administrator in the manner in which it carries out the instruction.

The Trust agrees to indemnify and hold the Administrator and its directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from all loss, cost, damage and expense, including reasonable fees and expenses for counsel, incurred by the Administrator resulting from any claim, demand, action or suit in connection with any action or omission by the Administrator in the performance of its duties under the Administration Agreement, or as a result of the Administrator acting upon any instructions reasonably believed by it to have been communicated to it or upon reasonable reliance on information or records given or made by the Trust. However, the Trust will not indemnify the Administrator from losses, damages and expenses occasioned by or resulting from the negligence, misfeasance or willful misconduct of the Administrator, its officers, employees or agents as the case may be.

Administrator’s Fee

Pursuant to the Trust’s unitary fee structure, the Administrator’s fee is paid by the Sponsor in accordance with the Administration Agreement.

Governing Law

The Administration Agreement is governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Termination of the Administration Agreement

The Administration Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until the first to occur of: (i) termination for convenience by the Administrator by an instrument in writing delivered or mailed to the Trust, such termination to take effect not sooner than ninety (90) days after the date of such delivery; (ii) termination for convenience by the Trust by an instrument in writing delivered or mailed to the Administrator, such termination to take effect not sooner than thirty (30) days after the date of such delivery; (iii) termination by the Administrator, by an instrument in writing delivered or mailed to the Trust if the Administrator reasonably determines that servicing the Trust raises regulatory or reputational concerns, with such termination to take effect not sooner than sixty (60) days after the date of such delivery; or (iv) termination by the either party by written notice delivered to the other party, based upon: (a) the terminating party’s determination that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the other party is insolvent or that the financial condition of the other party is deteriorating in any material respect, in which case termination shall take effect upon the other party’s receipt of such notice or at such later time as the terminating party shall designate; (b) the other party committing a material breach of the Administration Agreement, and failing to remedy such material breach within ninety (90) days of being given written notice of the material breach, unless the parties agree to extend the period to remedy the breach; or (c) the relevant state or federal authority withdrawing its authorization of the either party.

Custodial Services Agreement

The Custodial Services Agreement establishes the rights and responsibilities of the Custodian, Sponsor, and the Trust with respect to the ether in the Trust’s ether custody account, which is established and maintained by the Custodian.

Access to the Custody Account; Transfers and Storage

The Custodian has been engaged to keep the Trust’s ether in safe custody.

The Custodian will provide the Sponsor with the information that is necessary for third parties to make deposits to the Trust’s account. To support the Trust’s ordinary course deposits and withdrawals, the Custodian’s services will allow the Sponsor to receive a recipient address for deposits by a third party, and to initiate the transfer and broadcast to the blockchain supporting the relevant asset. Subject to completed blockchain transactions to the provided recipient addresses and completion of required transaction screening by the Custodian, the Custodian will credit all ether properly authorized by the Trust or the Sponsor to the Trust’s account.

The Custodian will only allow withdrawals of ether from the Trust’s account based on authorized instructions from the Sponsor or the Trust.

Standard of Care; Limitations of Liability

The Custodian agrees to exercise the reasonable care of a professional custodian for hire. In no event will the Custodian be responsible or liable for any loss, claim or damage suffered by the Client, except to the extent of a final, non-appealable judicial determination that such loss, claim or damage directly resulted from the gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud of the Custodian. Further, the Custodian is not liable for any loss that is caused, directly or indirectly, by any non-adherence by the Trust to the Custodian’s policies and procedures, any action taken by the Custodian, which in its sole discretion, may be necessary or advisable to inspect and protect the security of the digital assets or accounts of the Trust. Other exceptions under the Custodial Services Agreement may include force majeure events (i.e., events out of the control of the Custodian, which make compliance by the Custodian with the terms of the Custodial Services Agreement impossible) or losses resulting from the Custodian’s reasonable reliance on an instruction reasonably understood as provided by the Trust to the Custodian.

The Custodian shall only be responsible for the performance of those duties as are expressly set forth in the Custodial Services Agreement, including the performance of any instructions given in accordance with it. The Custodian does not have implied duties or obligations and is not subject to, nor required to comply with, any other agreement to which the Trust is a party.

Pursuant to the Custodial Services Agreement, the Custodian does not warrant or guarantee the form, authenticity, value or validity of any asset received by the Custodian. The Custodian is not responsible for the security, functionality, or availability of the Ethereum network. Furthermore, the Custodian cannot cancel or reverse a transaction that has been submitted to the Ethereum network, except by an instruction to halt a withdrawal of ether within three hours immediately following receipt of a confirmation provided to the Trust by the Custodian of a pending withdrawal transaction. To the extent the Custodian does not cause or contribute to a loss that the Trust or Sponsor suffers in connection with any ether transaction initiated by or on behalf of the Trust or Sponsor, the Custodian will have no liability for such loss.

Indemnity

The Trust will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Custodian, its parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, and its and their directors, officers, agents and employees, against any and all claims, costs, causes of action, losses, liabilities, lawsuits, demands and damages, fines, penalties and expenses, including without limitation, any and all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, in any way related to or arising out of or in connection with the Custodial Services Agreement or any action taken or not taken pursuant hereto, except to the extent that the Custodian would be liable under Custodial Services Agreement.

Insurance

Ether is not subject to the protections or insurance provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Any insurance coverage obtained by or for the Custodian is solely for the benefit of the Custodian and does not guarantee or insure the Trust in any way. There is no third-party insurance held on behalf of the ether accounts.

Inspection and Audit Rights

The Trust does not enjoy audit or inspection rights under the Custodial Services Agreement. The Sponsor relies on the Custodian’s System and Organization Controls (“SOC”) reports to provide assurances as to the controls that support the proof of existence of the Trust’s ether at the Custodian. SOC reports are internal control evaluations conducted by independent auditors. A SOC 1 report addresses the controls at a service organization that are likely to be relevant to user entities’ internal control over financial reporting. A SOC 2 report addresses controls at a service organization relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy in order to support users’ evaluations of their own systems of internal control. The Custodian engages an independent auditor to conduct both a SOC 1, Type II audit and a SOC 2, Type II audit. The SOC 1, Type II and SOC 2, Type II reports include controls over private key management.

Fees and Expenses

Pursuant to the Trust’s unitary fee structure, Custody Fees are paid by the Sponsor in accordance with a Fee Schedule to the Custodial Services Agreement.

Modification of Agreement

The Custodial Services Agreement may be modified only by written agreement signed by both the Trust and the Custodian.

Governing Law

The Custodial Services Agreement is governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Term and Termination

The term of the Custodial Services Agreement shall continue unless terminated in accordance with its terms. Pursuant to the Custodial Services Agreement, either party may terminate the agreement (i) with or without cause upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the other party, (ii) for material breach of the agreement and the failure to cure such breach by the breaching party within seven (7) days after receiving written notice of the material breach from the non-breaching party, and (iii) upon insolvency.

Distribution Agreement

Pursuant to a distribution agreement (the “Distribution Agreement”) between the Trust and Fidelity Distributors Company LLC, Fidelity Distributors Company LLC assists the Sponsor and the Administrator with certain functions and duties relating to distribution and marketing of Shares including reviewing and approving marketing materials.

Indemnity and Limitations on Liability

In its capacity as Distributor, Fidelity Distributors Company LLC is indemnified and held harmless against any loss, liability, claim, damages or expense (including the reasonable cost of investigating or defending any alleged loss, liability, claim, damages, or expense and reasonable counsel fees incurred in connection therewith) arising by reason of any person acquiring any shares, based upon the ground that the Trust’s offering documents included an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated or necessary in order to make the statements not misleading under the 1933 Act, or any other statute or the common law. However, the Trust will not indemnify the Distributor or hold it harmless to the extent that the statement or omission was made in reliance upon, and in conformity with, information furnished to the Trust by or on behalf of Distributor. In no case (i) is the indemnity of the Trust in favor of Distributor or any person indemnified to be deemed to protect the Distributor or any person against any liability to the Trust or its security holders to which the Distributor or such person would otherwise be subject by reason of willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence in the performance of its duties or by reason of its reckless disregard of its obligations and duties under the Distribution Agreement, or (ii) is the Trust to be liable under its indemnity agreement with respect to any claim made against the Distributor or any person indemnified unless the Distributor or person, as the case may be, shall have notified the Trust in writing of the claim within a reasonable time after the summons or other first written notification giving information of the nature of the claim shall have been served upon the Distributor or any such person (or after the Distributor or such person shall have received notice of service on any designated agent).

100

Term and Termination

The Distribution Agreement may be terminated by either party at the end of the initial term or the end of any renewal term on sixty (60) days’ prior written notice.

Governing Law

The Distribution Agreement is governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Transfer Agency Agreement

State Street serves as the Transfer Agent. The Transfer Agent, among other things, provides transfer agent services with respect to the creation and redemption of Baskets by Authorized Participants, the issuance and redemption of Shares, the payment, if any, of distributions with respect to the Shares, the recording of the issuance of the Shares and the maintaining of certain records therewith.

Resignation, Discharge or Removal of Transfer Agent

Either the Trust or the Transfer Agent may terminate the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement for cause for the reasons set forth in the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement, such as either party’s bankruptcy or committing a material breach of the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement. The Trust may terminate the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement prior to the expiration of the initial term upon ninety (90) days’ prior written notice in the event that the Sponsor determines to liquidate the Trust and terminate its registration with the SEC.

Limitation on Transfer Agent’s Liability

The Transfer Agent will not be liable for the disposition of EUAs or moneys, or for any action taken or omitted or for any loss or injury resulting from its actions or its performance or lack of performance of its duties under the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement in the absence of negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith on its part. In no event will the Transfer Agent be liable for acting in accordance with or conclusively relying upon any instruction, notice, demand, certificate or document (i) from the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Administrator or the Cash Custodian or any entity acting on behalf of any of them which the Transfer Agent believes is given as authorized by the Trust Agreement, the Administration Agreement or the Cash Custody Agreement, respectively; or (ii) from or on behalf of any Authorized Participant which the Transfer Agent believes is given pursuant to or is authorized by an Authorized Participant Agreement (provided that the Transfer Agent has complied with the verification procedures specified in the Authorized Participant Agreement). In no event will the Transfer Agent be liable for acting or omitting to act in reliance upon the advice of or information from legal counsel, accountants or any other person believed by it in good faith to be competent to give such advice or information. In addition, the Transfer Agent will not be liable for any delay in performance or for the non-performance of any of its obligations under the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement by reason of causes beyond its reasonable control, including acts of God, war or terrorism. The Transfer Agent will not be liable for any indirect, consequential, punitive or special damages, regardless of the form of action and whether or not any such damages were foreseeable or contemplated, or for an amount in excess of the value of the Trust’s assets.

Indemnification of Transfer Agent

The Transfer Agent, its directors, employees and agents shall be indemnified by the Trust and held harmless against any loss, liability or expense (including, but not limited to, the reasonable fees and expenses of counsel) arising out of or in connection with the performance of its obligations under the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement and under each other agreement entered into by the Transfer Agent in furtherance of the administration of the Trust (including, without limiting the scope of the foregoing, any Authorized Participant Agreement) or for any other loss incurred without negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith in connection with the performance of its obligations under or any actions taken in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement or any such other agreement. Such indemnity shall include payment from the Trust of the costs and expenses incurred by such indemnified party in defending itself against any claim or liability in its capacity as Transfer Agent.

101

Governing Law

The Transfer Agency and Services Agreement shall be construed and the provisions thereof interpreted under and in accordance with the laws of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Cash Custody Agreement

Under the Cash Custody Agreement, the Cash Custodian will keep safely all cash and other non-ether assets of the Trust delivered to the Cash Custodian and, on behalf of the Trust, the Cash Custodian shall, from time to time, accept delivery of cash and other non-ether assets for safekeeping. Amounts received in connection with the sale of ether shall be deposited into the Cash Account.

Standard of Care; Limitations of Liability

The Cash Custodian shall exercise reasonable care, prudence and diligence and shall be liable to the Trust for all loss, damage and expense suffered or incurred by the Trust resulting from the failure of the Cash Custodian to exercise such reasonable care, prudence and diligence.

The Cash Custodian shall not be liable if the Cash Custodian (or any sub-custodian) is prevented, forbidden or delayed from performing, or omits to perform, any act or thing which the Cash Custody Agreement provides shall be performed or omitted to be performed, by reason of: (i) any provision of any present or future law or regulation or order of the United States of America, or any state thereof, or of any foreign country, or political subdivision thereof or of any court of competent jurisdiction; or (ii) any act of God or war or other similar circumstance beyond the control of the Cash Custodian, unless, in each case, such delay or nonperformance is caused by the breach by the Cash Custodian of its standard care or a malfunction or failure of equipment operated or utilized by the Cash Custodian other than a malfunction or failure beyond the Cash Custodian’s control and which could not reasonably be anticipated and/or prevented.

Indemnity

Under the Cash Custody Agreement, the Trust agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Cash Custodian and its nominees from all loss, damage and expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) suffered or incurred by the Cash Custodian or its nominee caused by or arising from actions taken by the Cash Custodian on behalf of the Trust in the performance of its duties and obligations under the Cash Custody Agreement; provided however, that such indemnity shall not apply to loss, damage and expense occasioned by or resulting from the Cash Custodian’s breach of its standard of care.

Cash Custodian’s Fee

Pursuant to the Trust’s unitary fee structure, the Cash Custodian’s fees are paid by the Sponsor in accordance with the Cash Custody Agreement.

Governing Law

The Cash Custody Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York.

102

Termination of the Cash Custody Agreement

With respect to the Trust, the Cash Custody Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until the first to occur of: (a) termination by the Cash Custodian by an instrument in writing delivered or mailed to the Trust, such termination to take effect not sooner than ninety (90) days after the date of such delivery; (b) termination by the Trust by an instrument in writing delivered or mailed to the Cash Custodian, such termination to take effect not sooner than thirty (30) days after the date of such delivery; or (c) termination by the Trust by written notice delivered to the Cash Custodian, based upon the Trust’s determination that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the Cash Custodian is insolvent or that the financial condition of the Cash Custodian is deteriorating in any material respect, in which case termination shall take effect upon the Cash Custodian’s receipt of such notice or at such later time as the Trust shall designate.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES

The following discussion describes the material U.S. federal income tax consequences associated with the purchase, ownership and disposition of Shares by a U.S. Shareholder (as defined below), and certain U.S. federal income consequences that may apply to an investment in Shares by a Non-U.S. Shareholder (as defined below). The discussion below is based on the Code, Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder and judicial and administrative interpretations of the Code, all as in effect on the date of this Prospectus and all of which are subject to change either prospectively or retroactively. The tax treatment of Shareholders may vary depending upon their own particular circumstances. Except where noted, this discussion only deals with Shares held as capital assets (generally, property held for investment), and does not address special situations, including those of banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts, dealers in securities, currencies, or commodities, tax-exempt organizations, tax-exempt or tax-advantaged retirement plans or accounts, traders using a mark-to-market method of accounting, entities that are partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes, persons holding Shares as a position in a “hedging,” “straddle,” “conversion,” “constructive sale” or other integrated transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes, persons whose “functional currency” is not the U.S. dollar, persons required for U.S. federal income tax purposes to accelerate the recognition of any item of gross income with respect to the Shares as a result of such income being recognized on an applicable financial statement, or persons subject to the federal alternative minimum tax. Moreover, the discussion below does not address the effect of any state, local or foreign tax law consequences that may apply to an investment in Shares. Purchasers of Shares are urged to consult their own tax advisers with respect to all federal, state, local and foreign tax law considerations potentially applicable to their investment in Shares.

For purposes of this discussion, a “U.S. Shareholder” is a Shareholder that is:

•

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

•

a corporation (or entity treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes) created or organized in or under the laws of the United States, any state thereof or the District of Columbia;

•

an estate, the income of which is includible in gross income for U.S. federal income tax purposes regardless of its source; or

•

a trust, if a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust and one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.

If a partnership or other entity or arrangement treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes holds Shares, the tax treatment of a partner generally depends upon the status of the partner and the activities of the partnership. If you are a partner of a partnership holding Shares, the discussion below may not be applicable and we urge you to consult your own tax adviser for the U.S. federal income tax implications of the purchase, ownership and disposition of such Shares.

103

Taxation of the Trust

The Sponsor and the Trustee will treat the Trust as a “grantor trust” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In the opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP, although not free from doubt due to the lack of directly governing authority, the Trust should be classified as a “grantor trust” for U.S. federal income tax purposes (and the following discussion assumes such classification). As a result, the Trust itself should not be subject to U.S. federal income tax. Instead, the Trust’s income, expenses and amounts realized should “flow through” to the Shareholders, and the Trustee will report to Shareholders and the IRS on that basis. The opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP is not binding on the IRS or any court. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the IRS will agree with the conclusions of counsel’s opinion and it is possible that the IRS or another tax authority could assert a position contrary to one or all of those conclusions and that a court could sustain that contrary position. Neither the Sponsor nor the Trustee will request a ruling from the IRS with respect to the classification of the Trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes or with respect to any other matter. If the IRS were to assert successfully that the Trust is not classified as a “grantor trust,” the Trust would likely be classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which may affect the timing and other tax consequences to the Shareholders. Under such circumstances, the Trust might be classified as a publicly traded partnership that would be taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, in which case the Trust would be taxed in the same manner as a corporation on its taxable income and distributions to Shareholders out of the earnings and profits of the Trust would be taxed to Shareholders as ordinary dividend income. However, due to the uncertain treatment of digital currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes, there can be no assurance in this regard. Except as otherwise indicated, the remainder of this discussion assumes that the Trust is classified as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Taxation of U.S. Shareholders

Each Shareholder will be treated, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as if it directly owned a pro rata share of the underlying assets held in the Trust. A Shareholder also will be treated as if it directly received its respective pro rata share of the Trust’s income, if any, and as if it directly incurred its respective pro rata share of the Trust’s expenses, subject to some specialized allocation rules for widely held fixed investment trusts. In the case of a Shareholder that acquires Shares as part of the creation of a Basket in cash, the delivery of cash to the Trust in exchange for a pro rata share of the underlying ether represented by the Shares and the additional ether purchased with the cash will not be a taxable event to the Shareholder, and the Shareholder’s tax basis and holding period for the Shareholder’s pro rata share of the ether held in the Trust will be based upon the amount of cash contributed and the date that the Trust purchased the ether with the cash. For purposes of this discussion, and unless stated otherwise, it is assumed that all of a Shareholder’s Shares are acquired on the same date and at the same price per Share. Shareholders that hold multiple lots of Shares, or that are contemplating acquiring multiple lots of Shares, should consult their own tax advisers as to the determination of the tax basis and holding period for the underlying ether related to such Shares.

Current IRS guidance on the treatment of convertible virtual currencies classifies ether as “property” that is not currency for U.S. federal income tax purposes and clarifies that ether can be held as a capital asset, but it does not address several other aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of ether. Because ether is a new technological innovation, the U.S. federal income tax treatment of ether or transactions relating to investments in ether may evolve and change from that discussed below, possibly with retroactive effect. In this regard, the IRS has indicated that it has made it a priority to issue additional guidance related to the taxation of virtual currency transactions, such as transactions involving ether. While the IRS has started to issue such additional guidance, whether any future guidance will adversely affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in ether or in transactions relating to investments in ether is unknown. Moreover, future developments that may arise with respect to digital currencies may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital currencies for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

104

The Trust expects to sell or use ether to pay certain expenses of the Trust or to fund cash redemptions if and when applicable. If the Trust sells ether (for example to generate cash to pay fees or expenses) or is treated as selling ether (for example by using ether to pay fees or expenses), a Shareholder will generally recognize gain or loss in an amount equal to the difference between (a) the Shareholder’s pro rata share of the amount realized by the Trust upon the sale and (b) the Shareholder’s tax basis for its pro rata share of the ether that was sold. A Shareholder’s tax basis for its share of any ether sold by the Trust will generally be a pro rata portion of the Shareholder’s total tax basis for its share of all of the ether held in the Trust. After any such sale, a Shareholder’s tax basis for its pro rata share of the ether remaining in the Trust should be equal to its tax basis for its share of the total amount of the ether held in the Trust immediately prior to the sale less the portion of such basis allocable to its share of the ether that was sold.

Upon a Shareholder’s sale of some or all of its Shares, the Shareholder will be treated as having sold the pro rata share of the ether held in the Trust at the time of the sale that is attributable to the Shares sold. Accordingly, the Shareholder generally will recognize gain or loss on the sale in an amount equal to the difference between (a) the amount realized pursuant to the sale of the Shares, and (b) the Shareholder’s tax basis for the pro rata share of the ether held in the Trust at the time of sale that is attributable to the Shares sold, as determined in the manner described in the preceding paragraph. A selling Shareholder may recognize additional gain or loss when the Trust sells or disposes of ether, as described above, attributable to the portion of the year the Shares were held. Based on current IRS guidance, such gain or loss on the sale of Shares (as well as any gain or loss realized by a Shareholder on account of the Trust selling ether) will generally be long-term capital gain or loss if the Shareholder has a holding period of greater than one year in its pro rata share of the ether that was sold and otherwise will be short-term capital gain or loss.

Sales of ether to fund cash redemptions are expected to result in gains and losses with such gains and losses expected to be treated as incurred by the Shareholder that is being redeemed. These gains or losses generally would equal the difference between the amount realized from the sale of the ether and the Shareholder’s tax basis for the portion of the Shareholder’s pro rata share of the ether held in the Trust that is sold to fund the redemption, as determined in the manner described above. A redemption of some or all of a Shareholder’s Shares in exchange for the cash received from such sale is not expected to be treated as a separate taxable event for the Shareholder.

After any sale or redemption of less than all of a Shareholder’s Shares, the Shareholder’s tax basis for its pro rata share of the ether held in the Trust immediately after such sale or redemption generally will be equal to its tax basis in its share of the total amount of the ether held in the Trust immediately prior to the sale or redemption, less the portion of such basis which is taken into account in determining the amount of gain or loss recognized by the Shareholder upon such sale or cash redemption or, in the case of an in-kind redemption for ether, that is treated as the basis of the ether received by the Shareholder in the redemption.

Except for cash temporarily held to pay Trust expenses, to facilitate redemption transactions, or received in creation transactions, the Trust will only invest in ether. In the event of a fork, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any digital asset resulting from a fork in the Ethereum network (other than what the Sponsor determines to be ether). If the Trust were to change this policy, the Trust would need to seek and obtain certain regulatory approvals, including an amendment to the Trust’s registration statement of which this Prospectus is a part and approval of an application by the Exchange to amend its listing rules. If, despite such abandonment, the Trust were to receive any digital asset resulting from a fork in the Ethereum network (other than what the Sponsor determines to be ether), the Trust Agreement requires the Sponsor to cause the forked asset to be sold and have the proceeds distributed to the Shareholders. The sale of a forked asset received by the Trust will give rise to gain or loss, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, if the amount realized on the sale differs from the value of the new forked asset at the time it was received by the Trust. A hard fork may therefore give rise to additional tax liabilities for Shareholders.

105

3.8% Tax on Net Investment Income

Certain U.S. Shareholders, who are individuals, are required to pay a 3.8% tax on the lesser of the excess of their modified adjusted gross income over a threshold amount ($250,000 for married persons filing jointly and $200,000 for single taxpayers) or their “net investment income,” which generally includes capital gains from the disposition of property. This tax is in addition to any capital gains taxes due on such investment income. A similar tax applies to estates and trusts. U.S. Shareholders should consult their own tax advisers regarding the effect, if any, this tax may have on their investment in the Shares.

Brokerage Fees and Trust Expenses

Any brokerage or other transaction fee incurred by a Shareholder in purchasing Shares will be treated as part of the Shareholder’s tax basis in the underlying assets of the Trust. Similarly, any brokerage fee incurred by a Shareholder in selling Shares will reduce the amount realized by the Shareholder with respect to the sale.

Shareholders will be required to recognize the full amount of gain or loss upon a sale or deemed sale of ether by the Trust (as discussed above), even though some or all of the proceeds of such sale are used by the Trustee to pay Trust expenses. Shareholders may deduct their respective pro rata shares of each expense incurred by the Trust to the same extent as if they directly incurred the expense. However, most trust expenses are expected to result in miscellaneous itemized deductions, and noncorporate taxpayers generally are not allowed any deduction with respect to miscellaneous itemized deductions for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, noncorporate taxpayers may deduct certain miscellaneous itemized deductions only to the extent they exceed in the aggregate 2% of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income.

Investment by Certain Retirement Plans

Individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”) and participant-directed accounts under tax-qualified retirement plans are limited in the types of investments they may make under the Code. Potential purchasers of Shares that are IRAs or participant-directed accounts under a Code section 401(a) plan should consult with their own tax advisors as to the tax consequences of a purchase of Shares.

United States Information Reporting and Backup Withholding; Tax Return Reporting for Cryptocurrency

The Trustee will file certain information returns with the IRS, and provide certain tax-related information to Shareholders, in connection with the Trust. To the extent required by applicable regulations, each Shareholder will be provided with information regarding its allocable portion of the Trust’s annual income, expenses, gains and losses (if any). A U.S. Shareholder may be subject to United States backup withholding tax in certain circumstances unless it provides its taxpayer identification number and complies with certain certification procedures. Non-U.S. Shareholders may have to comply with certification procedures to establish that they are not a United States person, and some Non-U.S. Shareholders may be required to meet certain information reporting or certification requirements imposed by Code requirements popularly referred to as “FATCA” in order to avoid certain information reporting and withholding tax requirements.

The amount of any backup withholding will be allowed as a credit against a Shareholder’s U.S. federal income tax liability and may entitle the Shareholder to a refund, provided that the required information is furnished to the IRS in a timely manner.

106

Individual U.S. Shareholders will be required to report on their federal income tax return the receipt, acquisition, sale, or exchange of any financial interest in virtual currency, which includes a Shareholder’s interest in ether held by the Trust.

Taxation of Authorized Participants

If an Authorized Participant invests in the Trust on its own behalf, the Authorized Participant will generally recognize income, gain, loss or deduction as described for U.S. Shareholders. If an Authorized Participant is acting as agent for one or more other persons, who are the beneficial owners of the Shares, the Authorized Participant will be obligated to issue an information statement to the beneficial owners, who will recognize the consequences described above for U.S. Shareholders.

Taxation in Jurisdictions Other Than the United States

Prospective purchasers of Shares that are based in or acting out of a jurisdiction other than the United States are advised to consult their own tax advisers as to the tax consequences under the laws of such jurisdiction (or any other jurisdiction other than the United States in which they are subject to taxation) of their purchase, holding, sale and redemption of or any other dealing in Shares and, in particular, as to whether any value added tax, other consumption tax or transfer tax is payable in relation to such purchase, holding, sale, redemption or other dealing.

The foregoing is only a general summary of the material U.S. federal income tax consequences associated with the purchase, ownership and disposition of Shares by a U.S. Shareholder. Each prospective Shareholder should consult the Shareholder’s own tax advisor concerning the U.S. federal, state, local, and non-U.S. tax considerations relevant to an investment in Shares in the Shareholder’s particular tax situation.

PROSPECTIVE SHAREHOLDERS ARE URGED TO CONSULT THEIR LEGAL AND TAX ADVISERS BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER TO INVEST IN THE SHARES OF THE TRUST.

PURCHASES BY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and/or Section 4975 of the Code impose certain requirements on: (i) employee benefit plans and certain other plans and arrangements, including individual retirement accounts and annuities, Keogh plans and certain collective investment funds or insurance company general or separate accounts in which such plans or arrangements are invested, that are subject to Title I of ERISA and/or Section 4975 of the Code (collectively, “Plans”); and (ii) persons who are fiduciaries with respect to the investment of assets treated as “plan assets” within the meaning of U.S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) regulation 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-101, as modified by Section 3(42) of ERISA (the “Plan Assets Regulation”), of a Plan. Investments by Plans are subject to the fiduciary requirements and the applicability of prohibited transaction restrictions under ERISA and the Code. It is anticipated that the Shares will constitute “publicly-held offered securities” as defined in the Department of Labor Regulations § 2510.3-101(b)(2). Accordingly, Shares purchased by a Plan, and not the Plan’s interest in the underlying ether held in the Trust represented by the Shares, should be treated as assets of the Plan, for purposes of applying the “fiduciary responsibility” and “prohibited transaction” rules of ERISA and the Code.

“Governmental plans” within the meaning of Section 3(32) of ERISA, certain “church plans” within the meaning of Section 3(33) of ERISA and “non-U.S. plans” described in Section 4(b)(4) of ERISA, while not subject to the fiduciary responsibility and prohibited transaction provisions of Title I of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code, may be subject to any federal, state, local, non-U.S. or other law or regulation that is substantially similar to the foregoing provisions of ERISA and the Code. Fiduciaries of any such plans are advised to consult with their counsel prior to an investment in the Shares.

107

In contemplating an investment of a portion of Plan assets in the Shares, the Plan fiduciary responsible for making such investment should carefully consider, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the Plan, the “Risk Factors” discussed above and whether such investment is consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities. The Plan fiduciary should consider, among other issues, whether: (1) the fiduciary has the authority to make the investment under the appropriate governing plan instrument; (2) the investment would constitute a direct or indirect non-exempt prohibited transaction with a “party in interest” or “disqualified person” within the meaning of ERISA and Section 4975 of the Code respectively; (3) the investment is in accordance with the Plan’s funding objectives; and (4) such investment is appropriate for the Plan under the general fiduciary standards of investment prudence and diversification, taking into account the overall investment policy of the Plan, the composition of the Plan’s investment portfolio and the Plan’s need for sufficient liquidity to pay benefits when due. When evaluating the prudence of an investment in the Shares, the Plan fiduciary should consider the DOL’s regulation on investment duties, which can be found at 29 C.F.R. § 2550.404a-1.

By investing, each Plan shall be deemed to acknowledge and agree that: (a) none of the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Custodian or any of their respective affiliates (the “Transaction Parties”) has through this Prospectus and related materials provided any investment advice within the meaning of Section 3(21) of ERISA to the Plan in connection with the decision to purchase, acquire, hold or dispose of such Shares; and (b) the information provided in this Prospectus and related materials will not make a Transaction Party a fiduciary to the Plan.

INFORMATION YOU SHOULD KNOW

This Prospectus contains information you should consider when making an investment decision about the Shares. You should rely only on the information contained in this Prospectus or any applicable Prospectus supplement. None of the Trust or 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. This Prospectus is not an offer to sell the Shares in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale of the Shares is not permitted.

The information contained in this Prospectus was obtained from us and other sources we believe to be reliable.

You should disregard anything we said in an earlier document that is inconsistent with what is included in this Prospectus or any applicable Prospectus supplement. Where the context requires, when we refer to this “Prospectus,” we are referring to this Prospectus and (if applicable) the relevant Prospectus supplement.

You should not assume that the information in this Prospectus or any applicable Prospectus supplement is current as of any date other than the date on the front page of this Prospectus or the date on the front page of any applicable Prospectus supplement.

We include cross references in this Prospectus to captions in these materials where you can find further related discussions. The table of contents tells you where to find these captions.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The Sponsor owns trademark registrations for the Trust. The Sponsor relies upon these trademarks through which it markets its services and strives to build and maintain brand recognition in the market and among current and potential investors. So long as the Sponsor continues to use these trademarks to identify its services, without challenge from any third-party, and properly maintains and renews the trademark registrations under applicable laws, rules and regulations, it will continue to have indefinite protection for these trademarks under current laws, rules and regulations.

108

The Sponsor also owns trademark registrations for the Sponsor. The Sponsor relies upon these trademarks through which it markets its services and strives to build and maintain brand recognition in the market and among current and potential investors. So long as the Sponsor continues to use these trademarks to identify its services, without challenge from any third-party, and properly maintains and renews the trademark registrations under applicable laws, rules and regulations; it will continue to have indefinite protection for these trademarks under current laws, rules and regulations.

WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION

The Sponsor has filed on behalf of the Trust a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC under the 1933 Act. This Prospectus does not contain all of the information set forth in the registration statement (including the exhibits to the registration statement), parts of which have been omitted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC. For further information about the Trust or the Shares, please refer to the registration statement, which is available online at www.sec.gov.

Information about the Trust and the Shares can also be obtained from the Trust’s website, which is www.fidelity.com. The Trust’s website address is only provided here as a convenience to you and the information contained on or connected to the website is not part of this Prospectus or the registration statement of which this Prospectus is part. The Trust is subject to the informational requirements of the 1934 Act and will file certain reports and other information with the SEC under the 1934 Act.

The reports and other information are available online at www.sec.gov.

PRIVACY POLICY

The Trust and the Sponsor may collect or have access to certain nonpublic personal information about current and former Shareholders. Nonpublic personal information may include information received from Shareholders, such as a Shareholder’s name, social security number and address, as well as information received from brokerage firms about Shareholder holdings and transactions in Shares of the Trust.

The Trust and the Sponsor do not disclose nonpublic personal information except as required by law or as described in their Privacy Policy. In general, the Trust and the Sponsor restrict access to the nonpublic personal information they collect about Shareholders to those of their and their affiliates’ employees and service providers who need access to such information to provide products and services to Shareholders.

The Trust and the Sponsor maintain safeguards that comply with federal law to protect Shareholders’ nonpublic personal information. These safeguards are reasonably designed to (1) ensure the security and confidentiality of Shareholders’ records and information, (2) protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of Shareholders’ records and information, and (3) protect against unauthorized access to or use of Shareholders’ records or information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any Shareholder.

Third-party service providers with whom the Trust and the Sponsor share nonpublic personal information about Shareholders must agree to follow appropriate standards of security and confidentiality, which includes safeguarding such nonpublic personal information physically, electronically and procedurally.

A copy of the Sponsor’s current Privacy Policy, which is applicable to the Trust, is available at www.fidelity.com/privacy.

109

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Sponsor and Shareholder of Fidelity Ethereum Fund

Opinion on the Financial Statement

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of Fidelity Ethereum Fund (the “Trust”) as of May 24, 2024, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statement”). In our opinion, the financial statement presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Trust as of May 24, 2024 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

This financial statement is the responsibility of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Trust’s financial statement based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Trust in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit of this financial statement in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statement is free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud.

Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statement, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statement. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statement. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

June 3, 2024

We have served as the Trust’s auditor since 2024.

110

Fidelity Ethereum Fund

Statement of Assets and Liabilities


	As of May 24, 2024
Assets:
Cash	$	40

Total Assets	$	40
Liabilities	$	—

Commitments and Contingencies (Note 4)

Net Assets

Common Shares, no par value (unlimited shares authorized) 1 share issued and outstanding	$	—
Paid-In-Capital in excess of par value		40

Total Net Assets	$	40

Net Asset Value per share (1 share issued and outstanding)	$	40.00

The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement

111

Fidelity Ethereum Fund

Notes to Financial Statement

Note 1: Organization

Fidelity Ethereum Fund (the “Trust”) is a Delaware Statutory Trust that was formed on October 31, 2023, pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act. The Trust’s investment objective is to seek to track the performance of ether, the native token of the Ethereum blockchain, as measured by the performance of the Fidelity Ethereum Reference Rate (the “Index”), adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. The Trust is sponsored by FD Funds Management LLC (the “Sponsor”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of FMR LLC. CSC Delaware Trust Company is the trustee of the Trust (the “Trustee”). The Trust will operate pursuant to a Trust Agreement, as amended and/or restated from time to time (the “Trust Agreement”).

The Trust has had no operations to date other than matters relating to the sale and issuance of 1 share of the Trust to an affiliate for an aggregate purchase price of $40 on May 24, 2024. There is no income, expense or gain/loss during the period, and, as such, no Statement of Operations, Statement of Changes in Net Assets or Statement of Cash Flows are included.

Note 2: Significant Accounting Policies

The following is a summary of the significant accounting and reporting policies used in preparing the financial statement.

Basis of Presentation

The financial statement has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”) and are stated in United States (“US”) dollars. The Trust qualifies as an investment company for accounting purposes pursuant to the accounting and reporting guidance under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 946, Financial Services – Investment Companies. The Trust uses fair value as its method of accounting for ether in accordance with its classification as an investment company for accounting purposes. The Trust is not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

112

Use of Estimates

The preparation of the financial statement in accordance with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statement. Actual amounts may ultimately differ from those estimates and the differences could be material.

Cash

Cash consists of a demand deposit held with a financial institution. Cash is carried at cost which approximates fair value.

Income Taxes

The Trust intends to be classified as a “grantor trust” for US federal income tax purposes. As a result, the Trust itself should not be subject to US federal income tax. Instead, the Trust’s income and expenses should “flow through” to the Shareholders, and the Trustee will report to Shareholders and the IRS on that basis.

Note 3: Related Party Agreements and Transactions

Administrator

Fidelity Service Company, Inc., an affiliate of the Sponsor, serves as the Trust’s administrator (the “Administrator”). Under the Administration Agreement, the Administrator provides necessary administrative, tax and accounting services and financial reporting for the maintenance and operations of the Trust, including valuing the Trust’s ether and calculating the net asset value (“NAV”) per Share of the Trust and the NAV of the Trust and supplying pricing information to the Sponsor for the relevant website. In addition, the Administrator makes available the office space, equipment, personnel and facilities required to provide such services.

Custodian

Fidelity Digital Asset Services, LLC, an affiliate of the Sponsor, serves as the Trust’s ether custodian (the “Custodian”). Under the Custodial Services Agreement, Fidelity Digital Asset Services, LLC is responsible for safekeeping all of the ether owned by the Trust. Fidelity Digital Asset Services, LLC was selected by the Sponsor. The Sponsor is responsible for opening an account with Fidelity Digital Asset Services, LLC that holds the Trust’s ether (the “Ether Account”), as well as facilitating the transfer or sale of ether required for the operation of the Trust.

113

Distributor

Fidelity Distributors Company LLC, an affiliate of the Sponsor, (“FDC” or the “Distributor”) is responsible for reviewing and approving the marketing materials prepared by the Sponsor for compliance with applicable Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority , Inc. (“FINRA”) advertising laws, rules, and regulations pursuant to a marketing agreement with the Trust. FDC is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) and a member of FINRA.

Index Services

Fidelity Product Services LLC, an affiliate of the Sponsor, (the “Index Provider”) is responsible for the methodology and oversight of the Index. Coin Metrics, Inc. is the third-party, independent calculation agent for the Index.

Sponsor Fee

Effective June, 3, 2024, the Trust has contractually agreed to pay the Sponsor a unified fee (the “Sponsor Fee”), rate to be determined. The Sponsor Fee will be paid by the Trust to the Sponsor as compensation for services performed under the Trust Agreement. The Sponsor is obligated to assume and pay all fees and other expenses incurred by the Trust in the ordinary course of its affairs, excluding taxes, but including: (i) the fees of the Trust’s third-party service providers including, but not limited to, the Distributor, the Administrator, any custodian, the transfer agent, the Index Provider and the Trustee, (ii) the fees and expenses related to the listing, quotation or trading of the Shares on the Exchange (including customary legal, marketing and audit fees and expenses), (iii) legal fees and expenses incurred in the ordinary course, (iv) audit fees, (v) regulatory fees, including, if applicable, any fees relating to the registration of the Trust and Shares, including any ongoing filings related to the offering of Shares, under the 1933 Act or the 1934 Act, (vi) printing and mailing costs, (vii) costs of maintaining the Trust’s website and (viii) applicable license fees (each, a “Sponsor-paid Expense” and collectively, the “Sponsor-paid Expenses”), provided that any expense that qualifies as an Extraordinary Expense will not be deemed to be a Sponsor-paid Expense. There is no cap on the amount of Sponsor-paid Expenses. The Sponsor has also assumed all fees and expenses related to the organization and offering of the Trust and the Shares.

The Trust may incur certain extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses that are not Sponsor-paid Expenses, including, but not limited to, brokerage and transactions costs associated with the sale or transfer of ether, taxes and governmental charges, expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust, the Trust’s assets, or the interests of Shareholders, any indemnification of the Custodian or other agents, service providers or counterparties of the Trust, extraordinary legal fees and expenses, including any legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with litigation, regulatory enforcement or investigation matters (collectively, “Extraordinary Expenses”). To the extent on-chain transaction fees are incurred in connection with transfers or sales of ether to pay Extraordinary Expenses, the Trust will bear such fees.

The Administrator will calculate the Sponsor Fee in respect of each day based on the prior day’s Ether Holdings. The Sponsor Fee will accrue daily in ether and be payable monthly in ether or cash. To the extent the Trust does not have cash readily available, the Sponsor will cause the transfer or sale of ether in such quantity as may be necessary to permit the payment of Trust expenses and liabilities not assumed by the Sponsor. The quantity of ether transferred or sold may vary from time to time depending on the actual sales price of ether relative to the Trust’s expenses and liabilities.

114

Note 4: Commitments and Contingencies

In the normal course of business, the Trust enters into certain contracts that provide a variety of indemnities, including contracts with the Sponsor and affiliates of the Sponsor, and its officers, directors, employees, subsidiaries and affiliates, and the Custodian as well as others relating to services provided to the Trust. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these and its other indemnities is unknown. However, no liabilities have arisen under these indemnities in the past and, while there can be no assurances in this regard, there is no expectation that any will occur in the future. Therefore, the Sponsor does not consider it necessary to record a liability in this regard. The risk of material loss from such claims is considered remote.

Note 5: Capital

The Trust is an exchange-traded product. The Trust plans to continuously offer baskets consisting of shares to Authorized Participants. The number of outstanding Shares is expected to increase and decrease from time to time as a result of the creation and redemption of Baskets. The creation and redemption of Baskets requires the delivery to the Trust or the distribution by the Trust of the amount of cash represented by the NAV of the Baskets being created or redeemed. The total amount of cash required for the creation of Baskets will be based on the combined net assets represented by the number of Baskets being created or redeemed.

Shares represent fractional undivided beneficial interests in and ownership of the Trust. Shares issued by the Trust will be registered in a book entry system and held in the name of Cede & Co. at the facilities of the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), and one or more global certificates issued by the Trust to DTC will evidence the Shares. Shareholders may hold their Shares through DTC if they are direct participants in DTC (“DTC Participants”) or indirectly through entities (such as broker-dealers) that are DTC Participants.

The Trust has had no operations to date other than matters relating to the sale and issuance of 1 share of the Trust to FMR Capital, an affiliate, for an aggregate purchase price of $40 on May 24, 2024.

Note 6: Subsequent Events

In preparation of this financial statement, management has evaluated the events and transactions subsequent to May 24, 2024, through June 3, 2024, the date when the financial statement was issued, and determined that there are no subsequent events or transactions that would require adjustments to or disclosures in the Trust’s financial statement other than those disclosed above.

115

FIDELITYETHEREUM FUND

SHARES

PROSPECTUS

_______, 2024

Until _______, 2024 (25 calendar days after the date of this Prospectus) all dealers that effect transactions in these securities, whether or not participating in this offering, may be required to deliver a Prospectus. This is in addition to the dealers’ obligation to deliver a Prospectus when acting as underwriters and with respect to their unsold allotments or subscriptions.


1.9912508.100		ETH-PRO-0724

PART II

INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN PROSPECTUS

Item 13. Other Expenses of Issuance and Distribution.

The Trust shall not bear any expenses incurred in connection with the issuance and distribution of the securities being registered. These expenses shall be paid by FD Funds Management LLC, the sponsor of the Trust. Except for the Securities and Exchange Commission Registration Fee and Exchange Listing Fee, all such expenses are estimated:


SEC registration fee (actual)	$	0	*
Listing fee (actual)	$	4,500
Auditor’s fees and expenses	$	16,600
Legal fees and expenses	$	200,000
Printing expenses	$	25,000
Miscellaneous expenses	$	0
Total	$	246,100

An indeterminate number of the securities is being registered as may from time to time be sold at indeterminate prices. In accordance with Rules 456(d) and 457(u), the Trust is deferring payment of all of the additional registration fee and will pay the additional registration fee subsequently on an annual basis.

Item 14. Indemnification of Directors and Officers.

The Trust Agreement will provide that the Trust shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Trustee (including in its individual capacity) and any of the officers, directors, employees and agents of the Trustee (the “Indemnified Persons”) from and against any and all losses, damages, liabilities, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses, disbursements (including the reasonable fees and expenses of counsel and fees and expenses incurred in connection with enforcement of its indemnification rights under the Trust Agreement), taxes and penalties of any kind and nature whatsoever (collectively, “Expenses”), to the extent that such Expenses arise out of or are imposed upon or asserted at any time against such Indemnified Persons with respect to the performance of the Trust Agreement, the creation, operation or termination of the Trust or the transactions contemplated thereby; provided, however, that the Trust shall not be required to indemnify any Indemnified Person for any Expenses which are a result of the willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence of an Indemnified Person. If the Trust shall have insufficient assets or improperly refuses to pay an Indemnified Person within sixty (60) days of a request for payment owed hereunder, the Sponsor shall, as secondary obligor, compensate or reimburse the Trustee or indemnify, defend and hold harmless an Indemnified Person as if it were the primary obligor under the Trust Agreement; provided, however, that the Sponsor shall not be required to indemnify any Indemnified Person for any Expenses which are a result of the willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence of an Indemnified Person. To the fullest extent permitted by law and by the requirement for treatment of the Trust as a grantor trust for tax purposes, Expenses to be incurred by an Indemnified Person shall, from time to time, be advanced by, or on behalf of, the Sponsor prior to the final disposition of any matter upon receipt by the Sponsor of an undertaking by, or on behalf of, such Indemnified Person to repay such amount if it shall be determined that the Indemnified Person is not entitled to be indemnified under this Trust Agreement.

Item 15. Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities.

II-1

Item 16. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

(a) Exhibits.


Exhibit No.		Exhibit Description

3.1		Trust Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on June 21, 2024

3.2		Certificate of Trust, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filedon May 31, 2024

5.1		Opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP as to legality, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 5.1 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on FormS-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on June 21, 2024

8.1		Opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP as to tax matters, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 8.1 of the Trust’s Registration Statement onForm S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on June 21, 2024

10.1		Form of Initial Authorized Participant Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on May 31, 2024

10.2		Distribution Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on May 31, 2024

10.3		Custodial Services Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on May 31, 2024

10.4		Administration Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on May 31, 2024

10.4.1		Amendment to the Administration Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4.1 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on June 21, 2024

10.5		Transfer Agency Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on May 31, 2024

10.5.1		Amendment to the Transfer Agency Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5.1 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on May 31, 2024

10.6		Sponsor Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on June 21, 2024

10.7		Cash Custody Agreement (Custodian Agreement), incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1(File No. 333-278249) filed on May 31, 2024

10.8		Accession Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on May 31, 2024

10.9*		Fee Waiver Agreement

23.1		Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 23.1 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on June 21, 2024

23.2		Consent of Chapman and Cutler LLP (included in Exhibits 5.1 and 8.1), incorporated by reference to Exhibit 5.1 and Exhibit 8.1 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on June 21, 2024

107		Filing Fee Tables, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 107 of the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-278249) filed on March 27, 2024

*	Filed herewith.

(b) Financial Statement Schedules.

Not applicable.

Item 17. Undertakings.

The undersigned registrant hereby undertakes:

(1)

To file, during any period in which offers or sales are being made, a post-effective amendment to this registration statement:

(i)

to include any prospectus required by section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933;

(ii)

to reflect in the prospectus any facts or events arising after the effective date of the registration statement (or the most recent post-effective amendment thereof) which, individually or in the aggregate, represent a fundamental change in the information set forth in the registration statement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any increase or decrease in volume of securities offered (if the total dollar value of securities offered would not exceed that which was registered) and any deviation from the low or high end of the estimated maximum offering range may be reflected in the form of prospectus filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b) if, in the aggregate, the changes in volume and price represent no more than 20% change in the maximum aggregate offering price set forth in the “Calculation of Registration Fee” table in the effective registration statement; and

(iii)

to include any material information with respect to the plan of distribution not previously disclosed in the registration statement or any material change to such information in the registration statement;

II-2

(2)

That, for the purpose of determining any liability under the Securities Act of 1933, each such post- effective amendment shall be deemed to be a new registration statement relating to the securities offered therein, and the offering of such securities at that time shall be deemed to be the initial bona fide offering thereof.

(3)

To remove from registration by means of a post-effective amendment any of the securities being registered which remain unsold at the termination of the offering.

(4)

That, for the purpose of determining liability under the Securities Act of 1933 to any purchaser:

(i)

If the registrant is relying on Rule 430B:

(A)

each prospectus filed by the registrant pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) shall be deemed to be part of the registration statement as of the date the filed prospectus was deemed part of and included in the registration statement; and

(B)

each prospectus required to be filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(2), (b)(5), or (b)(7) as part of a registration statement in reliance on Rule 430B relating to an offering made pursuant to Rule 415(a)(1)(i), (vii), or (x) for the purpose of providing the information required by section 10(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 shall be deemed to be part of and included in the registration statement as of the earlier of the date such form of prospectus is first used after effectiveness or the date of the first contract of sale of securities in the offering described in the prospectus. As provided in Rule 430B, for liability purposes of the issuer and any person that is at that date an underwriter, such date shall be deemed to be a new effective date of the registration statement relating to the securities in the registration statement to which that prospectus relates, and the offering of such securities at that time shall be deemed to be the initial bona fide offering thereof. Provided, however, that no statement made in a registration statement or prospectus that is part of the registration statement or made in a document incorporated or deemed incorporated by reference into the registration statement or prospectus that is part of the registration statement will, as to a purchaser with a time of contract of sale prior to such effective date, supersede or modify any statement that was made in the registration statement or prospectus that was part of the registration statement or made in any such document immediately prior to such effective date; or

(ii)

If the registrant is subject to Rule 430C, each prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) as part of a registration statement relating to an offering, other than registration statements relying on Rule 430B or other than prospectuses filed in reliance on Rule 430A, shall be deemed to be part of and included in the registration statement as of the date it is first used after effectiveness. Provided, however, that no statement made in a registration statement or prospectus that is part of the registration statement or made in a document incorporated or deemed incorporated by reference into the registration statement or prospectus that is part of the registration statement will, as to a purchaser with a time of contract of sale prior to such first use, supersede or modify any statement that was made in the registration statement or prospectus that was part of the registration statement or made in any such document immediately prior to such date of first use.

(5)

That, for the purpose of determining liability of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 to any purchaser in the initial distribution of the securities:

The undersigned registrant undertakes that in a primary offering of securities of the undersigned registrant pursuant to this registration statement, regardless of the underwriting method used to sell the securities to the purchaser, if the securities are offered or sold to such purchaser by means of any of the following communications, the undersigned registrant will be a seller to the purchaser and will be considered to offer or sell such securities to such purchaser:

(i)

any preliminary prospectus or prospectus of the undersigned registrant relating to the offering required to be filed pursuant to Rule 424;

II-3

(ii)

any free writing prospectus relating to the offering prepared by or on behalf of the undersigned registrant or used or referred to by the undersigned registrant;

(iii)

the portion of any other free writing prospectus relating to the offering containing material information about the undersigned registrant or its securities provided by or on behalf of the undersigned registrant; and

(iv)

any other communication that is an offer in the offering made by the undersigned registrant to the purchaser.

(6)

Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933 may be permitted to directors, officers and controlling persons of the registrant pursuant to the foregoing provisions, or otherwise, the registrant has been advised that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Act and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a director, officer or controlling person of the registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such director, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in the Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.

II-4

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the registrant has duly caused this registration statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized in the City of Boston, and the State of Massachusetts, on July 17, 2024.


FIDELITY ETHEREUM FUND

FD Funds Management LLC, as Sponsor of the Trust

By:		/s/ Cynthia Lo Bessette
		Name: Cynthia Lo Bessette
		Title: President

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this registration statement has been signed by the following persons in the capacities* and on the dates indicated.


Signature	Title	Date
	Cynthia Lo	July 17, 2024
/s/ Cynthia Lo Bessette	Bessette
	President
	(Principal Executive Officer)

	Heather Bonner	July 17, 2024
/s/ Heather Bonner	Treasurer
	(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

*	The registrant is a trust and the persons are signing in their capacities as officers of FD Funds Management LLC, the Sponsor of the registrant.

II-5

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

Smaller reporting company

Emerging growth company

Fidelity Ethereum Fund S-1/A