As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2025

Registration No. 333-280557

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

Amendment No. 1

FORM S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

21SHARES CORE SOLANA ETF
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware		6221		93-6828290
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(Primary Standard Industrial Classification Code Number)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

477 Madison Avenue, 6^th Floor

New York, New York 10022

(646) 370-6016

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

21Shares US LLC

Russell Barlow

477 Madison Avenue, 6^th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(646) 370-6016
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service)

Copy to:

Allison M. Fumai, Esq.

Dechert LLP

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10036

(212) 698-3526

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 of 1933, please check the following box and list the Securities Act of 1933 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 of 1933, check the following box and list the Securities Act of 1933 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 of 1933, check the following box and list the Securities Act of 1933 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,” “non-accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐
Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒
		Emerging growth company	☒

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 of 1933. ☐

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 Securities and Exchange 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 June 13, 2025

PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS

Shares

21Shares Core Solana ETF

The 21Shares Core Solana ETF (the “Trust”) is an exchange-traded fund that issues common shares of beneficial interest (the “Shares”) that trade on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”). The Trust is a passive investment vehicle that does not seek to generate returns beyond tracking the price of SOL tokens, the native digital asset of the Solana blockchain (“SOL”). This means the Sponsor (as defined below) does not speculatively sell SOL at times when its price is high or speculatively acquire SOL at low prices in the expectation of future price increases. It also means the Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective. The Trust’s investment objective is to seek to track the performance of CME CF Solana-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant (the “Pricing Benchmark”), as adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. The Pricing Benchmark is calculated by CF Benchmarks Ltd. (the “Benchmark Provider”) based on aggregation of executed trade flow of major SOL trading platforms (“Constituent Exchanges”). The Pricing Benchmark is designed to reflect the performance of SOL in U.S. dollars. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold SOL and will value its Shares daily based on the Pricing Benchmark. 21Shares US LLC (the “Sponsor”) is the sponsor of the Trust, CSC Delaware Trust Company (the “Trustee”) is the trustee of the Trust, and Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC (“Coinbase Custody”) (the “SOL Custodian”) is the SOL custodian for the Trust, and will hold all of the Trust’s SOL on the Trust’s behalf.

As of the date of this prospectus, the Trust does not stake or plan to stake its SOL. However, the Trust may stake its SOL in the future subject to the required regulatory approvals being obtained.

The Trust is an exchange-traded fund. Barring a liquidation or extraordinary circumstances, the Trust does not intend on purchasing or selling SOL other than in connection with the creation and redemption of Shares. The Sponsor may also sell SOL to pay certain expenses, which may be facilitated by the Prime Broker (as defined below) or any other prime brokers with whom the Trust contracts.

When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, SOL will be transferred into or out of the Trust, as applicable, in exchange for blocks of 10,000 Shares (a “Basket”) that are based on the quantity of SOL attributable to each Share of the Trust (net of accrued but unpaid Sponsor Fees (defined below) and any accrued but unpaid extraordinary expenses or liabilities).

Financial firms that are authorized to purchase Shares from or redeem Shares to the Trust (known as “Authorized Participants”) purchase Shares by depositing cash in the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian (as defined below). This will cause the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, to automatically instruct a designated third party, who is not an Authorized Participant but who may be an affiliate of an Authorized Participant and with whom the Sponsor has entered into an agreement on behalf of the Trust (each such third party, or the Prime Broker or the Lender (as defined below) as applicable, a “SOL Counterparty”), to (i) purchase the amount of SOL equivalent in value to the cash deposit amount associated with the order and (ii) deposit the resulting SOL deposit amount in the Trust’s account with the SOL Custodian, resulting in the Transfer Agent crediting the applicable amount of Shares to the Authorized Participant.

When such an Authorized Participant redeems its Shares, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust will direct the SOL Custodian to transfer SOL to a SOL Counterparty, who will sell the SOL to be executed, in the Sponsor’s reasonable efforts, at the Pricing Benchmark price used by the Trust to calculate the Trust’s net asset value (“NAV”), taking into account any spread, commissions, or other trading costs and deposit the cash proceeds of such sale in the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian for settlement with the Authorized Participant. 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.

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 SOL as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Trust or a SOL Counterparty with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving SOL as part of the creation or redemption process.

The SOL Counterparty is a designated third party with whom the Sponsor has entered into an agreement on behalf of the Trust that will deliver, receive or convert to U.S. dollars the SOL related to the Authorized Participant’s creation or redemption order. The Sponsor performs extensive due diligence as part of its SOL Counterparty selection and onboarding process. As part of this process, the Sponsor assesses SOL Counterparty candidates against various criteria, including those relating to candidates’ (1) financial standing, (2) reputation, (3) settlement history with the Sponsor, and (4) their regulatory oversight. The Trust will create Shares by receiving SOL from a SOL Counterparty that is not the Authorized Participant, and the Trust — not the Authorized Participant — is responsible for selecting the SOL Counterparty to deliver the SOL. Further, the SOL Counterparty will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust. The SOL Counterparty is not contractually obligated to participate in cash orders for creations or redemptions. The SOL Counterparty reserves the right to refuse or to cancel any pending creation or redemption order at any time before the Sponsor places a purchase order.

The Trust will create Shares by receiving SOL from a SOL Counterparty that is not the Authorized Participant, and the Trust––not the Authorized Participant––is responsible for selecting the SOL Counterparty to deliver the SOL. Further, the SOL Counterparty will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust.

Authorized Participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that 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 on the secondary market may do so at a premium or discount relative to the NAV of the Shares of the Trust.

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

On [●], 2025, the Pricing Benchmark was $[●].

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 [●].

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 and is not expected to terminate until three years from the date of the original offering, unless extended as permitted by applicable rules under the 1933 Act. The Trust is not an investment company 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 investment companies registered under the 1940 Act. The Sponsor is not acting in the capacity of an “Investment Adviser” (as defined in Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”)), the Sponsor’s provision of services to the Trust will not be governed by the Advisers Act, and the Sponsor 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. The Trust’s Shares are neither interests in nor obligations of the Sponsor or the Trustee. Shareholders in the Trust will not benefit from the protections afforded to investors in SOL futures contracts on regulated futures markets.

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 SOL. 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 17.

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 (THE “JOBS ACT”) AND, AS SUCH, MAY ELECT TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REDUCED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

The date of this Prospectus is [●], 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	Page
STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS	-ii-
PROSPECTUS SUMMARY	1
RISK FACTORS	17
SOL, SOL MARKETS AND REGULATION OF SOL	72
THE TRUST AND SOL PRICES	78
NET ASSET VALUE DETERMINATIONS	80
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUST	84
THE TRUST’S SERVICE PROVIDERS	88
CUSTODY OF THE TRUST’S ASSETS	90
PRIME BROKER	93
FORM OF SHARES	98
TRANSFER OF SHARES	98
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION	99
CREATION AND REDEMPTION OF SHARES	100
USE OF PROCEEDS	107
OWNERSHIP OR BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE TRUST	107
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST	108
DUTIES OF THE SPONSOR	110
LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION	112
PROVISIONS OF LAW	114
MANAGEMENT; VOTING BY SHAREHOLDERS	114
BOOKS AND RECORDS	115
STATEMENTS, FILINGS, AND REPORTS TO SHAREHOLDERS	115
FISCAL YEAR	116
GOVERNING LAW; CONSENT TO DELAWARE JURISDICTION	116
LEGAL MATTERS	116
EXPERTS	116
OTHER MATERIAL CONTRACTS	117
UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES	118
PURCHASES BY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS	123
INFORMATION YOU SHOULD KNOW	124
SUMMARY OF PROMOTIONAL AND SALES MATERIAL	124
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY	125
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION	125
PRIVACY POLICY	126
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM	F-2
APPENDIX A	A-1
PART II INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN PROSPECTUS	II-1

-i-

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.

Until 25 calendar days after the date of this prospectus, all dealers effecting transactions in the Shares, whether or not participating in this offering, may be required to deliver a prospectus. This requirement is in addition to the dealer’s obligation to deliver a prospectus when acting as underwriters and with respect to unsold allotments or subscriptions.

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,” “intend,” “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 to occur 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.

-ii-

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.

See “Glossary of Defined Terms” for an explanation of certain industry and technical terms used in this Prospectus. As used below, “Solana” is used to describe the system as a whole that is involved in maintaining the ledger of SOL ownership and facilitating the transfer of SOL among parties. When referring to the native digital asset of the Solana network, “SOL” is written in uppercase letters.

Overview of the Trust

The 21Shares Core Solana ETF (the “Trust”) is an exchange-traded fund that issues common shares of beneficial interest (the “Shares”) that trade on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”). The Trust’s investment objective is to track the performance of CME CF Solana-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant (the “Pricing Benchmark”), as adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. The Pricing Benchmark is calculated by CF Benchmarks Ltd. (the “Benchmark Provider”). The Pricing Benchmark is designed to reflect the performance of SOL in U.S. dollars. The Shares of the Trust are valued daily based on the Pricing Benchmark.

In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold SOL. The Trust is sponsored by 21Shares US LLC (the “Sponsor”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of 21co Holdings Limited (formerly known as Amun Holdings Limited).

SOL is a digital asset. Like all digital assets, buying, holding and selling SOL is very different from buying, holding and selling more conventional investments like stocks and bonds. Stocks represent ownership in a company, entitling shareholders to a portion of the company’s profits. Bonds are debt instruments issued by corporations or governments, where the bondholder is a creditor to the issuer that is generally entitled to a stream of income payments. Ownership of stocks and bonds is typically recorded through a centralized system managed by brokers, custodians or clearinghouses. Ownership of SOL does not entitle its holders to any portion of a company’s profits or any stream of income payments. SOL is a digital asset and ownership of it is reflected on a distributed ledger. Additionally, SOL is not offered and sold as a security and is thus not subject to the protections of the U.S. federal securities laws.

The Trust does not provide investors with direct exposure to SOL, and an investment in the Trust is not a direct investment in SOL. Rather, the Trust provides investors with the opportunity to indirectly access the market for SOL through a traditional brokerage account without the potential barriers to entry or risks involved with holding or transferring SOL directly or acquiring it from a SOL spot market.

As of the date of this prospectus, the Trust does not stake or plan to stake its SOL. However, the Trust may stake its SOL in the future subject to the required regulatory approvals being obtained.

The Trust will custody its SOL at a regulated third-party custodian, Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC (the “SOL Custodian”). The SOL Custodian is chartered as a New York state limited liability trust company that provides custody and trade execution services for digital assets. The SOL Custodian is not Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”)-insured but carries insurance provided by private insurance carriers. The Trust, the Sponsor and the 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, other than in connection with the Post-Trade Financing Agreement (as defined below). 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 SOL without purchasing, holding and trading SOL directly.

SOL and the Solana Network

SOL is a digital asset, also referred to as a digital currency, which serves as the unit of account on the open-source, peer-to-peer Solana network (“Solana” or “Solana network”). SOL may be used to pay for goods and services, including computational power on the Solana network, stored for future use, or converted to a fiat currency. The value of SOL is not backed by any government, corporation, or other identified body.

The value of SOL is determined in part by the supply of and demand for SOL in the markets for exchange that have been organized to facilitate the trading of SOL. SOL is the fifth largest digital asset by market capitalization. As of April 31, 2025, SOL had a total market capitalization of approximately $84 billion, representing the sixth largest digital asset by market capitalization. SOL is maintained on the Solana network. No single entity owns or operates the Solana network. The Solana network is accessed through software and governs SOL’s creation and movement. The source code for the Solana network is open-source, and anyone can contribute to its development.

The Solana software source code allows for the creation of decentralized applications (“DApps”) that are supported by a transaction protocol referred to as “smart contracts,” which includes the cryptographic operations that verify and secure SOL transactions. A smart contract operates by a predefined set of rules (i.e., “if/then statements”) that allows it to automatically execute code the same way on any Solana node on the network. Such actions taken by the predefined set of rules are not necessarily contractual in nature but are intended to eliminate the involvement of a third party for carrying out code execution on behalf of users, making the system more decentralized, while empowering developers to create a wide range of applications layering together different smart contracts. Smart contracts can be utilized across several different applications ranging from art to finance. Currently, one of the most popular applications is the use of smart contracts for underpinning the operability of decentralized financial services (“DeFi”), which consist of numerous highly interoperable protocols and applications. DeFi offers many opportunities for innovation and has the potential to create an open, transparent, and immutable financial infrastructure, with democratized access.

The release of updates to the network’s source code by developers does not guarantee that the updates will be automatically adopted by the other participants. Users and validators must accept any changes made to the source code by downloading the proposed modification and that modification is effective only with respect to those users and validators who choose to download it. As a practical matter, a modification to the source code becomes part of the Solana network only if it is accepted by participants that collectively have a majority of the processing power on the Solana network.

If a modification is accepted by only a percentage of users and validators, a division 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.”

New SOL is created as a result of “staking” of SOL by validators. In the Solana network, validators stake SOL to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions. Validation activities include verifying transactions, storing data, and adding to the Solana blockchain. Validators are rewarded SOL in proportion to the amount of SOL staked. SOL holders do not have to stake a minimum amount of SOL to become a Solana validator. The Solana network provides the ability to execute peer-to-peer transactions to realize, via smart contracts, automatic, conditional transfer of value and information, including money, voting rights, and property.

More specifically, staking on the Solana network refers to using SOL, or permitting SOL to be used, directly or indirectly, through an agent or otherwise, in the Solana network’s proof-of-stake validation protocol, in exchange for the receipt of consideration, including, but not limited to, staking rewards paid in kind (collectively, “Staking Activities”).

As is common with other spot exchange-traded products that hold digital assets, at this time, none of the Trust, the Sponsor, the SOL Custodian, nor any other person associated with the Trust may, directly or indirectly, engage in Staking Activities of the Trust’s SOL on behalf of the Trust, meaning no action will be taken pursuant to which any portion of the Trust’s SOL becomes used in Solana proof-of-stake validation or is used to earn additional SOL or generate income or other earnings, and there can be no assurance that the Trust, the Sponsor, the SOL Custodian or any other person associated with the Trust will ever be permitted to engage in Staking Activities of the Trust’s SOL or such income generating activity in the future.

If (i) Staking Activities for the Trust’s SOL is or becomes permissible under the Trust’s Trust Agreement and (ii) the Exchange were to seek and obtain a rule change permitting the listing of a spot SOL investment vehicle engaged in Staking Activities, in the future the Trust may seek to establish a program to use its SOL in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Solana network to receive rewards comprising additional SOL in respect of a portion of its SOL holdings. However, as long as such conditions and requirements have not been satisfied, the Trust will not use its SOL in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Solana network to receive rewards comprising additional SOL in respect of its SOL holdings. The current inability of the Trust to use its SOL in Staking Activities and receive such rewards could place the Shares at a comparative disadvantage relative to an investment in SOL directly or through a vehicle that is not subject to such a prohibition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares. See “Risk Factors — The inability to recognize the economic benefit of Staking Activities could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.”

Assets in the Solana network are held in accounts. Each account, or “wallet,” is made up of at least two components: a public address and a private key. A Solana private key controls the transfer or “spending” of SOL from its associated public SOL address. A SOL “wallet” is a collection of public Solana addresses and their associated private key(s). This design allows only the owner of SOL to send SOL, the intended recipient of SOL to unlock it, and the validation of the transaction and ownership to be verified by any third party anywhere in the world.

The Solana network employs a two-tier fee system, combining a small, fixed base fee and an optional priority fee. Solana’s base fee for every transaction is currently set at 0.000005 SOL. Users can choose to pay an optional priority fee to speed-up their transaction processing during periods of high network traffic. Unlike some other blockchains, Solana does not collect transaction fees in a central vault. Rather, Solana pools transaction fees in a recipient’s account. Half of all transaction fees are burned to combat inflation. The other half of all transaction fees goes directly to the leader validator who proposed the specific block.

The Solana network introduced the proof-of-history (“PoH”) timestamping mechanism. PoH automatically orders on-chain transactions by creating a historical record that proves an event has occurred at a specific moment in time. PoH operates by affixing a timestamp to every action occurring within the blockchain. The timestamps are linked together, establishing consensus on the precise sequence of events. The PoH consensus mechanism may subject Solana and SOL to new and unexpected vulnerabilities not applicable to proof-of-work and proof-of-stake consensus models.

The Trust’s Investment Objective

The Trust’s investment objective is to seek to track the performance of SOL, as measured by the Pricing Benchmark, adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold SOL and will value its Shares daily as of 4:00 p.m. ET based on the Pricing Benchmark.

Barring the liquidation of the Trust or extraordinary circumstances (including but not limited to, non-recurring expenses and costs of services performed by the Sponsor or a service provider on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust or the interests of Shareholders, such as in connection with any fork of the Solana blockchain, any indemnification of 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), the Trust generally will not purchase or sell SOL, other than in connection with the creation or redemption of Shares. The Sponsor may also sell SOL to pay certain expenses, which may be facilitated by the Prime Broker (as defined below) or any other prime brokers with whom the Trust contracts.

Financial firms that are authorized to purchase Shares from or redeem Shares to the Trust (known as “Authorized Participants”) will purchase Shares by depositing cash in the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian. This will cause the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, to automatically instruct a designated third party, who is not an Authorized Participant but who may be an affiliate of an Authorized Participant and with whom the Sponsor has entered into an agreement on behalf of the Trust (each such third party, or the Prime Broker or Lender, as applicable, an “SOL Counterparty”), to (i) purchase the amount of SOL equivalent in value to the cash deposit amount associated with the order and (ii) deposit the resulting SOL deposit amount in the Trust’s account with the SOL Custodian, resulting in the Transfer Agent crediting the applicable amount of Shares to the Authorized Participant.

When such an Authorized Participant redeems its Shares, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust will direct the SOL Custodian to transfer SOL to the SOL Counterparty, who will sell the SOL to be executed, in the Sponsor’s reasonable efforts, at the Pricing Benchmark price used by the Trust to calculate NAV, taking into account any spread, commissions, or other trading costs and deposit the cash proceeds of such sale in the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian for settlement with the Authorized Participant. 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.

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 SOL as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Trust or a SOL Counterparty with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving SOL as part of the creation or redemption process.

The SOL Counterparty is a designated third party with whom the Sponsor has entered into an agreement on behalf of the Trust that will deliver, receive or convert to U.S. dollars the SOL related to the Authorized Participant’s creation or redemption order. The Trust will create Shares by receiving SOL from a SOL Counterparty that is not the Authorized Participant, and the Trust — not the Authorized Participant — is responsible for selecting the SOL Counterparty to deliver the SOL. Further, the SOL Counterparty will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust. The SOL Counterparty is not contractually obligated to participate in cash orders for creations. The SOL Counterparty reserves the right to refuse or to cancel any pending creation order at any time before the Sponsor places a purchase order.

The Trust will redeem Shares by delivering SOL to a SOL Counterparty that is not the Authorized Participant and the Trust––not the Authorized Participant––is responsible for selecting the SOL Counterparty to receive the SOL. Further, the SOL Counterparty will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the SOL from the Trust. The SOL Counterparty is not contractually obligated to participate in cash orders for redemptions. The SOL Counterparty reserves the right to refuse or to cancel any pending redemption order at any time before the Sponsor places a purchase order.

As of the date of this Prospectus, the Authorized Participants are [●]. As of the date of this Prospectus, [●] and [●] will serve as SOL Counterparties. The Trust and/or Sponsor will bear the expense and risk of delivery and ownership of SOL once such SOL has been received by the SOL Custodian on behalf of the Trust and until transferred by the SOL Custodian on behalf of the Trust to the SOL Counterparty for conversion to cash.

All SOL will be held by the SOL Custodian. The Transfer Agent (as defined below) will facilitate the processing of purchase and sale orders in Baskets to and from the Trust.

The CME CF Solana-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant

The Pricing Benchmark was introduced on [●]. The Benchmark Provider is the administrator of the Pricing Benchmark. The Pricing Benchmark is calculated daily.

The Sponsor believes that the use of the Pricing Benchmark is reflective of a reasonable valuation of the average spot price of SOL and that resistance to manipulation is a priority aim of its design methodology. The methodology: (i) takes an observation period and divides it into equal partitions of time; (ii) then calculates the volume-weighted median of all transactions within each partition; and (iii) the value is determined from the arithmetic mean of the volume-weighted medians, equally weighted. By employing the foregoing steps, the Pricing Benchmark thereby seeks to ensure that transactions in SOL conducted at outlying prices do not have an undue effect on the value of a specific partition, large trades or clusters of trades transacted over a short period of time will not have an undue influence on the index or benchmark level, as applicable, and the effect of large trades at prices that deviate from the prevailing price are mitigated from having an undue influence on the benchmark level.

In addition, the Sponsor notes that an oversight function is implemented by the Pricing Benchmark Provider in seeking to ensure that the Pricing Benchmark is administered through codified policies for Pricing Benchmark integrity, which include a conflicts of interest policy, a control framework, an accountability framework, and an input data policy. It is also subject to the UK Benchmarks Regulation (“BMR”), compliance with which regulations has been subject to a Limited Assurance Audit under the ISAE 3000 standards of September 12, 2022.

Pricing Benchmark data and the description of the Pricing Benchmark are based on information made publicly available by the Benchmark Provider on its website at https://www.cfbenchmarks.com/data/indices/SOLUSD_NY. None of the information on the Benchmark Provider’s website is incorporated by reference into this Prospectus.

The Sponsor has entered into a licensing agreement with the Benchmark Provider to use the Pricing Benchmark. The Trust is entitled to use the Pricing Benchmark pursuant to a sub-licensing arrangement with the Sponsor. As the Pricing Benchmark is calculated as a price return, it currently does not track airdrops involving SOL. Accordingly, the Trust will not participate in airdrops, as further described below in “Risk factors — The inability to recognize the economic benefit of a ‘fork’ or an ‘airdrop’ could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.”

Pricing Information Available on the Exchange and Other Sources

The current market price per Share (symbol: “[●]”) 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 intra-day indicative value per Share is calculated based on the Pricing Benchmark. The most recent end-of-day NAV will be published as of the close of business by market data vendors and available on the Sponsor’s website at www.21shares.com, or any successor thereto, and will be published on the consolidated tape. None of the information on the Sponsor’s website is incorporated by reference into this Prospectus.

Any adjustments made to the Pricing Benchmark will be published on the Benchmark Provider’s website at https://www.cfbenchmarks.com/data/indices/SOLUSD_NY or any successor thereto. None of the information on the Benchmark Provider’s website is incorporated by reference into this Prospectus.

The selection of exchanges for use in the Pricing Benchmark is based on the accessible venues where execution transactions for SOL will occur. The exchanges on which market participants primarily execute transactions for SOL may evolve from time to time, and the Pricing Benchmark Provider may make changes to the Constituent Exchanges (as defined below) comprising the Pricing Benchmark from time to time for this or other reasons. To the extent the Trust executes transactions for SOL, the exchanges on which the Trust executes transactions do not impact the Constituent Exchanges comprising the Pricing Benchmark. Although Constituent Exchanges are selected for inclusion within the Pricing Benchmark in accordance with specified criteria and eligibility standards, changes to the Constituent Exchanges may result in an impact on the pricing information reflected in the Pricing Benchmark. Once it has actual knowledge of material changes to the Constituent Exchanges used to calculate the Pricing Benchmark, the Trust will notify the owners of the beneficial interests of Shares in a prospectus supplement or in its periodic Exchange Act reports, as applicable, and on the Sponsor’s website.

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, change either the Pricing Benchmark or Benchmark Provider without Shareholder approval. Should such a change take place, the Trust will notify the owners of the beneficial interests of Shares in a prospectus supplement or in its periodic Exchange Act reports, as applicable, and on the Sponsor’s website.

The intra-day levels and closing levels of the Pricing Benchmark are published by the Benchmark 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 Benchmark Provider makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained by any person or entity from the use of the Pricing Benchmark for any purpose. Pricing Benchmark information and any other data calculated and/or disseminated, in whole or part, by the Benchmark Provider is for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes, and provided on an “as is” basis. The Benchmark Provider does not warrant that the Pricing Benchmark information will be uninterrupted or error-free, or that defects will be corrected. The Benchmark 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 Pricing Benchmark and the Benchmark Provider, see “The Trust and SOL Prices” below.

The Trust’s Legal Structure

The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust, formed on June 3, 2024 pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (“DSTA”). 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 an Amended and Restated Trust Agreement (the “Trust Agreement”). CSC Delaware Trust Company, a Delaware trust company, is the Delaware 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 June 16, 2021.

The Trust’s Service Providers

The Sponsor

The Sponsor, 21Shares US 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 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 Trustee

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

The Administrator

[●] serves as the Trust’s administrator (the “Administrator”). The Administrator’s principal address is [●]. Under the Fund Administration and Accounting 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 SOL and calculating the NAV, NAV per Share, Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share (each, as defined herein) and supplying pricing information to the Sponsor for the Sponsor’s website. In addition, the Administrator makes available the office space, equipment, personnel and facilities required to provide such services.

The Transfer Agent

[●] serves as the transfer agent for the Trust (the “Transfer Agent”). 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 Cash Custodian

[●] acts as custodian of the Trust’s cash and cash equivalents (the “Cash Custodian”). Pursuant to a cash custody agreement entered into with the Trust (the “Cash Custody Agreement”), the Cash Custodian will establish and maintain cash account(s) for the Trust, and, upon instructions from the Sponsor acting on behalf of the Trust, facilitate cash transfers and cash payments from the Trust’s account(s).

The SOL Custodian

Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC serves as the Trust’s SOL custodian (the “SOL Custodian”) and is a fiduciary under §100 of the New York Banking Law. The SOL Custodian is authorized to serve as the Trust’s custodian under the Trust Agreement and pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Custodial Services Agreement. Under the Custodial Services Agreement by and among the SOL Custodian and the Trust, the SOL Custodian is responsible for safekeeping all of the SOL owned by the Trust. The SOL Custodian was selected by the Sponsor. The SOL Custodian is responsible for opening an account that holds the Trust’s SOL (the “SOL Account”), as well as facilitating the transfer of SOL required for the operation of the Trust.

The SOL Custodian is a third-party limited purpose trust company that was chartered in 2018 upon receiving a trust charter from the New York Department of Financial Services. The SOL Custodian is subject to extensive regulation and has among the longest track records in the industry of providing custodial services for digital asset private keys. The Trust’s assets with the SOL Custodian are held in segregated accounts on the SOL blockchain, commonly referred to as “wallets,” and are therefore not commingled with corporate or other customer assets. The segregated account in which the SOL Custodian will custody all of the Trust’s SOL from time to time is hereinafter referred to as the Trust’s “Vault Balance.” The SOL Custodian will keep a substantial portion of the private keys associated with the Trust’s SOL in “cold storage” or similarly secure technology (the “Cold Vault Balance”), with any remainder of the Vault Balance held as a “Hot Vault Balance.” All of the Trust’s assets and private keys will be held in cold storage of the SOL Custodian on an ongoing basis, but a portion of the Trust’s assets may be held in hot trading wallets, from time to time, in connection with the settlement of a creation or redemption transaction.

After diligence investigation, the Sponsor believes that the SOL Custodian’s policies, procedures, and controls for safekeeping, exclusively possessing, and controlling the Trust’s SOL holdings are consistent with industry best practices to protect against theft, loss, and unauthorized and accidental use of the private keys.

Although the SOL Custodian carries insurance, the SOL Custodian’s insurance does not cover any loss in value to SOL and only covers losses caused by certain events such as fraud or theft and, in such covered events, it is unlikely the insurance would cover the full amount of any losses incurred by the Trust. The insurance maintained by the SOL Custodian is shared among all of the SOL Custodian’s customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding SOL with the SOL Custodian and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses.

For more information on the SOL Custodian, see “Custody of the Trust’s Assets” below.

The Marketing Agent

[●] (the “Marketing Agent”) is responsible for reviewing and approving the marketing materials prepared by the Sponsor for compliance with applicable SEC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) advertising laws, rules, and regulations.

The Trust’s Fees and Expenses

The Trust will pay the unitary Sponsor Fee of [●]% of the Trust’s NAV (the “Sponsor Fee”). The Sponsor Fee is paid by the Trust to the Sponsor as compensation for services performed under the Trust Agreement.

The Sponsor Fee will accrue daily and will be payable in SOL [●] in arrears. The Sponsor will calculate the Sponsor Fee on a daily basis by applying a [●]% annualized rate to the Trust’s NAV (as defined below), and the amount of SOL payable in respect of each daily accrual shall be determined by reference to the Pricing Benchmark. The Sponsor has agreed to pay all operating expenses (except for litigation expenses and other extraordinary expenses) out of the Sponsor Fee. Operating expenses assumed by the Sponsor include (i) the fee payable to the Marketing Agent for services it provides to the Trust (the “Marketing Fee”), (ii) fees to the Administrator, if any, (iii) fees to the SOL Custodian, (iv) fees to the Transfer Agent, (v) fees to the Trustee, (vi) the fees and expenses related to any future listing, trading or quotation of the Shares on any listing exchange or quotation system (including legal, marketing and audit fees and expenses), (vii) ordinary course legal fees and expenses but not litigation-related expenses, (viii) audit fees, (ix) regulatory fees, including, if applicable, any fees relating to the registration of the Shares under the 1933 Act or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), (x) printing and mailing costs, (xi) costs of maintaining the Trust’s website and (xii) applicable license fees (each, a “Sponsor-paid Expense,” and together, the “Sponsor-paid Expenses”), provided that any expense that qualifies as an Additional Trust Expense (as defined below) will be deemed to be an Additional Trust Expense and not a Sponsor-paid Expense.

The Sponsor will not, however, assume certain extraordinary, non-recurring expenses that are not Sponsor-paid Expenses, including, but not limited to, 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 or the interests of Shareholders, any indemnification of the SOL Custodian, Administrator or other agents, service providers or counter-parties of the Trust, the fees and expenses related to the listing, and extraordinary legal fees and expenses, including any legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with litigation, regulatory enforcement or investigation matters (collectively, “Additional Trust Expenses”). Of the Sponsor-paid Expenses, ordinary course legal fees and expenses shall be subject to a cap of $[●] per annum. In the Sponsor’s sole discretion, all or any portion of a Sponsor-paid Expense may be re-designated as an Additional Trust Expense. Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor or its delegates will direct the SOL Custodian to transfer SOL from the Trust’s Cold Vault Balance as needed to pay the Sponsor Fee and Additional Trust Expenses, if any. The Sponsor or its delegates will endeavor to transfer the smallest amount of SOL needed to pay applicable expenses.

Custody of the Trust’s Assets

The Trust’s Custodian will maintain custody of all of the Trust’s SOL.

The SOL Custodian provides insured safekeeping of digital assets using a multi-layer cold storage security platform designed to provide offline security of the digital assets held by the SOL Custodian. The SOL Custodian has insurance coverage as a subsidiary under its parent company, Coinbase Global, Inc., which procures fidelity (e.g., crime) insurance to protect the organization from risks such as theft of funds. Specifically, the fidelity program provides coverage for the theft of funds held in hot or cold storage. The insurance program is provided by a syndicate of industry-leading insurers. The insurance program does not cover, insure or guarantee the performance of the Trust. The SOL Custodian is not FDIC-insured. The insurance maintained by the SOL Custodian is shared among all of the SOL Custodian’s customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding SOL with the SOL Custodian and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses.

SOL may be held across multiple wallets, any of which will feature the following safety and security measures to be implemented by the SOL Custodian:

●

Cold Storage: Cold storage in the context of SOL means keeping the reserve of SOL offline, which is a widely-used security precaution, especially when dealing with large amounts of SOL. SOL held under custodianship with the SOL Custodian will be kept in high-security, offline, multi-layer cold storage vaults. This means that the private keys, the cryptographic component that allows a user to access SOL, are stored offline on hardware that has never been connected to the internet. Storing the private key offline minimizes the risk of the SOL being stolen. The Sponsor expects that nearly all of the Trust’s assets and private keys will be held in cold storage of the SOL Custodian on an ongoing basis. In connection with creations or redemptions, the Trust will, under most circumstances, process creations and redemptions by transferring SOL from its Cold Vault Balance to and/or from a SOL Counterparty. From time to time, portions of the Trust’s SOL temporarily may be held outside of cold storage in the Trading Balance maintained by Coinbase, Inc. (the “Prime Broker”) or a SOL Counterparty, including in circumstances in which it is necessary in connection with creations or redemptions of Baskets or to sell SOL to pay Trust expenses.

●

Multiple Private Keys: All private keys are securely stored using multiple layers of high-quality encryption and in Custodian-owned offline hardware vaults in secure environments. No customers or third parties are given access to the SOL Custodian’s private keys. The use of multiple private keys makes retrieving SOL from the wallet more difficult, and aims to further reduce the risk of hacking, theft and/or robbery.

●

Whitelisting: Transactions are only sent to vetted, known addresses. The SOL Custodian’s platform supports pre-approval and test transactions. The SOL Custodian requires authentication when adding or removing addresses for whitelisting. All instructions to initiate a whitelist addition or removal must be submitted via the Coinbase Custody platform. When a whitelist addition or removal request is initiated, the initiating user will be prompted to authenticate their request using a two-factor authentication key. A consensus mechanism on the Coinbase Custody platform dictates how many approvals are required in order for the consensus to be achieved to add or remove a whitelisted address. Only when the consensus is met is the underlying transaction considered officially approved. An account’s roster and user roles are maintained by the SOL Custodian in a separate log, an Authorized User List (“AUL”). Any changes to the account’s roster must be reflected on an updated AUL first and executed by an authorized signatory.

●

Audit Trails: Audit trails exist for all movement of SOL within SOL Custodian-controlled SOL wallets and are audited annually for accuracy and completeness by an independent external audit firm.

In addition to the above measures, in accordance with the Custodial Services Agreement, SOL held in custody with the SOL Custodian will be segregated from both the proprietary property of the SOL Custodian and the assets of any other customer in accounts that clearly identify the Trust as the owner of the accounts. Therefore, in the event of an insolvency of the SOL Custodian, assets held in the segregated accounts would not become property of the SOL Custodian’s estate and would not be available to satisfy claims of creditors of the SOL Custodian.

The SOL Custodian maintains an Internal Audit team that performs periodic internal audits over custody operations. Systems and Organizational Control (“SOC”) attestations are also performed on the SOL Custodian’s services. The SOC 1 Type 2 and SOC 2 Type 2 reports produced cover private key management controls. A SOC 1 Type 2 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 Type 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 Transfer Agent will facilitate the settlement of Shares in response to the placement of creation orders and redemption orders from Authorized Participants. The Trust generally does not intend to hold cash or cash equivalents. However, there may be situations where the Trust will hold cash on a temporary basis, including in connection with the creation and redemption process.

The Trust has entered into the Cash Custody Agreement, pursuant to which the Cash Custodian will establish and maintain cash account(s) for the Trust and, upon instructions from the Sponsor acting on behalf of the Trust, facilitate cash transfers and cash payments from the Trust’s account(s).

For more information on the Trust’s custody arrangements with the SOL Custodian and the Prime Broker, see “Custody of the Trust’s Assets” and “Prime Broker” below.

NAV Determinations

As described in more detail below in “NAV Determinations,” the Administrator daily calculates its net asset value (“NAV”) (which means the total assets of the Trust including, but not limited to, all SOL and cash less total liabilities of the Trust) and NAV per Share on each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading, as promptly as practical after 4:00 p.m. ET, based on the Pricing Benchmark. In determining the Trust’s NAV, the Administrator values the SOL held by the Trust based on the price set by the Pricing Benchmark as of 4:00 p.m. ET. The Sponsor believes that use of the Pricing Benchmark 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.

However, determining the value of the Trust’s SOL using the Pricing Benchmark is not in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), and therefore, the Pricing Benchmark is not used in the Trust’s financial statements. The Trust’s SOL are carried, for financial statement purposes, at fair value, as required by GAAP. The Trust determines the fair value of SOL based on the price provided by the SOL market that the Trust considers its “principal market” as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the valuation date. The NAV of the Trust determined on a GAAP basis is referred to in this Prospectus as a “Principal Market NAV,” and the NAV of the Trust per Share determined on a GAAP basis is referred to as “Principal Market NAV per Share.”

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

Plan of Distribution

Barring the liquidation of the Trust or extraordinary circumstances (including but not limited to, non-recurring expenses and costs of services performed by the Sponsor or a service provider on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust or the interests of Shareholders, such as in connection with any fork of the SOL blockchain, any indemnification of 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), the Trust will not purchase or sell SOL other than in connection with the creation and redemption of Shares. The Sponsor may also sell SOL to pay certain expenses, which may be facilitated by the Prime Broker or any other prime brokers with whom the Trust contracts.

When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, SOL will be transferred into or out of the Trust, as applicable, in exchange for Baskets that are based on the quantity of SOL attributable to each Share of the Trust (net of accrued but unpaid Sponsor Fees (defined below) and any accrued but unpaid extraordinary expenses or liabilities).

Authorized Participants will purchase Shares by depositing cash in the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian. This will cause the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, to automatically instruct a SOL Counterparty to (i) purchase the amount of SOL equivalent in value to the cash deposit amount associated with the order and (ii) deposit the resulting SOL deposit amount in the Trust’s account with the SOL Custodian, resulting in the Transfer Agent crediting the applicable amount of Shares to the Authorized Participant.

The Trust and/or Sponsor will bear the expense and risk of delivery and ownership of SOL once such SOL has been received by the SOL Custodian on behalf of the Trust and until transferred by the SOL Custodian on behalf of the Trust to the SOL Counterparty for conversion to cash.

Only Authorized Participants may purchase Shares from or redeem Shares to the Trust. Authorized Participants may then offer Shares to the public at prices that 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.

The Sponsor may enter into marketing support arrangements with respect to the Trust, to which the Trust would not be party. Any fees under such agreements would be payable by the Sponsor, as applicable, and not by the Trust.

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 SOL by the Trust (including, under current Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) guidance, the use of SOL to pay expenses of the Trust) will give rise to gain or loss, and will therefore constitute a taxable event for 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 SOL. Such deposits are held by the SOL Custodian on behalf of the Trust until (i) delivered out in connection with redemptions of Baskets; or (ii) transferred or sold by the Sponsor, which may be facilitated by the SOL Custodian, to pay fees due to the Sponsor and Trust expenses and liabilities not assumed by 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 our 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 Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“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) it having $1.235 billion or more in annual revenues, (ii) at least $700 million in market value of Common Shares being held by non-affiliates, (iii) it 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 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.

Principal Investment Risks of an Investment in the Trust

An investment in the Trust involves a high degree of risk. Any investment made in the Trust may result in a total loss of the investment. There is no assurance that the Trust will generate a profit for investors. Some of the risks you may face are summarized below. A more extensive discussion of these risks appears beginning on page 14.

Risks Associated with SOL and the Solana network

●

Digital assets such as SOL were only introduced within the past decade, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets that are uncertain and difficult to evaluate.

●

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

●

The value of the Shares depends on the development and acceptance of the Solana network. The slowing or stopping of the development or acceptance of the Solana network may adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

●

The Solana protocol was only conceived in 2017 and the Solana protocol or its PoH timestamping mechanism may not function as intended, which could have an adverse impact on the value of SOL and an investment in the Trust.

●

Due to the nature of private keys, SOL transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred SOL may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed SOL transactions could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

●

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

●

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

●

The Solana network is still in the process of developing and making significant decisions that will affect policies that govern the supply and issuance of SOL as well as other Solana network protocols.

●

Many digital asset networks, including Solana, face significant scaling challenges and are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. These attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective.

●

A temporary or permanent “fork” of the Solana blockchain could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

●

Blockchain technologies are based on the theoretical conjectures as to the impossibility of solving certain cryptographical puzzles quickly. These premises may be incorrect or may become incorrect due to technological advances and could negatively impact the future usefulness of SOL and adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

●

The price of SOL on the SOL market has exhibited periods of extreme volatility, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Trust. For example, between January 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024, the price of SOL ranged from $81.25 to $255.64, marking a drawdown of 68.31%.

●

A determination that SOL or any other digital asset is offered and sold as a “security” may adversely affect the price of SOL and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.

●

SOL exchanges on which SOL trades are relatively new and, in some cases, unregulated, 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.

●

New competing digital assets may pose a challenge to SOL’s current market position, resulting in a reduction in demand for SOL, which could have a negative impact on the price of SOL and may have a negative impact on the performance of the Trust.

Risks Associated with Investing in the Trust

●

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

●

The NAV or Principal Market NAV may not always correspond to the market price of SOL and, as a result, Creation Baskets may be created or redeemed at a value that is different from the market price of the Shares.

●

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

●

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

●

Possible illiquid markets may exacerbate losses or increase the variability between the Trust’s NAV or the Principal Market NAV and its market price.

●

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

●

The Administrator is solely responsible for determining the value of the SOL holdings and SOL holdings per Share, and any errors, discontinuance or changes in such valuation calculations may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

	●	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 SOL and, as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV.

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

Risks Associated with the Regulatory Environment of Solana

●

Future and current regulations by a United States or foreign government or quasi-governmental agency could have an adverse effect on an investment in the Trust, and SOL’s status as being offered and sold as a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws remains unsettled.

●

Shareholders do not have the protections associated with ownership of shares in an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) or the protections afforded by the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”).

●

Future legal or regulatory developments may negatively affect the value of SOL or require the Trust or the Sponsor to become registered with the SEC or Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), which may cause the Trust to incur unforeseen expenses or liquidate.

●

Risks Associated with the Tax Treatment of SOL

●

Shareholders could incur a tax liability without an associated distribution of the Trust.

●

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

●

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

●

The tax treatment of SOL and transactions involving SOL for U.S. federal income tax purposes may change.

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 market infrastructure of the SOL spot market could result in the absence of active Authorized Participants able to support the trading activity of the Trust, which would affect the liquidity of the Shares in the secondary market and make it difficult to dispose of Shares.

●

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.

●

The Sponsor is leanly staffed and relies heavily on key personnel. The departure of any such key personnel could negatively impact the Trust’s operations and adversely impact an investment in the Trust.

●

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. In certain circumstances, Shareholders may vote to appoint a successor Sponsor following the Voluntary Withdrawal of the Sponsor, or to continue the Trust in certain instances of dissolution of the Trust. Shareholders shall otherwise have no voting rights with respect to the Trust.

●

The liability of the Sponsor and the Trustee is limited, and the value of the Shares will be adversely affected if the Trust is required to indemnify the Trustee or the Sponsor.

●

Due to the increased use of technologies, intentional and unintentional cyber-attacks pose operational and information security risks, the occurrence of which can negatively impact an investment in the Trust.

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. See “Glossary of Defined Terms” for an explanation of certain industry and technical terms used in this Prospectus.

Risks Associated with SOL and the Solana Network

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

The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of the SOL held by the Trust and fluctuations in the price of SOL could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The market price of SOL may be highly volatile, and subject to a number of factors, including:

●

an increase in the SOL supply that is publicly available for trading;

●

manipulative trading activity on digital asset trading platforms, which, in many cases, are largely unregulated or may not be complying with existing regulations;

	●	the adoption of SOL as a medium of exchange, store-of-value or other consumptive asset and the maintenance and development of the open-source software protocol of the Solana blockchain;

	●	forks in the Solana blockchain;

	●	falling demand for SOL, or demand that does not keep pace with gradual unlocking of SOL;

	●	delays or flaws in the execution of the Solana blockchain expansion or adoption plans for SOL;

	●	the failure of one or more of SOL strategic partnerships with one or more institutional players;

	●	the failure of, or perceptions of risk or negative publicity around one or more of the protocols based on the Solana blockchain or that make use of SOL;

●

investors’ expectations with respect to interest rates and rates of inflation experienced by fiat currencies or digital assets (including, in particular, SOL);

●

consumer preferences and perceptions of SOL specifically and digital assets generally;

●

fiat currency withdrawal and deposit policies on digital asset trading platforms;

●

the liquidity of digital asset trading platforms and any increase or decrease in trading volume on digital asset trading platforms;

●

investment and trading activities of large investors that invest directly or indirectly in SOL;

	●	a “short squeeze” resulting from speculation on the price of SOL, if aggregate short exposure exceeds the number of Shares available for purchase;

	●	a final determination that SOL is being offered and sold as a security or changes in SOL’s status under the federal securities laws;

	●	monetary policies of governments, trade restrictions, currency devaluations and revaluations and regulatory measures or enforcement actions, if any, that restrict the use of SOL or the purchase of SOL on digital asset trading platforms;

●

global or regional political, economic or financial conditions, events and situations, such as the novel coronavirus outbreak;

●

fees associated with processing a SOL transaction and the speed at which transactions are settled on the Solana blockchain;

●

interruptions in service from or closures or failures of major digital asset trading platforms;

●

decreased confidence in digital asset trading platforms due to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of digital asset trading platforms;

●

smart contracts are new and their ongoing development and operation may result in problems or be subject to errors or hacks;

●

increased competition from other digital assets or other forms of blockchain-based services; and

●

the Trust’s own acquisitions or dispositions of SOL, since there is no limit on the number of SOL that the Trust may acquire.

In addition, there is no assurance that SOL will maintain its value in the long or intermediate term. In the event that the price of SOL declines, the Sponsor expects the value of the Shares to decline proportionately. The value of SOL as represented by the Pricing Benchmark or by the Trust’s principal market 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, accounts for future appreciation in value, if any. The Sponsor believes that momentum pricing of SOL has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the price of SOL, inflating and making the price of SOL more volatile. As a result, SOL may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the Pricing Benchmark and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

SOL is a relatively new technological innovation with a limited operating history.

SOL has a relatively limited history of existence and operations compared to traditional commodities. There is a limited established performance record for the price of SOL and, in turn, a limited basis for evaluating an investment in SOL. Although past performance is not necessarily indicative of future result, if SOL 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.

SOL and Solana generally.

SOL is the native digital asset and unit of account on the Solana network. The market value of SOL is not related to any specific company, government or asset. The valuation of SOL depends on a number of factors, including future expectations for the value of the Solana network, the number of SOL transactions, and the overall usage of SOL as an asset. This means that a significant amount of the value of SOL is speculative, which could lead to increased volatility. Investors could experience significant gains, losses and/or volatility in the Trust’s holdings, depending on the valuation of SOL.

Several factors may affect the price of SOL, including, but not limited to: supply and demand, investors’ expectations with respect to the rate of inflation, interest rates, currency exchange rates or future regulatory measures (if any) that restrict the trading of SOL or the use of SOL as a form of payment. The issuance of SOL is determined by a computer code, not by a central bank, and prices can be extremely volatile. For instance, during the period from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, the price of SOL peaked at $255.64 and bottomed at $81.25, marking a drawdown of 68.31%. There is no assurance that SOL will maintain its long-term value in terms of purchasing power in the future, or that acceptance of SOL payments by mainstream retail merchants and commercial businesses will continue to grow. The value of the Trust’s investments in SOL could decline rapidly, including to zero.

The Solana network is an open-source project without a controlling issuer or administrator of software development. Development of the Solana network is overseen by the Solana Foundation, a Swiss non-profit organization, and Solana Labs, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which administered the original network launch and digital asset distribution. Solana Labs and the Solana Foundation continue to exert significant influence over the direction of the development of Solana, however the Solana network does not require governmental authorities or financial institution intermediaries to create, transmit or determine the value of SOL.

As a result, core developers contribute their time and propose upgrades and improvements to the Solana network protocols and various software implementations thereof, often on the Solana repository on the website Github. Core developers’ roles evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation. Although some market participants such as the Solana Foundation sponsor some developers, core developers are not generally compensated for their work on the Solana network, and such developers may cease to provide services or migrate to alternate digital asset networks. In addition, a lack of resources may result in an inability of the Solana network community to address novel technical issues or to achieve consensus around solutions therefor. As with other digital asset networks, the Solana network faces significant scaling challenges due to the fact that public blockchains generally face a tradeoff between security and scalability. One means through which public blockchains achieve security is decentralization, meaning that no intermediary is responsible for securing and maintaining these systems. For example, a greater degree of decentralization generally means a given digital asset network is less susceptible to manipulation or capture. A digital asset network may be limited in the number of transactions it can process by the capabilities of the participating nodes.

Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital assets 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 Solana could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to take the Trust’s SOL, which would adversely impact the value of the Shares. Moreover, the functionality of the Solana network may be negatively affected such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for SOL and the Solana network. Even if another digital asset other than SOL 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.

Finally, there can be no assurance that the community as a whole will not implement changes to the Solana network protocols that have an adverse impact on the Trust or an investment in the Shares.

Proof-of-History (PoH) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) Consensus Mechanisms.

The Solana protocol introduced the proof-of-history (“PoH”) timestamping mechanism. PoH automatically orders on-chain transactions by creating a historical record that proves an event has occurred at a specific moment in time. PoH is intended to provide a transaction processing speed and capacity advantage over other blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Solana, which rely on sequential production of blocks and can lead to delays caused by validator confirmations. PoH is a new blockchain technology that is not widely used. PoH may not function as intended. For example, it may require more specialized equipment to participate in the network and fail to attract a significant number of users. In addition, there may be flaws in the cryptography underlying PoH, including flaws that affect functionality of the Solana Network or make the network vulnerable to attack.

In addition to the PoH mechanism described above, the Solana Network uses a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism to incentivize SOL holders to validate transactions. Unlike proof-of-work, in which miners 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 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 viewed as more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work and is sometimes referred to as “virtual mining.”

The Trust is exposed to risks associated with Solana Labs.

The value of SOL may be materially influenced by activities undertaken by Solana Labs, which plays a significant role in the development of the Solana blockchain. Any adverse developments impacting Solana Labs could potentially adversely affect the value of SOL and, therefore, the value of an investment in the Trust.

The inability to recognize the economic benefit of Staking Activities could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.

If (i) Staking Activities of the Trust’s SOL is or becomes permissible under the Trust’s Trust Agreement and (ii) the Exchange were to seek and obtain a rule change permitting the listing of a spot SOL investment vehicle engaged in Staking, in the future the Trust may seek to establish a program to use its SOL in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Solana network to receive rewards comprising additional SOL in respect of a portion of its SOL holdings. However, as long as such conditions and requirements have not been satisfied, the Trust will not use its SOL in the proof-of-stake validation mechanism of the Solana network to receive rewards comprising additional SOL in respect of its SOL holdings. The current inability of the Trust to use its SOL in Staking Activities and receive such rewards could place the Shares at a comparative disadvantage relative to an investment in SOL directly or through a vehicle that is not subject to such a prohibition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.

The scheduled creation of newly minted SOL and their subsequent sale may cause the price of SOL to decline, which could negatively affect an investment in the Trust.

Newly created or minted SOL are generated through a process referred to as “staking” which involves the collection of a staking reward of new SOL. To operate a node, a validator must acquire and lock some amount of SOL by sending a special transaction to the staking contract, which transaction associates the staked SOL with a withdrawal address (to unlock the SOL and receive any staking rewards) and a validator address (to designate the validator node performing transaction verification). When the recipient makes newly minted SOL available for sale, there can be downward pressure on the price of SOL as the new supply is introduced into the SOL market.

Limits on SOL supply.

The rate at which new SOL are issued and put into circulation is expected to vary. The Solana network has no formal cap on the total supply of SOL. The Solana network does, however, feature several mechanisms that, individually and in aggregate, have the effect of limiting the total supply of SOL outstanding.

The proof-of-stake mechanism limits the total supply of SOL in circulation by effectively locking staked SOL for a certain period of time, making it temporarily unavailable for trading or selling.

Additionally, the supply of SOL is limited as a result of the deflationary transaction fee burning mechanism. The Solana protocol reduces the SOL supply by eliminating 50% of transaction fees paid in SOL to the network.

The prevailing level of transaction fees may adversely affect the usage of the Solana network.

New SOL is created when SOL validators use their stake on the Solana network to participate in the consensus mechanism, which records and verifies every SOL transaction on the Solana blockchain. In return for their services, validators are rewarded through receipt of a set amount of SOL. If priority fees voluntarily paid by users are not sufficiently high or if transaction fees increase to the point of being prohibitively expensive for users, validators may not have an adequate incentive to continue validating. Further, if the price of SOL or the reward for validating new blocks is not sufficiently high to incentivize validators, validators may cease participating in the consensus mechanism. Validators ceasing operations or participation in the consensus mechanism would reduce the collective processing power on the Solana network, which would adversely affect the confirmation process for transactions (i.e., temporarily decreasing the speed at which blocks are added to the blockchain) and make the Solana network more vulnerable to malicious actors obtaining sufficient control to alter the blockchain and hinder transactions. Any reduction in confidence in the confirmation process or processing power of the Solana network may adversely affect a Trust’s investments in SOL.

The amount of new SOL earned by staking may be adjusted. Historically, the validating reward associated with solving a Solana block has been reduced, although the supply of new SOL is uncapped. If the transaction fees are too low, miners may not be incentivized to expend processing power to validate transactions and confirmations of transactions on the blockchain could be temporarily slowed. A reduction in the processing power expended by validators on the Solana network could reduce infrastructure security, reduce confidence in the Solana network, or expose the Solana network to a malicious actor or botnet obtaining a majority of processing power on the Solana network. Decreased demand for SOL or reduced security on the Solana network may adversely impact an investment in the Shares.

The trading prices of many digital assets, including SOL, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including further decline in the trading prices of SOL, 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 SOL, 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 SOL, over the course of 2021, and multiple market observers asserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for SOL. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout SOL’s history, including in 2021, before repeating again in 2022. Over the course of 2023, SOL prices continued to exhibit extreme volatility.

Extreme volatility may persist, and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may still be experiencing a bubble or may experience a bubble again in the future. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”) one of the largest digital asset exchanges 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, who was found guilty of these criminal charges in November 2023. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). In response to these events (collectively, the “2022 Events”), the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by these events, digital asset prices, including SOL, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines, and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny has been significant, including from, among others, the U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress, as well as state regulators and authorities. It is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Trust, its service providers or to the digital asset industry as a whole.

Extreme volatility in the future, including further declines in the trading prices of SOL, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares, and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. The Trust is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of SOL.

Spot markets on which SOL trades are relatively new and largely unregulated.

Digital asset markets, including spot markets for SOL, are growing rapidly. The spot markets through which SOL and other digital assets trade are new and, in some cases, may be subject to but not comply with their relevant jurisdiction’s regulations. These markets are local, national and international and include a broadening range of digital assets and participants. Significant trading may occur on systems and platforms with minimum predictability. Spot markets may impose daily, weekly, monthly or customer-specific transaction or withdrawal limits or suspend withdrawals entirely, rendering the exchange of SOL for fiat currency difficult or impossible. Participation in spot markets requires users to take on credit risk by transferring SOL from a personal account to a third party’s account.

Digital asset exchanges do not appear to be subject to, and may not comply with, regulation in a similar manner as other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. Many digital asset exchanges 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 particular, those located outside the United States 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 exchanges 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. Furthermore, many spot markets 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 SOL on digital asset exchanges 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. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in, or may experience problems relating to, these venues.

No SOL exchange is immune from these risks. While the Trust itself does not buy or sell SOL on SOL spot markets, the closure or temporary shutdown of SOL exchanges due to fraud, business failure, hackers or malware, or government-mandated regulation may reduce confidence in the Solana network and can slow down the mass adoption of SOL. Further, spot market failures or that of any other major component of the overall Solana ecosystem can have an adverse effect on SOL markets and the price of SOL and could therefore have a negative impact on the performance of the Trust.

Negative perception, a lack of stability in the SOL spot markets, manipulation of SOL spot markets by customers and/or the closure or temporary shutdown of such exchanges due to fraud, business failure, hackers or malware, or government-mandated regulation may reduce confidence in SOL generally and result in greater volatility in the market price of SOL and the Shares of the Trust. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a SOL spot market may impact the Trust’s ability to determine the value of its SOL holdings or for the Trust’s Authorized Participants to effectively arbitrage the Trust’s Shares.

Authorized Participants may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products.

Authorized Participants play a critical role in supporting the U.S. spot SOL exchange-traded product ecosystem. Currently, the number of potential Authorized Participants willing and capable of serving as Authorized Participants to the Trust or other competing products is limited. Authorized Participants may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products, including exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets. The Trust is therefore subject to risks associated with these competing products utilizing the same Authorized Participants to support the trading activity of the Trust and liquidity in the Trust’s Shares.

To the extent Authorized Participants exit the business or otherwise become unable to process creation and/or redemption orders and no other Authorized Participants step forward to perform these services, Shares may trade at a material discount to NAV and possibly face delisting. To the extent that exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets utilize substantially the same Authorized Participants, this industry concentration may have the effect of magnifying the risks associated with the Authorized Participants, as operational disruptions or adverse developments impacting the Authorized Participants may be felt on an industry-wide basis, which, in turn, may adversely affect not only the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares, but also these competing products utilizing the same Authorized Participants and, more generally, exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets. These industry-wide adverse effects could result in a broader loss of confidence in exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets, which could further impact the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares.

Spot markets may be exposed to security breaches.

The nature of the assets held at SOL spot markets makes them appealing targets for hackers and a number of SOL spot markets have been victims of cybercrimes. Over the past several years, some digital asset exchanges have been closed due to security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such digital asset exchanges were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such digital asset exchanges. While, generally speaking, smaller digital asset exchanges are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger digital asset exchanges more stable, larger digital asset exchanges are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and malware.

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 exchanges could be subject to abrupt failure with consequences for both users of digital asset exchanges 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 exchanges 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 exchange. The value of bitcoin and other digital assets immediately decreased over 10% following reports of the theft at Bitfinex. In July 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against BTC-E, a now defunct digital asset exchange, for facilitating crimes such as drug sales and ransomware attacks. In addition, in December 2017, Yapian, the operator of Seoul-based digital asset exchange Youbit, suspended digital asset trading and filed for bankruptcy following a hack that resulted in a loss of 17% of Yapian’s assets. Following the hack, Youbit users were allowed to withdraw approximately 75% of the digital assets in their exchange accounts, with any potential further distributions to be made following Yapian’s pending bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, in January 2018, the Japanese digital asset exchange, Coincheck, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $535 million, and in February 2018, the Italian digital asset exchange, Bitgrail, was hacked, resulting in approximately $170 million in losses. In May 2019, one of the world’s largest digital asset exchanges, Binance, was hacked, resulting in losses of approximately $40 million. On February 21, 2025, Bybit, a digital asset exchange, experienced a significant security breach resulting in the loss of nearly $1.5 billion worth of ether.

Spot markets may be exposed to fraud and market manipulation.

The blockchain infrastructure could be used by certain market participants to exploit arbitrage opportunities through schemes such as front-running, spoofing, pump-and-dump and fraud across different systems, platforms or geographic locations. As a result of reduced oversight, these schemes may be more prevalent in digital asset markets than in the general market for financial products.

The SEC has identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the digital asset market generally, including, among others (1) “wash trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in digital assets manipulating digital asset pricing; (3) hacking of a digital asset network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of digital asset networks; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in digital assets, new sources of demand for digital assets, etc.) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether; and (7) fraud and manipulation at digital asset trading platforms.

Over the past several years, a number of digital asset spot markets have been closed or faced issues due to fraud. In many of these instances, the customers of such SOL spot markets were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such digital asset exchanges.

In 2019, there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on digital asset exchanges was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated exchanges located outside of the United States. Such reports alleged that certain overseas exchanges have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices. Other academics and market observers have put forth evidence to support claims that manipulative trading activity has occurred on certain digital asset exchanges. For example, in a 2017 paper titled “Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem” sponsored by the Interdisciplinary Cyber Research Center at Tel Aviv University, a group of researchers used publicly available trading data, as well as leaked transaction data from a 2014 Mt. Gox security breach, to identify and analyze the impact of “suspicious trading activity” on Mt. Gox between February and November 2013, which, according to the authors, caused the price of bitcoin to increase from around $150 to more than $1,000 over a two-month period. In August 2017, it was reported that a trader or group of traders nicknamed “Spoofy” was placing large orders on Bitfinex without actually executing them, presumably in order to influence other investors into buying or selling by creating a false appearance that greater demand existed in the market. In December 2017, an anonymous blogger (publishing under the pseudonym Bitfinex’d) cited publicly available trading data to support his or her claim that a trading bot nicknamed “Picasso” was pursuing a paint-the-tape-style manipulation strategy by buying and selling bitcoin and bitcoin cash between affiliated accounts in order to create the appearance of substantial trading activity and thereby influence the price of such assets.

In November 2022, FTX, one of the largest digital asset exchanges 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 worth 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.

The potential consequences of a spot market’s failure or failure to prevent market manipulation could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Any market abuse, and a loss of investor confidence in SOL, may adversely impact pricing trends in SOL markets broadly, as well as an investment in the Shares of the Trust.

Spot markets may be exposed to wash trading.

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

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

To the extent that wash trading either occurs or appears to occur in spot markets on which SOL trades, investors may develop negative perceptions about SOL and the digital assets industry more broadly, which could adversely impact the price SOL and, therefore, the price of Shares. Wash trading also may place more legitimate digital asset exchanges at a relative competitive disadvantage.

Spot markets may be exposed to front-running.

Spot markets on which SOL trades may be susceptible to “front-running,” which refers to the process when someone uses technology or market advantage to get prior knowledge of upcoming transactions. Front-running is a frequent activity on centralized as well as decentralized exchanges. By using bots functioning on a millisecond-scale timeframe, bad actors are able to take advantage of the forthcoming price movement and make economic gains at the cost of those who had introduced these transactions. The objective of a front runner is to buy a chunk of tokens at a low price and later sell them at a higher price while simultaneously exiting the position. Front-running happens via manipulations of gas prices or timestamps, also known as slow matching. To the extent that front-running occurs, it may result in investor frustrations and concerns as to the price integrity of digital asset exchanges and digital assets more generally.

Momentum pricing.

The market value of SOL is not based on any kind of claim, nor backed by any physical asset. Instead, the market value depends on the expectation of being usable in future transactions and continued interest from investors. This strong correlation between an expectation and market value is the basis for the current (and probable future) volatility of the market value of SOL and may increase the likelihood of momentum pricing.

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, SOL 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 SOL, and, in turn, an investment in the Trust.

The value of SOL as represented by the Pricing Benchmark 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 of SOL has previously resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation or depreciation in the value of SOL, further contributing to volatility and potentially inflating prices at any given time. These dynamics may impact the value of an investment in Trust.

Some market observers have asserted that in time, the value of SOL will fall to a fraction of its current value, or even to zero. SOL 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.

A decline in the adoption of SOL could negatively impact the Trust.

The Sponsor will not have any strategy relating to the development of SOL and the Solana network. However, a lack of expansion in usage of SOL and the Solana network could adversely affect an investment in Shares.

The further development and acceptance of the Solana network, which is part of a new and rapidly changing industry, is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the Solana network faces significant obstacles to increasing the usage of SOL without resulting in higher fees or slower transaction settlement times, and attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective. The slowing, stopping or reversing of the development or acceptance or usage of the Solana network and associated smart contracts. This may adversely affect the price of SOL and therefore an investment in the Shares. The further adoption of SOL will require growth in its usage and in the Solana network. Adoption of SOL will also require an accommodating regulatory environment.

The use of digital assets such as SOL to, among other things, buy and sell goods and services, is part of a new and rapidly evolving industry that employs digital assets based upon computer-generated mathematical and/or cryptographic protocols. SOL is a prominent, but not unique, part of this industry. The growth of this industry is subject to a high degree of uncertainty, as new assets and technological innovations continue to develop and evolve. Currently, there is relatively limited use of SOL in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively extensive use as a store of value, thus contributing to price volatility that could adversely affect an investment in the Shares. However, SOL may not be suited for a number of commercial uses, including those requiring real time payments, partially due to the amount of time that Solana transactions may potentially require in order to clear. This could result in decreasing usage of the network, to the extent that SOL does not otherwise become a store of asset value or meet the needs of another commercial use.

Today, there is limited use of SOL in the retail, commercial, or payments spaces, and, on a relative basis, speculators make up a significant portion of users. Certain merchants and major retail and commercial businesses have only recently begun accepting SOL and the Solana network as a means of payment for goods and services. This pattern may contribute to outsized price volatility, which in turn can make SOL less attractive to merchants and commercial parties as a means of payment. A lack of expansion by SOL into retail and commercial markets or a contraction of such use may result in a reduction in the price of SOL, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

In addition, there is no assurance that SOL will maintain its value over the long-term. The value of SOL is subject to risks related to its usage. Even if growth in SOL adoption occurs in the near or medium-term, there is no assurance that SOL usage will continue to grow over the long-term. A contraction in use of SOL may result in increased volatility or a reduction in the price of SOL, which would adversely impact the value of Shares.

Irrevocable nature of blockchain-recorded transactions.

SOL transactions recorded on the Solana network are not, from an administrative perspective, reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the transaction or, in theory, control or consent of a majority of the Solana network’s aggregate hash rate. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to the blockchain, an incorrect transfer of SOL or a theft of SOL generally will not be reversible, and the Trust may not be capable of seeking compensation for any such transfer or theft. It is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s SOL 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 SOL through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred SOL. 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 SOL may be irreversible.

Digital assets, including SOL, 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 SOL held in the related digital wallet. In addition, if the Trust’s private keys are misappropriated and the Trust’s SOL holdings are stolen, including from or by the SOL Custodian, the Trust could lose some or all of its SOL 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 SOL would adversely affect the value of the Shares.

An investment in the Trust is not a deposit and is not FDIC-insured. Shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Administrator, Prime Broker and SOL Custodian expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s SOL for which no person or entity is liable.

The Trust is not a banking institution or otherwise a member of the FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, deposits held with or assets held by the Trust are not subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors with FDIC or SIPC member institutions. In addition, neither the Trust nor the Sponsor insures the Trust’s SOL.

While the SOL Custodian has advised the Sponsor that it has insurance coverage up to $320 million that covers losses of the digital assets it custodies on behalf of its clients, including the Trust’s SOL, resulting from theft, Shareholders cannot be assured that the SOL Custodian will maintain adequate insurance, that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s SOL, or that sufficient insurance proceeds will be available to cover the Trust’s losses in full. The SOL Custodian’s insurance may not cover the type of losses experienced by the Trust. Alternatively, the Trust may be forced to share such insurance proceeds with other clients or customers of the SOL Custodian, which could reduce the amount of such proceeds that are available to the Trust. In addition, the SOL insurance market is limited, and the level of insurance maintained by the SOL Custodian may be substantially lower than the assets of the Trust. While the SOL Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Trust cannot be assured that the SOL Custodian will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover actual or potential losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. The insurance maintained by the SOL Custodian is shared among all of the SOL Custodian’s customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding SOL with the SOL Custodian, and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses.

Furthermore, under the Custodial Services Agreement, the SOL Custodian’s liability is limited as follows, among others: (i) other than with respect to claims and losses arising from spot trading of SOL, or fraud or willful misconduct, the Mutually Capped Liabilities (defined below), the SOL Custodian’s aggregate liability under the Custodial Services Agreement shall not exceed the greater of (A) the greater of (x) $100 million and (y) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the SOL Custodian in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the SOL Custodian’s liability, and (B) the value of the affected SOL or cash giving rise to the SOL Custodian’s liability; (ii) the SOL Custodian’s aggregate liability in respect of each cold storage address shall not exceed $100 million; (iii) in respect of the SOL Custodian’s obligations to indemnify the Trust and its affiliates against third-party claims and losses to the extent arising out of or relating to, among others, the SOL Custodian’s gross negligence, violation of its confidentiality, data protection and/or information security obligations, or violation of any law, rule or regulation with respect to the provision of its services (the “Mutually Capped Liabilities”), the SOL Custodian’s liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) $5 million and (B) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the SOL Custodian in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the SOL Custodian’s liability; and (iv) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the SOL Custodian is not liable, even if the SOL Custodian has been advised of or knew or should have known of the possibility thereof. In general, the SOL Custodian is not liable under the Custodial Services Agreement unless in the event of its negligence, fraud, material violation of applicable law or willful misconduct. The SOL Custodian is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service to the extent it is directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the SOL Custodian. In the event of potential losses incurred by the Trust as a result of the SOL Custodian losing control of the Trust’s SOL or failing to properly execute instructions on behalf of the Trust, the SOL Custodian’s liability with respect to the Trust will be subject to certain limitations which may allow it to avoid liability for potential losses or may be insufficient to cover the value of such potential losses, even if the SOL Custodian directly caused such losses. Furthermore, the insurance maintained by the SOL Custodian may be insufficient to cover its liabilities to the Trust.

Similarly, under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Prime Broker’s liability is limited as follows, among others: (i) other than with respect to claims and losses arising from spot trading of SOL, or fraud or willful misconduct, or the PB Mutually Capped Liabilities (defined below), the Prime Broker’s aggregate liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) the greater of (x) $5 million and (y) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Prime Broker in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability, and (B) the value of the cash or affected SOL giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability; (ii) in respect of the Prime Broker’s obligations to indemnify the Trust and its affiliates against third-party claims and losses to the extent arising out of or relating to, among others, the Prime Broker’s gross negligence, violation of its confidentiality, data protection and/or information security obligations, violation of any law, rule or regulation with respect to the provision of its services, or the full amount of the Trust’s assets lost due to the insolvency of or security event at a Connected Trading Venue (as defined below) (the “PB Mutually Capped Liabilities”), the Prime Broker’s liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) $5 million and (B) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Prime Broker in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability; and (iii) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the Prime Broker is not liable, even if the Prime Broker has been advised of or knew or should have known of the possibility thereof. In general, with limited exceptions (such as for failing to execute an order), the Prime Broker is not liable under the Prime Broker Agreement unless in the event of its gross negligence, fraud, material violation of applicable law or willful misconduct. The Prime Broker is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service to the extent it is directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the Prime Broker. These and the other limitations on the Prime Broker’s liability may allow it to avoid liability for potential losses or may be insufficient to cover the value of such potential losses, even if the Prime Broker directly caused such losses. Both the Trust and the Prime Broker and its affiliates (including the SOL Custodian) are required to indemnify each other under certain circumstances.

Moreover, in the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy of the Prime Broker (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the SOL Custodian (in the case of the Cold Vault Balance) in the future, 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 of an entity such as the SOL Custodian or Prime Broker in the virtual currency industry, there is a risk that customers’ assets – including the Trust’s assets – may be considered the property of the bankruptcy estate of the Prime Broker (in the case of the Trading Balance) or the SOL Custodian (in the case of the Cold Vault Balance), and customers – including the Trust – may be at risk of being treated as general unsecured creditors of such entities and subject to the risk of total loss or markdowns on value of such assets.

The Custodial Services Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the SOL credited to the Trust’s Vault Balance as financial assets under Article 8 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 8”), in addition to stating that the SOL Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf. The SOL Custodian’s parent, Coinbase Global Inc., has stated in its most recent public securities filings that in light of the inclusion in its custody agreements of provisions relating to Article 8 it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate in the event the SOL Custodian were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. If the SOL Custodian became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied SOL were part of the SOL Custodian’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in the SOL Custodian’s insolvency proceedings and the Trust could be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets. Moreover, in the event of the bankruptcy of the SOL Custodian, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with the SOL Custodian, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares.

With respect to the Prime Broker Agreement, there is a risk that the Trading Balance, in which the Trust’s SOL and cash is held in omnibus accounts by the Prime Broker, could be considered part of the Prime Broker’s bankruptcy estate in the event of the Prime Broker’s bankruptcy. The Prime Broker Agreement contains an Article 8 opt-in clause with respect to the Trust’s assets held in the Trading Balance.

The amount of SOL that may be held in the Trading Balance will be limited to the amount necessary to process a given creation or redemption transaction, as applicable, or to pay for Trust Expenses not assumed by the Sponsor in consideration for the Sponsor Fee.

The Prime Broker is not required to hold any of the SOL or cash in the Trust’s Trading Balance in segregation. Within the Trading Balance, the Prime Broker Agreement provides that the Trust does not have an identifiable claim to any particular SOL (and cash). Instead, the Trust’s Trading Balance represents an entitlement to a pro rata share of the SOL (and cash) the Prime Broker has allocated to the omnibus wallets the Prime Broker holds, as well as the accounts in the Prime Broker’s name that the Prime Broker maintains at Connected Trading Venues (the “Connected Trading Venue”) (which are typically held on an omnibus, rather than segregated, basis). If the Prime Broker suffers an insolvency event, there is a risk that the Trust’s assets held in the Trading Balance could be considered part of the Prime Broker’s bankruptcy estate and the Trust could be treated as a general unsecured creditor of the Prime Broker, which could result in losses for the Trust and Shareholders. Moreover, in the event of the bankruptcy of the Prime Broker, an automatic stay could go into effect and protracted litigation could be required in order to recover the assets held with the Prime Broker, all of which could significantly and negatively impact the Trust’s operations and the value of the Shares.

Under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee and the Sponsor will not be liable for any liability or expense incurred, including, without limitation, as a result of any loss of SOL by the SOL Custodian or Prime Broker, absent willful misconduct, gross negligence, reckless disregard or bad faith 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 Shareholders to the Trustee or the Sponsor, including in the event of a loss of SOL by the SOL Custodian or Prime Broker, is limited.

The Shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor, the Trustee, and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including, without limitation, those relating to the holding of SOL or the provision of instructions relating to the movement of SOL, is limited. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor any of their affiliates, nor any other party has guaranteed the assets or liabilities, or otherwise assumed the liabilities, of the Trust, or the obligations or liabilities of any service provider to the Trust, including, without limitation, the SOL Custodian and Prime Broker. The Prime Broker Agreement and Custodial Services Agreement provide that neither the Sponsor, the Trustee, nor their affiliates shall have any obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever, by guaranty, enforcement or otherwise, with respect to the performance of any the Trust’s obligations, agreements, representations or warranties under the Prime Broker Agreement or Custodial Services Agreement or any transaction thereunder. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s SOL that is not covered by the SOL Custodian’s insurance and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the Shareholders, under applicable law, is limited.

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

To the extent that the Trust or Prime Broker faces difficulty establishing or maintaining banking relationships, the loss of the Trust or Prime Broker’s banking partners, the imposition of operational restrictions by these banking partners and the inability for the Trust or the Prime Broker to utilize other financial institutions may result in a disruption of creation and redemption activity of the Trust or the Prime Broker, or cause other operational disruptions or adverse effects for the Trust or the Prime Broker. In the future, it is possible that the Trust or the Prime Broker could be unable to establish accounts at new banking partners or establish new banking relationships, or that the banks with which the Trust or the Prime Broker 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 assets 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. For example, on March 8, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) announced that Silvergate Bank had entered voluntary liquidation, and on March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank, (“SVB”), was closed by the DFPI, which appointed the FDIC as receiver. Similarly, on March 12, 2013, the New York Department of Financial Services took possession of Signature Bank and appointed the FDIC as receiver. A joint statement by the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC on March 12, 2023, stated that depositors in Signature and SVB will have access to all of their funds, including funds held in deposit accounts, in excess of the insured amount. On May 1, 2023, First Republic Bank was closed by DFPI, which appointed the FDIC as receiver. Following a bidding process, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, to acquire the substantial majority of the assets and assume certain liabilities of First Republic Bank from the FDIC.

The Prime Broker has historically maintained banking relationships with Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank. While the Sponsor does not believe there is a direct risk to the Trust’s assets from the failures of Silvergate Bank or Signature Bank, in the future, changing circumstances and market conditions, some of which may be beyond the Trust’s or the Sponsor’s control, could impair the Trust’s ability to access the Trust’s cash held with the Prime Broker. If the Prime Broker were to experience financial distress or its financial condition is otherwise affected by the failure of its banking partners, the Prime Broker’s ability to provide services to the Trust could be affected. Moreover, the future failure of a bank at which the Prime Broker maintains customer cash could result in losses to the Trust, to the extent the balances are not subject to deposit insurance, notwithstanding the regulatory requirements to which the Prime Broker is subject or other potential protections.

If the Custodial Services Agreement or Prime Broker Agreement is terminated or the SOL Custodian or Prime Broker fails to provide services as required, the Trustee may need to find and appoint a replacement custodian, which could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s SOL, and the Trust’s ability to continue to operate may be adversely affected.

The Trust is dependent on the SOL Custodian, which is Coinbase Custody, and the Prime Broker, Coinbase Inc. to operate. Coinbase Custody performs essential functions in terms of safekeeping the Trust’s SOL in the Vault Balance, and its affiliate, Coinbase Inc., in its capacity as Prime Broker, facilitates the selling of SOL by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and, to the extent applicable, other Trust expenses, and in extraordinary circumstances, to liquidate the Trust. If Coinbase Custody or Coinbase Inc. fails to perform the functions they perform for the Trust, the Trust may be unable to operate or create or redeem Baskets, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares.

In March 2023, the Prime Broker and its parent, Coinbase Global, Inc. (such parent, “Coinbase Global” and together with Coinbase Inc., the “Relevant Coinbase Entities”) received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC staff stating that the SEC staff made a “preliminary determination” to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Relevant Coinbase Entities alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. According to Coinbase Global’s public reporting company disclosure, based on discussions with the SEC staff, the Relevant Coinbase Entities believe these potential enforcement actions would relate to aspects of the Relevant Coinbase Entities’ Coinbase Prime service, spot market, staking service Coinbase Earn, and Coinbase Wallet, and the potential civil action may seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. In June 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities in federal district court in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia: (i) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the Exchange Act by failing to register with the SEC as a national securities exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency, in connection with activities involving certain identified digital assets that the SEC’s complaint alleges are securities, (ii) that Coinbase Inc. has violated the 1933 Act by failing to register with the SEC the offer and sale of its staking program, and (iii) that Coinbase Global is jointly and severally liable as a control person under the Exchange Act for Coinbase Inc.’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase Inc. On February 27, 2025, the SEC announced that it had filed a joint stipulation with Coinbase Inc. and Coinbase Global Inc. to dismiss the ongoing civil enforcement action against the two entities. The SEC’s complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities alleged that SOL was offered and sold without registration in a manner that amounted to an “investment contract”, in violation of the Securities Act — an allegation that the SEC had also made in its complaints against Kraken and Binance. The SEC’s complaint sought a permanent injunction against the Relevant Coinbase Entities to prevent them from violations of the Exchange Act or Securities Act, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, and such other relief as the court may have deemed appropriate or necessary.

In the event of any future SEC or other governmental, regulatory or other enforcement action or litigation,

Coinbase Inc., as Prime Broker, could be required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or curtail the services it offers, or its financial condition and ability to provide services to the Trust could be affected. If the Prime Broker were to be required or choose, as a result of a regulatory action or litigation, to restrict or curtail the services it offers, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate or process creations or redemptions of Baskets, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares. While the SOL Custodian was not named in the complaint, if Coinbase Global, as the parent of the SOL Custodian, is required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or curtail the services its subsidiaries provide to the Trust, or its financial condition is negatively affected, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate.

Alternatively, the Trust could replace Coinbase Custody as the SOL Custodian with custody of the Trust’s SOL, pursuant to the Custodial Services Agreement. Similarly, Coinbase Custody or Coinbase Inc. could terminate services under the Prime Broker Agreement respectively upon providing the applicable notice to the Trust for any reason, or immediately for Cause (as defined below). Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Trust’s account at the SOL Custodian to another custodian will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s SOL 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. As Prime Broker, Coinbase Inc. does not guarantee uninterrupted access to the trading platform or the services it provides to the Trust as Prime Broker. Under certain circumstances, Coinbase Inc. is permitted to halt or suspend trading on its trading platform, or impose limits on the amount or size of, or reject, the Trust’s orders, including in the event of, among others, (a) delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service that are directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of Coinbase Inc, (b) the Trust has engaged in unlawful or abusive activities or fraud, (c) the acceptance of the Trust’s order would cause the amount of Trade Credits extended to exceed the maximum amount of Trade Credit (as defined below) that the Trust’s agreement with the Trade Credit Lender permits to be outstanding at any one time, or (d) a security or technology issue occurred and is continuing that results in Coinbase Inc. being unable to provide trading services or accept the Trust’s order, in each case, subject to certain protections for the Trust. Also, if Coinbase Custody or Coinbase Inc. become insolvent, suffer business failure, cease business operations, default on or fail to perform their obligations under their contractual agreements with the Trust, or abruptly discontinue the services they provide to the Trust for any reason, the Trust’s operations would be adversely affected.

The Trustee may not be able to find a party willing to serve as the custodian of the Trust’s SOL or as the Trust’s prime broker under the same terms as the current Custodian Agreement or Prime Broker Agreement or at all. To the extent that the Trustee is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian or prime broker, the Trustee may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s SOL. In addition, to the extent that the Trustee finds a suitable party but must enter into a modified Custodian Agreement or Prime Broker Agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Trustee, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected. If the Trust is unable to find a replacement prime broker, its operations could be adversely affected.

The SOL Custodian and Prime Broker may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products.

Currently, the number of digital assets intermediaries with the reputation and operational capability to serve as custodian and/or prime broker to the Trust or other competing products is limited. The SOL Custodian and Prime Broker may act in the same or similar capacity for other competing products, including exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets. The Trust is therefore subject to risks associated with these competing products utilizing the same service providers for SOL custodial and prime brokerage services.

To the extent that exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets utilize substantially the same service providers for SOL custodial and prime brokerage services, this industry concentration may result in the development of fewer other digital assets intermediaries with the reputation and operational capability to provide SOL custodial and prime brokerage services to the Trust or other competing products. This, in turn, could make it difficult for the Trust to find and appoint a replacement SOL custodian or prime broker, to the extent the Sponsor deems such action necessary.

This industry concentration also may have the effect of magnifying the risks associated with the SOL Custodian and Prime Broker, as operational disruptions or adverse developments impacting the SOL Custodian or the Prime Broker may be felt on an industry-wide basis. A loss of confidence or breach of the SOL Custodian or Prime Broker may adversely affect not only the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares, but also these competing products utilizing the same service providers for SOL custodial and prime brokerage services and, more generally, exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets. These industry-wide adverse effects could result in a broader loss of confidence in exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets, which could further impact the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares.

The Prime Broker routes orders through Connected Trading Venues in connection with trading services under the Prime Broker Agreement. The loss or failure of any such Connected Trading Venues may adversely affect the Prime Broker’s business and cause losses for the Trust.

In connection with trading services under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Prime Broker routinely routes customer orders to Connected Trading Venues, which are third-party exchanges or other trading venues (including the trading venue operated by the Prime Broker). In connection with these activities, the Prime Broker may hold SOL with such Connected Trading Venues in order to effect customer orders, including the Trust’s orders. However, the Prime Broker has represented to the Sponsor that no customer cash is held at Connected Trading Venues. If the Prime Broker were to experience a disruption in the Prime Broker’s access to these Connected Trading Venues, the Prime Broker’s trading services under the Prime Broker Agreement could be adversely affected to the extent that the Prime Broker is limited in its ability to execute order flow for its customers, including the Trust. In addition, while the Prime Broker has policies and procedures to help mitigate the Prime Broker’s risks related to routing orders through third-party trading venues, if any of these third-party trading venues experience any technical, legal, regulatory, or other adverse events, such as shutdowns, delays, system failures, suspension of withdrawals, illiquidity, insolvency, or loss of customer assets, the Prime Broker might not be able to fully recover the customer’s SOL that the Prime Broker has deposited with these third parties. As a result, the Prime Broker’s business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected, potentially resulting in its failure to provide services to the Trust or perform its obligations under the Prime Broker Agreement, and the Trust could suffer resulting losses or disruptions to its operations. The failure of a Connected Trading Venue at which the Prime Broker maintains customer SOL, including SOL associated with the Trust, could result in losses to the Trust, notwithstanding the regulatory requirements to which the Prime Broker is subject or other potential protections.

A disruption of the Internet may affect Solana operations, which may adversely affect the Solana industry and an investment in the Trust.

The functionality of the Solana network relies on the Internet. A significant disruption of Internet connectivity (i.e., affecting large numbers of users or geographic regions) could disrupt the Solana 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. While in certain cases in response to an attack, an additional “hard fork” (discussed below) has been introduced to increase the cost of certain network functions, the relevant network has continued to be the subject of additional attacks. Moreover, it is possible that as SOL increases in value, it may become a bigger target for hackers and subject to more frequent hacking and denial-of-service attacks.

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

The Solana network uses a cryptographic protocol to govern the interactions within the Solana network. A loose community of 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 the Solana network on Github.com. The core developers can propose amendments to the Solana’s network’s source code that, if accepted by miners and users, could alter the protocols and software of the Solana network and the properties of SOL. These alterations occur through software upgrades and could potentially include changes to the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the issuance of new SOL, which could undermine the appeal and market value of SOL. Alternatively, software upgrades and other changes to the protocols of the Solana network could fail to work as intended or could introduce bugs, security risks, or otherwise adversely affect, the Solana network. As a result, the Solana network could be subject to new protocols and software in the future that may adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

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

The Solana network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by a group of core developers and other contributors, largely on the GitHub resource section dedicated to development of the Solana network. As the Solana network protocol is not 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 Solana network protocol. Consequently, there is a lack of financial incentive for developers to maintain or develop the Solana network and the core developers may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues with the Solana network protocol. Although the Solana network is currently supported by the core developers, there can be no guarantee that such support will continue or be sufficient in the future. Alternatively, entities whose interests are at odds with other participants in the Solana network may seek to obtain control over the Solana network by influencing core developers. For example, malicious actors could attempt to bribe a core developer or group of core developers to propose certain changes to the network core developers. In addition, a bad actor could also attempt to interfere with the operation of the Solana network by attempting to exercise a malign influence over a core developer. To the extent that material issues arise with the Solana network protocol and the core developers and open-source contributors are unable to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Solana network and an investment in the Trust may be adversely affected.

The governance of the Solana network could have a negative impact on the performance of the Trust.

The governance of the Solana network is achieved through voluntary consensus and open competition. Participants on the Solana network come to an agreement through overwhelming consensus. The lack of clarity on governance may adversely affect SOL’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 Bitcoin network community: namely, whether to increase the block size of the blockchain or implement another change to increase the scalability of bitcoin, known as “segregated witness,” and help it continue to grow. See “Risk Factors—The Solana network faces scaling challenges and efforts to increase the volume of transactions may not be successful.”

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

Anonymity and illicit financing risk.

Although transaction details of peer-to-peer transactions are recorded on the Solana blockchain, a buyer or seller of digital assets on a peer-to-peer basis directly on the Solana network may never know to whom the public key belongs or the true identity of the party with whom it is transacting. Public key addresses are randomized sequences of alphanumeric characters that, standing alone, do not provide sufficient information to identify users. In addition, certain technologies may obscure the origin or chain of custody of digital assets. The opaque nature of the market poses asset verification challenges for market participants, regulators and auditors and gives rise to an increased risk of manipulation and fraud, including the potential for Ponzi schemes, bucket shops and pump and dump schemes. Digital assets have in the past been used to facilitate illicit activities. If a digital asset was used to facilitate illicit activities, businesses that facilitate transactions in such digital assets could be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking or other services cut off, and such digital asset could be removed from digital asset exchanges. Any of the aforementioned occurrences could adversely affect the price of the relevant digital asset, the attractiveness of the respective blockchain network and an investment in the Shares. If the Trust, the Sponsor or the Trustee were to transact with a sanctioned entity, the Trust, the Sponsor or the Trustee would be at risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits or liability.

The Trust takes measures with the objective of reducing illicit financing risks in connection with the Trust’s activities. However, illicit financing risks are present in the digital asset markets, including markets for SOL. There can be no assurance that the measures employed by the Trust will prove successful in reducing illicit financing risks, and the Trust is subject to the complex illicit financing risks and vulnerabilities present in the digital asset markets. If such risks eventuate, the Trust, the Sponsor or the Trustee or their affiliates could face civil or criminal liability, fines, penalties, or other punishments, be subject to investigation, have their assets frozen, lose access to banking services or services provided by other service providers, or suffer disruptions to their operations, any of which could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate or cause losses in value of the Shares.

The Sponsor and the Trust have adopted and implemented policies and procedures that are designed to ensure that they do not violate applicable AML and sanctions laws and regulations and to comply with any applicable KYC laws and regulations. The Sponsor and the Trust will only interact with known third party service providers with respect to whom it has engaged in a due diligence process to ensure a thorough KYC process, such as the Authorized Participants and the SOL Custodian. Authorized Participants, as broker-dealers, and the SOL Custodian, as a limited purpose trust company subject to New York Banking Law, are subject to the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (as amended) (“BSA”) and U.S. economic sanctions laws. In addition, the Trust will only accept creations and redemption requests from regulated Authorized Participants who themselves are subject to applicable sanctions and anti-money laundering laws and have compliance programs that are designed to ensure compliance with those laws. In addition, SOL Counterparties will be contractually obligated that all SOL they deliver to the Trust will be from lawful sources. The Trust will not hold any SOL except those that have been delivered by a SOL Counterparty in connection with creation requests.

The SOL Custodian has adopted and implemented an anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance program, which provides additional protections to ensure that the Sponsor and the Trust do not transact with a sanctioned party. Notably, the SOL Custodian performs Know-Your-Transaction (“KYT”) screening using blockchain analytics to identify, detect, and mitigate the risk of transacting with a sanctioned or other unlawful actor. Pursuant to the SOL Custodian’s KYT program, any SOL that is delivered to the Trust’s custody account will undergo screening to ensure that the origins of that SOL are not illicit.

There is no guarantee that such procedures will always be effective. If the Authorized Participants or SOL Counterparties have inadequate policies, procedures and controls for complying with applicable anti-money laundering and applicable sanctions laws or the Trust’s diligence is ineffective, violations of such laws could result, which could result in regulatory liability for the Trust, the Sponsor, the Trustee or their affiliates under such laws, including governmental fines, penalties, and other punishments, as well as potential liability to or cessation of services by the Prime Broker and its affiliates, including the SOL Custodian. Any of the foregoing could result in losses to the Shareholders or negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate.

The actual or perceived use of SOL and other digital assets in illicit transactions, which may adversely affect the SOL industry and an investment in the Trust.

Recent years have seen digital assets used at times as part of criminal activities and to launder criminal proceeds, as means of payment for illicit activities, or as an investment fraud currency. Although the number of cases involving digital assets for the financing of terrorism remains limited, criminals have nonetheless become more sophisticated in their use of digital assets.

Although SOL transaction details are logged on the blockchain, a buyer or seller of SOL may never know to whom the public key belongs or the true identity of the party with whom it is transacting, as public key addresses are randomized sequences of alphanumeric characters that, standing alone, do not provide sufficient information to identify users. Further, identifying users can be made even more difficult where a user utilizes a tumbling or mixing service (e.g., Tornado Cash) to further obfuscate transaction details.

The SOL industry and an investment in the Trust may be adversely affected to the extent that digital assets are increasingly used in connection with illicit transactions or are perceived as being used in connection with illicit transactions.

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

The only digital asset to be held by the Trust will be SOL.

From time to time, the Trust may be entitled to or come into possession of rights to acquire, or otherwise establish dominion and control over, any virtual currency or other asset or right, which rights are incident to the Trust’s ownership of SOL and arise without any action of the Trust, or of the Sponsor on behalf of the Trust (“Incidental Rights”) and/or virtual currency tokens, or other asset or right, acquired by the Trust through the exercise (subject to the applicable provisions of the Trust Agreement) of any Incidental Right (“IR Virtual Currency”) by virtue of its ownership of SOL, generally through a fork in the Solana blockchain, an airdrop offered to holders of SOL or other similar event. In an airdrop, the promoters 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.

Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor has the right, in their discretion, to determine what action to take in connection with the Trust’s entitlement to or ownership of Incidental Rights or any IR Virtual Currency. Under the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust may take any lawful action necessary or desirable in connection with the Trust’s ownership of Incidental Rights, including the acquisition of IR Virtual Currency, as determined by the Sponsor in the Sponsor’s sole discretion, unless such action would adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise be prohibited by the Trust Agreement.

With respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. In the event the Trust seeks to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by the Exchange seeking approval to amend its listing rules.

Investors should be aware that investing in Shares of the Trust is not equivalent to investing directly in SOL. An investor in the Shares does not have a claim to any “forked” assets. Unless otherwise announced, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will not support the inclusion of any forked assets.

Unless an announcement is made informing investors that a fork will be supported, a newly-forked asset should be considered ineligible for inclusion in the Trust.

Network Forks.

SOL, along with many other digital assets, are open source projects. The infrastructure and ecosystem that powers the Solana network are developed by different parties, including affiliated and non-affiliated engineers, developers, validators, platform developers, evangelists, marketers, exchange operators and other companies based around a service regarding Solana, each of whom may have different motivations, drivers, philosophies and incentives.

As a result, any individual can propose refinements or improvements to the Solana network’s source code through one or more software upgrades that could alter the protocols governing the Solana network and the properties of SOL. When a modification is proposed and a substantial majority of users and validators consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the Solana 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 Solana running in parallel, and the creation of a new digital asset which lacks interchangeability with its predecessor. 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.

Forks occur for a variety of reasons. A fork could occur after a significant security breach. Participants on the network could elect to “fork” the network to its state before the hack, effectively reversing the hack. A fork could also be introduced by an unintentional, unanticipated software flaw in the multiple versions of otherwise compatible software users run. Such a fork could adversely affect Solana’s viability. 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 would result in a permanent fork. 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 which an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum network to syphon approximately $60 million of ether held by 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, now referred to as “Ethereum Classic” with the digital asset on that blockchain now referred to as Ethereum Classic, or ETC. ETC now trades on several digital asset exchanges.

A fork may occur as a result of disagreement among network participants as to whether a proposed modification to the network should be accepted. For example, on August 1, 2017, after extended debates among developers as to how to improve the Bitcoin network’s transaction capacity, the Bitcoin network was forked by a group of developers and miners resulting in the creation of a new blockchain, which underlies the new digital asset “Bitcoin Cash.” Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash now operate on separate, independent blockchains. Since then, the Bitcoin network has forked several times to launch new digital assets, such as Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Silver and Bitcoin Diamond. Litecoin was also the result of a fork from the original Bitcoin blockchain.

Significant forks are typically announced several months in advance. The circumstances of each fork are unique, and their relative significance varies. It is possible that a particular fork may result in a significant disruption to Solana and, potentially, may result in broader market disruption should pricing become difficult following the fork. It is not possible to predict with accuracy the impact that any anticipated fork could have or for how long any resulting disruption may exist.

Forks may have a detrimental effect on the value of SOL, including by negatively affecting digital asset allocations or by failing to capture the full value of the newly-forked SOL if it is excluded from the Pricing Benchmark. Forks can also introduce new security risks. For example, forks may result in “replay attacks,” or attacks in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual validator or validating pool’s hashing power to exceed 50% of the processing power of the digital asset network, thereby making digital assets that rely on proof of work more susceptible to attack. 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 ether exchanges through at least October 2016. An ether exchange announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security.

A hard fork may adversely affect the price of SOL at the time of announcement or adoption. For example, the announcement of a hard fork could lead to increased demand for the pre fork digital asset, in anticipation that ownership of the pre fork digital asset would entitle holders to a new digital asset following the fork. The increased demand for the pre fork digital asset may cause the price of the digital asset to rise. After the hard fork, it is possible the aggregate price of the two versions of the digital asset running in parallel would be less than the price of the digital asset immediately prior to the fork. Furthermore, while the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, determine which network is generally accepted as the Solana 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. Either of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares. When Bitcoin Cash forked from the Bitcoin network, the value of Bitcoin went from $2,800 to $2,700.

A hard fork could change the source code for the Solana network, including the source code which limits the supply of SOL. Although many observers believe this is unlikely at present, there is no guarantee that the current mechanisms limiting the supply of outstanding SOL will not be changed. If a hard fork changing the yearly supply cap is widely adopted, the limit on the supply of SOL could be lifted, which could have an adverse impact on the value of SOL and the value of the Shares.

If Solana were to fork into two digital assets, the Trust may hold, in addition to its existing SOL balance, a right to claim an equivalent amount of the new “forked” asset following the hard fork. However, the Pricing Benchmark does not track forks involving Solana. The Trust has adopted procedures to address situations involving a fork that results in the issuance of new alternative SOL that the Trust may receive. The holder of SOL has no discretion in a hard fork; it merely has the right to claim the new SOL on a pro rata basis while it continues to hold the same number of SOL.

Airdrops.

Solana may become subject to an occurrence similar to a fork, which is known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promoters 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. Airdrops are not included in the Pricing Benchmark under its current methodology.

Accordingly, the Trust will not participate in airdrops.

Any name change and any associated rebranding initiative of SOL may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of SOL 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 2018, the team behind ZEN rebranded and changed the name of ZenCash to “Horizen.” We cannot predict the impact of any name change and any associated rebranding initiative on SOL. 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 SOL and the value of the Shares.

Solana is subject to cybersecurity risks, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust or the ability of the Trust to operate.

Users of SOL, and therefore investors in Solana-related investment products such as the Trust, are exposed to an elevated risk of fraud and loss, including, but not limited to, through cyber-attacks. SOL can be stolen, and SOL stored in a digital wallet, accessible via private key, can be compromised. While digital wallets do not store or contain the actual SOL, they store public and private keys, which are used as an address for receiving SOL or for spending the SOL, with both forms of transactions recorded on the public immutable ledger, the blockchain. By using the private key, a person is able to spend SOL, effectively sending it away from the account and recording that transaction on the blockchain. If a private key is compromised, SOL associated with that specific public key may be stolen. Unlike traditional banking transactions, once a transaction has been added to the blockchain, it cannot be reversed. Several exchanges specializing in sales of SOL, for example, have already had their operations impacted by cyber-attacks.

Thefts and cyber-attacks can have a negative impact on the reputation, market price, value, or liquidity of SOL. Through investment in the Trust, investors would be indirectly exposed to the risk and potential impact of a cyber-attack. A loss associated with cyberattack, including a total loss, is possible. While the Sponsor and the SOL Custodian have taken reasonable measures to prevent a theft or hacking of the Trust’s SOL holdings, such an event cannot be fully excluded from the Trust’s overall market exposure, and the losses associated with such an event would be borne by investors.

Digital asset networks, including the Solana network, are subject to control by entities that capture a significant amount of the network’s active validator nodes or a significant number of developers important for the operation and maintenance of such digital asset network.

At 50% of the staked SOL, a mischievous group of validators could theoretically split the chain into two equally sized forks and then simply use their entire 50% stake to vote contrarily to the honest validator set, thereby maintaining the two forks and preventing finality.

However, if the majority of the staked SOL dedicated to validating transactions on the Solana network is controlled by a bad actor (often referred to as a “51% attack”), it may be able to alter the Solana Blockchain on which the Solana network and SOL transactions rely. At greater than 50% of the total stake, the attacker could dominate the fork choice algorithm. In this case, the attacker would be able to attest with the majority vote. This could occur if the bad actor were to construct fraudulent blocks or prevent certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all. It could be possible for the malicious actor to control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions, though it could not generate new SOL or transactions. Further, a bad actor could “double-spend” its own SOL (i.e., spend the same SOL in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control. Reversing any changes made to the Solana Blockchain may be impossible. Further, a malicious actor could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down confirmations of transactions on the Solana network. If a bad actor gains control of a majority of the processing power on the Solana network, or the feasibility of such an occurrence increases, there may be a negative effect on an investment in the Trust.

Other digital asset networks have been subject to malicious activity achieved through control of over 50% of the processing power on the network. Any similar attack on the Solana network could negatively impact the value of SOL and the value of the Shares.

A 51% attack is more likely to happen in the context of digital assets with smaller market capitalizations due to the reduced computing power threshold required to control a majority of a given network. Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible, albeit computationally expensive, to mount a similar 51% attack on Solana or other digital assets with large market capitalization. If the feasibility of a bad actor gaining control of the processing power on the Solana network increases, there may be a negative effect on an investment in the Trust.

Additionally, an attacker with 66% or more of the total staked SOL can finalize their preferred chain without having to coerce any honest validators. The attacker can simply vote for their preferred fork and then finalize it, simply because they can vote with a dishonest supermajority.

A malicious actor may also obtain control over the Solana 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 miners 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 Solana network, the risk that a malicious actor may be able to obtain control of the Solana network in this manner exists, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares. If the malicious actor cannot control the validator nodes directly, they might attempt to compromise the validators that are already trusted by the network. This could involve hacking, bribery, deception or coercion.

To the extent that the Solana ecosystem, including the core validators and the administrators of the network’s validator pools, does not act to ensure greater decentralization of validator processing power, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the processing power on the Solana network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

If any of these exploitations or attacks occur, it could result in a loss of public confidence in Solana and a decline in the value of SOL and, as a result, adversely impact an investment in the Shares.

If validators expend less processing power on the Solana network, it could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor obtaining control.

Validators ceasing operations would reduce the collective processing power on the Solana network, which would adversely affect the confirmation process for transactions (i.e., temporarily decreasing the speed at which blocks are added to the Solana blockchain until the next scheduled adjustment in difficulty for block solutions). If a reduction in processing power occurs, the Solana network may be more vulnerable to a malicious actor obtaining control in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the processing power on the Solana network. As a result, it may be possible for a bad actor to manipulate the Solana network and hinder transactions. Any reduction in confidence in the confirmation process or processing power of the Solana network may adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Cancer nodes.

Cancer nodes are computers that appear to be participating in the Solana network but that are not in fact connected to the network, which a malicious actor sets up to place users onto a separate network or disconnect them from the Solana network. By using cancer nodes, a malicious actor can disconnect the target user from the Solana economy entirely by refusing to relay any blocks or transactions.

Double-spending risks.

A malicious actor may attempt to double spend SOL (i.e., allow for the same units of SOL to be spent on multiple occasions) by altering the formation of the blockchain, where the malicious actor has enough network control to confirm and post such transactions to the blockchain. In a double spending situation, the related record of the transaction, posted on the Solana network, would become falsified. This could have a detrimental effect on both the sender and the receiver.

There are several ways a malicious actor could attempt a double-spend, including, but not limited to, sending two conflicting transactions to the network, and creating one transaction but sending the Solana before releasing that associated block to the blockchain, which would invalidate it. On an exchange with multiple currency trading pairs, it would be possible for a person or individual controlling the majority of a blockchain network to double-spend the coins they control and then subsequently trade them for other currency pairs and transfer them off the exchange to their own private wallet(s).

All double-spend attacks require that the miner 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 Solana network and to disable incoming connections. Tactics to avoid double-spend such as requiring multiple confirmations can slow down transaction speeds on the Solana network and could impact the value of Solana.

Flaws in source code.

It is possible that flaws or mistakes in the released and public source code could lead to catastrophic damage to SOL, the Solana network, and any underlying technology. It is possible that contributors to the Solana network would be unable to stop this damage before it spreads further. It is further possible that a dedicated team or a group of contributors or other technical group may attack the code, directly leading to catastrophic damage. In any of these situations, the value of Shares of the Trust can be adversely affected.

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. Several errors and defects have been publicly found and corrected, including those that disabled some functionality for users and exposed users’ personal information. 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 SOL could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or negatively impacted by developments in mathematics and/or technology, such as advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to steal SOL held by others, which could adversely affect the demand for SOL and therefore adversely impact the price of SOL and the value of the Shares. Even if another digital asset other than SOL 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 SOL, and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Denial of Service Attacks.

Many digital asset networks have been subjected to a number of denial of service attacks, which has led to temporary delays in block creation and in the transfer of SOL. A denial-of-service attack is a cyber attack that aims to disrupt a network’s normal functioning by overwhelming it with requests. For example, on September 14, 2021, the Solana Network experienced a significant disruption, later attributed to a type of denial of service attack, and was offline for 17 hours, only returning to full functionality 24 hours later. It is possible that any similar denial-of-service attack on the Solana network could impact the ability to transfer SOL and could have a material adverse effect on the price of SOL and the value of the Shares.

Mathematical or technological advances could undermine the Solana network’s consensus mechanism.

The Solana network is premised on multiple persons competing to solve cryptographic puzzles quickly. It is possible that mathematical or technological advances, such as the development of quantum computers with significantly more power than computers presently available, could undermine or vitiate the cryptographic consensus mechanism underpinning the Solana network.

Proof-of-History 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 traditional proof-of-work or proof-of-stake 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. The Solana network uses a newer consensus algorithm known as “proof-of-history.” While its proponents believe that it may have certain advantages, the “proof-of-history” consensus mechanism underlying Solana protocols and SOL has 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 Solana and SOL 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 the blockchain not to function as intended, lead to outright failure to function entirely causing a total outage or disruption of network activity, or 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-history blockchain on which the Trust’s assets rely will achieve widespread scale or adoption or perform successfully; any failure to do so could negatively impact the value of the Trust’s assets.

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

Validation on the Solana network requires SOL to be transferred into smart contracts on the underlying blockchain networks not under the Trust’s or anyone else’s control. If the Solana 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. In addition, the Solana networks dictate requirements for participation in validation activity, and may impose penalties, or “slashing,” if the relevant activities are not performed correctly, such as if the staker acts maliciously on the network, “double signs” any transactions, or experience extended downtimes. If validators’ staked SOL are slashed by the Solana network, their assets may be confiscated, withdrawn, or burnt by the network, resulting in losses to them. Furthermore, the Solana network requires the payment of base fees and the practice of paying tips is common, and such fees can become significant as the amount and complexity of the transaction grows, depending on the degree of network congestion and the price of SOL. 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 Solana network’s adoption or the price of SOL. Any disruption of validation on the Solana network could interfere with network operations and cause the Solana network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of SOL to decrease.

The Solana network faces scaling challenges and efforts to increase the volume of transactions may not be successful.

Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges due to the fact that public blockchains generally face a tradeoff between security and scalability. One means through which public blockchains may achieve security is decentralization, meaning that no intermediary is responsible for securing and maintaining these systems. For example, a greater degree of decentralization generally means a given digital asset network is less susceptible to manipulation or capture.

As of December 31, 2024, the Solana network handled approximately 4,000 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. Since inception, SOL transaction fees have stood at a fixed rate of 0.000005 SOL per transaction. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for SOL (e.g., micropayments) and could reduce demand for, and the price of, SOL, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares. There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of Solana Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact an investment in the Shares.

Smart contracts are new and their ongoing development and operation may result in problems or be subject to errors or hacks, which could reduce the demand for SOL or cause a wider loss of confidence in the Solana network, either of which could have an adverse impact on the value of SOL.

Since smart contracts typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in their programming (i.e., coding errors) can have damaging effects. For instance, coding errors may potentially create vulnerabilities that allow an attacker to drain the funds associated with the smart contract, cause issues or render the protocol unusable. Hackers have exploited vulnerabilities in various smart contract implementations, including those on the Solana blockchain, that have resulted in the loss of digital assets from accounts. For example, an attack in April of 2025 reportedly syphoned approximately 1,200 SOL from the Loopscale decentralized finance protocol housed on the Solana blockchain. In another example. In another example, in February of 2022, a vulnerability in a smart contract for Wormhole, a bridge between the Ethereum and Solana blockchain led to a $320 million theft of Ether. Other smart contracts, including bridges between blockchain networks and DeFi protocols have also been manipulated, exploited or used in ways that were not intended or envisioned by their creators such that attackers syphoned over $2.2 billion worth of digital assets from smart contracts in 2024 Problems with the development, deployment, and operation of smart contracts may have an adverse effect on the value of SOL.

In some cases, smart contracts can be controlled by one or more “admin keys” or users with special privileges, or “super users”. These users may have the ability to unilaterally make changes to the smart contract, enable or disable features on the smart contract, change how the smart contract receives external inputs and data, and make other changes to the smart contract.

Many applications associated with DeFi are currently deployed on the Solana network, and smart contracts relating to DeFi applications currently represent a significant source of demand for SOL. 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 make adverse changes to a smart contract, 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, locked up or otherwise become unusable and irrecoverable. Super users can also become targets of hackers and malicious attackers. Furthermore, the underlying smart contracts may be insecure, 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 Solana network and represent a significant source of demand for SOL, public confidence in the Solana network itself could be negatively affected, and the value of SOL could decrease.

Solana faces significant competition from other digital assets as well as from other technologies or payment forms, such as Swift, ACH, remittance networks, credit cards and cash. There is no guarantee that SOL will become a dominant form of payment, store of value or method of exchange. SOL is also supported by fewer exchanges than more established digital assets, which could impact its liquidity.

Although the Solana network presents advantages such as lower fees and faster transactions compared to other digital assets, it is possible that real or perceived shortcomings in the Solana network, or technological, regulatory or other developments, including the failure to fully implement planned changes could result in a decline in popularity and acceptance of SOL and the Solana network, and other digital assets and trading systems could become more widely accepted and used than the Solana network. Promoters of other digital assets claim that those digital assets have solved certain of the purported drawbacks of the Solana network, for example, improving stability or preventing inflation. If these digital assets are successful, such success could reduce demand for SOL and adversely affect the value of SOL and an investment in the Trust. It is currently unclear which digital assets, if any, will become and remain dominant, as the sector continues to innovate and evolve. Changes in the viability of any digital asset ecosystem may adversely impact pricing and liquidity of SOL and, therefore, of the Trust.

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

Central banks 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. A recent study published by the Bank for International Settlements estimated that at least 36 central banks 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 replacing, SOL and other digital assets 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 SOL. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the value of SOL could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

Prices of SOL may be affected due to stablecoins, the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment.

While the Trust does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to these and other risks that stablecoins pose for the SOL market through its investment in SOL. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets, and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, in many cases their prices fluctuate, sometimes significantly. This volatility has in the past apparently impacted the price of SOL. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the SOL market. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for SOL, raising its price, and also argue that those associated with certain stablecoins are involved in laundering money. On February 17, 2021 the New York Attorney General entered 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.

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.

Given the 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 SOL.

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 regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as SOL spot markets, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins and could impact the price of SOL, and in turn, an investment in the Shares.

Operational cost may exceed the award for validating transaction, and increased transaction fees may adversely affect the usage of the Solana network.

If transaction confirmation fees become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to use SOL. This may result in decreased usage and limit expansion of the Solana network in the retail, commercial and payments space, adversely impacting investment in the Trust. Conversely, if the reward for validators or the value of the transaction fees is insufficient to motivate validators, they may cease to validate transactions.

Ultimately, if the awards of new SOL costs of validating transactions grow disproportionately, miners may operate at a loss, transition to other networks, or cease operations altogether. Each of these outcomes could, in turn, slow transaction validation and usage, which could have a negative impact on the Solana network and could adversely affect the value of the SOL held by the Trust.

An acute cessation of validator operations would reduce the collective processing power on the Solana network, which would adversely affect the transaction verification process by temporarily decreasing the speed at which blocks are added to the blockchain and make the blockchain more vulnerable to a malicious actor obtaining control in excess of 50% of the processing power on the blockchain. Reductions in processing power could result in material, though temporary, delays in transaction confirmation time. Any reduction in confidence in the transaction verification process or may adversely impact the value of Shares of the Trust or the ability of the Sponsor to operate.

Electricity usage.

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

Solana uses a system called proof-of-history to validate transaction information. Proof-of-history automatically orders on-chain transactions by creating a historical record that proves an event has occurred at a specific moment in time. The Solana network also uses a system called proof-of-stake to incentivize SOL holders to validate transactions. Anyone that owns the specific proof-of-stake digital asset can participate in staking, subject to certain minimum amounts as determined by the applicable proof-of-stake digital assets. Generally, the higher the amount staked by any actor, the higher the chances of being chosen by the applicable blockchain to act as validator and reaping validator rewards; in other words, the higher the stake, the higher the chances of earning a staking reward. This has led to the creation of staking pools, where third parties combine smaller stakes into large pools, which leads to higher returns for owners of small stakes, in return for a fee collected by the third parties.

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

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

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

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

If regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities of digital assets generally, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Solana network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares. This could adversely affect the price of SOL, or the operation of the Solana network, and accordingly decrease the value of the Shares, by creating negative sentiment around digital assets generally.

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

If the digital asset awards for validating blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Solana blockchain 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 Solana 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 Solana blockchain 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.

●

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 Solana blockchain or a software upgrade automatically charges fees for all transactions on the Solana blockchain, the cost of using SOL may increase and the marketplace may be reluctant to accept SOL. Alternatively, validators could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Solana blockchain and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Solana blockchain. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting through collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Solana blockchain, the value of SOL 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 Solana 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 Solana blockchain 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 SOL with Authorized Participants.

During the course of ordering transactions and validating blocks, validators may be able to prioritize certain transactions in return for increased transaction fees, an incentive system known as “Maximal Extractable Value” or MEV. For example, in blockchain networks that facilitate DeFi protocols in particular, such as the Solana blockchain, users may attempt to gain an advantage over other users by increasing offered transaction fees. Certain software solutions, such as Flashbots, have been developed which facilitate validators in capturing MEV produced by these increased fees. The MEV incentive system may lead to an increase in transaction fees on the Solana blockchain, which may diminish its use. Users or other stakeholders on the Solana blockchain could also view the existence of MEV as unfair manipulation of digital asset networks, and refrain from using DeFi protocols or the Solana blockchain generally. In addition, it is possible regulators or legislators could enact rules which restrict the use of MEV, which could diminish the popularity of the Solana blockchain among users and validators. Any of these or other outcomes related to MEV may adversely affect the value of SOL and the value of the Shares.

Validators may cease to record transactions as a result of low transaction fees, which may adversely affect the usage of the Solana network.

To the extent that any validators cease to record transactions that do not include the payment of a transaction fee in solved blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will not be recorded on the Solana Blockchain until a block is solved by a validator who does not require the payment of transaction fees or is willing to accept a lower fee, if there is one. Any widespread delays in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence in the Solana network, resulting in a decline in SOL prices.

Large-Scale Sales or Distributions.

Some entities hold large amounts of SOL 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 SOL and adversely affect the value of the Shares. Additionally, political or economic crises may motivate large-scale acquisitions or sales of digital assets, including SOL, either globally or locally. Such large-scale sales or distributions could result in selling pressure that may reduce the price of SOL and adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

The largest SOL wallets are believed to hold, in aggregate, a significant percentage of the SOL in circulation. As of December 31, 2024, the largest 100 SOL wallets held approximately 23% of the SOL in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant number of SOL, 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 SOL.

Congestion or delay in the Solana network may delay purchases or sales of SOL by the Trust.

The size of each block on the Solana blockchain is currently limited and 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 Solana network. Moreover, unforeseen system failures, disruptions in operations, or poor connectivity may also result in delays in the recording of transactions on the Solana network. Any delay in the Solana network could affect the Authorized Participant’s ability to buy or sell SOL at an advantageous price resulting in decreased confidence in the Solana 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 Solana network and the value of the Trust’s Shares would be adversely affected.

Risks Associated with Investing in the Trust

Investment Related Risks.

Investing in SOL and, consequently, the Trust, is speculative. The price of SOL is volatile, and market movements of SOL are difficult to predict. Supply and demand changes rapidly and is 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 or the Principal Market NAV may not always correspond to the market price of SOL.

The NAV or the Principal Market NAV of the Trust will change as fluctuations occur in the market price of the Trust’s SOL 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 SOL as reflected in the Pricing Benchmark.

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 SOL per share.

Deviations between the Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share versus the Trust’s Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share may occur.

The Trust uses the Pricing Benchmark to determine its NAV and NAV per Share. However, for financial statement purposes, the Trust’s SOL is carried at fair value as required by GAAP, which requires a determination based on the price of SOL on principal market as identified by the Trust as set for in Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820-10, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820-10”). See “Net Asset Value Determinations” below. The Trust expects the applicable NAV and NAV per Share and corresponding Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV to accurately reflect the price of SOL. However, deviations can occur between the prices from the principal market chosen by the GAAP fair value methodology and Pricing Benchmark, which takes into consideration prices from all of the markets used to calculate the Pricing Benchmark.

Owning Shares is different from directly owning SOL.

Investors should be aware that the market value of Shares of the Trust may not have a direct relationship with the prevailing price of SOL, and changes in the prevailing price of SOL similarly will not necessarily result in a comparable change in the market value of Shares of the Trust. The performance of the Trust will not reflect the specific return an investor would realize if the investor actually held or purchased SOL directly. The differences in performance may be due to factors such as fees, transaction costs, operating hours of the Exchange and Pricing Benchmark tracking risk. Investors will also forgo certain rights conferred by owning SOL directly, such as the right to claim airdrops. See “Risk Factors — The inability to recognize the economic benefit of a “fork” or an “airdrop” could adversely impact an investment in the Trust”.

Pricing Benchmark tracking risk.

Although the Trust will attempt to structure its portfolio so that investments track the Pricing Benchmark, the Trust may not achieve the desired degree of correlation between its performance and that of the Pricing Benchmark 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 or the cost to the Trust of complying with various new or existing regulatory requirements.

Liquidity risk.

The ability of the Trust or a SOL Counterparty to buy or sell SOL may be adversely affected by limited trading volume, lack of a market maker in the digital asset markets, or legal restrictions. It is also possible that a SOL spot market or regulatory or governmental authority may suspend or restrict trading in SOL 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 SOL or other issues affecting counterparties. SOL is a new asset with a very limited trading history. Therefore, the markets for SOL may be less liquid and more volatile than other markets for more established products.

Shares of the Trust are intended to be listed and traded on the Exchange. There is no certainty that there will be liquidity available on the Exchange or that the market price will be in line with the NAV or the Principal Market NAV at any given time. There is also no guarantee that once the Shares of the Trust are listed or traded on the Exchange that they will remain so listed or traded.

If demand for Shares of the Trust exceeds the availability of SOL from exchanges and the Trust is not able to secure additional supply, Shares of the Trust may trade at a premium to their underlying value. Investors who pay a premium risk losing such premium if demand for the Shares of the Trust abates or the Sponsor is able to source more SOL. In such circumstances, Shares of the Trust could also trade at a discount.

Prior to their issuance, there was no public market for Shares of the Trust.

Counterparty risk.

The Sponsor, Trust, SOL Counterparty, and Authorized Participants are subject to counterparty risk. A SOL Counterparty may fail to deliver to the Trust’s account at the SOL Custodian the amount of SOL associated with a creation order, a SOL Counterparty may fail to deliver to the Trust’s account at the Cash Custodian the amount of cash associated with a redemption order, or the Cash Custodian may fail to deliver to the Authorized Participant at settlement the cash proceeds from the sale of SOL associated with a redemption order.

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

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of SOL and the SOL exchanges included in the Pricing Benchmark 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 SOL 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 SOL 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 Solana network may increase the potential for SOL 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.

The Administrator is solely responsible for determining the value of the Trust’s SOL, the Trust’s NAV and the Trust’s Principal Market NAV. The value of the Shares may experience an adverse effect in the event of any errors, discontinuance or changes in such valuation calculations.

The Administrator will determine the Trust’s NAV and the Trust’s Principal Market NAV. The Administrator’s determination is made utilizing data from the SOL Custodian’s operations and the Pricing Benchmark (in the case of the NAV) and the principal market for SOL as determined by the Trust (in the case of the Principal Market NAV). To the extent that the Trust’s NAV or the Principal Market NAV are incorrectly calculated, the Administrator may not be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

The Administrator determines the NAV of the Trust as of 4:00 p.m. ET, on each day other than a day when the Exchange or the New York Stock Exchange is closed for regular trading (each a “Business Day”), as soon as practicable after that time and determines the Principal Market NAV as of 4:00 p.m. ET, on the valuation date. If the Pricing Benchmark is not available, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Pricing Benchmark does not reflect an accurate SOL price, then the Administrator will determine NAV by reference to the Trust’s principal market. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment as to which of the rules the Sponsor will apply, and the Sponsor may make this determination in its sole discretion.

The Trust is subject to the risk that the Administrator may calculate the Pricing Benchmark in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of SOL. To the extent that the NAV, Principal Market NAV, the Pricing Benchmark, the Administrator’s or the Sponsor’s other valuation methodology are incorrectly calculated, neither the Sponsor, the Administrator nor the Trustee will be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the Pricing Benchmark or other valuation method used to calculate the NAV and Principal Market NAV of the Trust. Any such change in the Pricing Benchmark or other valuation method could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust.

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

The purchase of SOL in connection with Basket creation orders may cause the price of SOL to increase, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Increases in the SOL prices may also occur as a result of SOL purchases by other market participants who attempt to benefit from an increase in the market price of SOL when Baskets are created. The market price of SOL may therefore decline immediately after Baskets are created.

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

In addition to the effect that purchases and sales of SOL as part of the creation and redemption process may have on the price of SOL, sales and purchases of SOL by similar investment vehicles (if developed) could impact the price of SOL. If the price of SOL declines, the trading price of the Shares will generally also decline.

The inability of SOL Counterparties to hedge their SOL 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 SOL liquidity in the market, inability to locate an appropriate hedge counterparty, etc.), such conditions may make it difficult for Authorized Participants to create or redeem Baskets (or cause them to not create or redeem Baskets). In addition, the hedging mechanisms employed by SOL Counterparties to hedge their exposure to SOL 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 SOL Counterparties wish to use futures to hedge their exposure, note that as of the date of this prospectus, SOL futures and options trading does not occur on exchanges in the U.S. regulated by the CFTC. The liquidity of the market will depend on, among other things, the adoption of SOL and the commercial and speculative interest in the market.

Arbitrage transactions intended to keep the price of Shares closely linked to the price of SOL 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 SOL may not take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect. If this is the case, the liquidity of Shares may decline and the price of the Shares may fluctuate independently of the price of SOL 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 SOL and, as a result, the price of the Shares may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV.

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

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 greater operational steps (and therefore execution risk) than the originally contemplated in-kind creation and redemption model, or the potential unavailability or exhaustion of the Trust’s ability to borrow SOL or cash as trade credit (“the Trade Credits”), which the Trust would not be able to use in connection with in-kind creations and redemptions. Such delays could cause the execution price associated with such trades to materially deviate from the Pricing Benchmark 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 to 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 SOL, 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 SOL, 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 buy Shares at a price higher than the value of the underlying SOL held by the Trust or sell Shares at a price lower than the value of the underlying SOL held by the Trust, causing Shareholders to suffer losses.

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

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

If the processes of creation and redemption of Shares (which depend on timely transfers of SOL to and by the SOL Custodian) encounter any unanticipated difficulties due to, for example, the price volatility of SOL, the insolvency, business failure or interruption, default, failure to perform, security breach, or other problems affecting the SOL Custodian, any operational issues that may arise from creating and redeeming Shares via cash transactions, the closing of SOL trading platforms due to fraud, failures, security breaches or otherwise, or network outages or congestion, spikes in transaction fees demanded by miners, or other problems or disruptions affecting the Solana blockchain, then potential market participants, such as the Authorized Participants and their customers, 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 SOL may not take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect. In certain such cases, the Sponsor may suspend the process of creation and redemption of Baskets. During such times, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on Shares may widen. Alternatively, in the case of a network outage or other problems affecting the Solana blockchain, the processing of transactions on the Solana blockchain may be disrupted, which in turn could affect the creation or redemption of Baskets. If this is the case, the liquidity of the Shares may decline and the price of the Shares may fluctuate independently of the price of SOL and may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. Furthermore, in the event that the market for SOL should become relatively illiquid and thereby materially restrict opportunities for arbitraging by delivering SOL in return for Baskets, the price of Shares may diverge from the value of SOL.

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 SOL and other digital assets from other holders have occurred in the past. For example, an attack in April of 2025 reportedly syphoned approximately 1,200 SOL from the Loopscale decentralized finance protocol housed on the Solana blockchain. In another example. In another example, in February of 2022, a vulnerability in a smart contract for Wormhole, a bridge between the Ethereum and Solana blockchain led to a $320 million theft of Ether.

Because of the decentralized process for transferring SOL, thefts can be difficult to trace, which may make SOL 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 Benchmark Provider, the Transfer Agent, the Administrator, or the SOL 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. Security breaches, computer malware, ransomware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in relation to digital assets. The Sponsor believes that the Trust’s SOL held in the Trust’s account with the SOL Custodian will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s SOL or private keys and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. To the extent that the Trust, the Sponsor or the SOL Custodian is unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats or otherwise adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, the Trust’s SOL may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack.

The Sponsor has evaluated the security procedures in place for safeguarding the Trust’s SOL. 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. Access to the Trust’s SOL could be restricted by natural events (such as an earthquake or flood) or human actions (such as a terrorist attack).

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 SOL Custodian, or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to the Trust’s account with the SOL Custodian, the private keys (and therefore SOL) or other data of the Trust. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor, the SOL 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 SOL 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 SOL 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 has established business continuity plans and systems that it believes 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.

If the Trust’s holdings of SOL are lost, stolen or destroyed under circumstances rendering a party liable to the Trust, the responsible party may not have the financial resources, including insurance coverage, 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 extraordinarily limited liability to the Trust, which will adversely affect the Trust’s ability to seek recovery from them, even when they are at fault.

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 SOL. If an uninsured loss occurs or a loss exceeds policy limits, the Trust could lose all of its assets.

The Trust’s Custodian could become insolvent.

The Trust’s assets will be held in one or more accounts maintained for the Trust by the SOL Custodian and may in the future be held at other custodian banks which may be located in other jurisdictions. The SOL Custodian is not a depository institution as it is not insured by the FDIC. The insolvency of the SOL Custodian or of any broker, custodian bank or clearing corporation used by the SOL 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. Additionally, 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 Coinbase Custody.

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

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

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 SOL and digital assets. By concentrating its investment strategy solely in SOL, any losses suffered as a result of a decrease in the value of SOL 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) The Trust’s or a SOL Counterparty’s ability to purchase and sell SOL in an efficient manner to effectuate creation and redemption orders; (2) transaction fees associated with the Solana network; (3) the SOL 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 SOL trades, resulting in the inability of Authorized Participants to execute intended portfolio transactions; and (6) accounting standards.

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

The amount of SOL represented by the Shares will continue to be reduced during the life of the Trust due to the transfer of the Trust’s SOL to pay for the Sponsor Fee and other liabilities.

Each outstanding Share represents a fractional, undivided interest in the SOL held by the Trust. The Trust does not generate any income and transfers SOL to pay for the Sponsor Fee and other liabilities. Therefore, the amount of SOL represented by each Share will gradually decline over time. This is also true with respect to Shares that are issued in exchange for additional SOL over time, as the amount of SOL required to create Shares proportionally reflects the amount of SOL represented by the Shares outstanding at the time of such creation unit being created. Assuming a constant SOL price, the trading price of the Shares is expected to gradually decline relative to the price of SOL as the amount of SOL represented by the Shares gradually declines.

Shareholders should be aware that the gradual decline in the amount of SOL 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 SOL.

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, such as exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets. If the SEC were to approve many or all of the currently pending applications for such exchange-traded SOL products, many or all of such products, including the Trust, could fail to acquire substantial assets, initially or at all.

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. The Trust’s competitors may also charge a substantially lower fee than the Sponsor 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 and the Sponsor’s ability to generate meaningful revenues from 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 SOL. There can be no assurance that the Trust will grow to or maintain an economically viable size. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will maintain a commercial advantage relative to competitors offering similar products. Whether or not the Trust and the Sponsor are successful in achieving the intended scale for the Trust may be impacted by a range of factors, such as the Trust’s timing in entering the market and its fee structure relative to those of competitive products.

A loss of confidence or breach of the SOL Custodian may adversely affect the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares.

Custody and security services for the Trust’s SOL are provided by Coinbase Custody, although the Trust may retain one or more additional SOL custodians at a later date. SOL held by the Trust may be custodied or secured in different ways (for example, a portion of the Trust’s SOL holdings may be custodied by Coinbase Custody and another portion by another third-party custodian). Over time, the Trust may change the custody or security arrangement for all or a portion of its holdings. The Sponsor will decide the appropriate custody and arrangements based on, among other factors, the availability of experienced SOL custodians and the Trust’s ability to securely safeguard the SOL.

The Trust expects Coinbase Custody will custody most or all of its SOL holdings. A loss of confidence or breach of the SOL Custodian may adversely affect the Trust and the value of an investment in the Shares.

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

The Sponsor could decide to replace the SOL Custodian as the SOL Custodian of the Trust’s SOL or the Prime Broker as the provider of prime brokerages to the Trust. Transferring maintenance responsibilities of the Trust’s accounts with the SOL Custodian and the Prime Broker to another party will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s SOL 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 SOL Custodian under the same terms as the current Custodial Services Agreement, or as the Prime Broker under the same terms as the current Prime Broker Agreement. To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the SOL Custodian or Prime Broker, as applicable, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s SOL. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party but must enter into a modified custodial services agreement or prime broker agreement that costs more, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected.

Lack of recourse.

The SOL Custodian has limited liability, impairing the ability of the Trust to recover losses relating to its SOL and any recovery may be limited, even in the event of fraud. In addition, the SOL 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 the SOL Custodian may be limited.

Under the Custodial Services Agreement, the SOL Custodian’s liability is limited to the greater of (i) the market value of the Trust’s SOL held by the SOL Custodian at the time the events giving rise to the liability occurred and (ii) the fair market value of the Trust’s SOL held by the SOL Custodian at the time that the SOL Custodian notifies the Sponsor or Trustee in writing, or the Sponsor or the Trustee otherwise has actual knowledge of the events giving rise to the liability.

Under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee and the Sponsor will not be liable for any liability or expense incurred absent gross negligence 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 Benchmark Provider has limited liability relating to the use of the Pricing Benchmark, impairing the ability of the Trust to recover losses relating to its use of the Index. The Benchmark Provider does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or performance of the Pricing Benchmark or the data included therein and shall have no liability in connection with the Pricing Benchmark or benchmark calculation, errors, omissions or interruptions of the Pricing Benchmark or any data included therein. The Pricing Benchmark could be calculated now or in the future in a way that adversely affects an investment in the Trust.

The value of the Shares will be adversely affected if the Trust is required to indemnify the Sponsor, the Sub-Adviser, the Trustee, the Administrator, the Transfer Agent, the SOL Custodian or the Prime Broker.

Each of the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Administrator, the Transfer Agent, the SOL Custodian, and the Prime Broker 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, the Trustee, the Administrator, the Transfer Agent, the SOL Custodian or the Prime Broker 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 SOL 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 SOL. 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 SOL. 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 SOL and any threatened action that reduces confidence in long-term viability or the ability of end-users to hold and transfer SOL 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 SOL. As a result, an intellectual property rights claim against the Trust could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Unforeseeable risks.

SOL 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 SOL market, including advancements in the underlying technology or advancements in competing technologies, changes to SOL may expose investors in the Trust to additional risks which are impossible to predict.

Risks Associated with the Pricing Benchmark and Pricing Benchmark Pricing

The Pricing Benchmark has a limited history.

The Pricing Benchmark was developed by the Benchmark Provider and has a limited performance history. Although the Pricing Benchmark is based on materially the same methodology (except calculation time) as [●], which was first introduced on [●], the Pricing Benchmark itself has only been in operation since [●], and the Pricing Benchmark has only featured its current roster of Constituent Exchanges since [●]. A longer history of actual performance through various economic and market conditions would provide greater and more reliable information for an investor to assess the Benchmark’s performance. The Benchmark Provider has substantial discretion at any time to change the methodology used to calculate the Pricing Benchmark, including the spot markets that contribute prices to the Trust’s NAV. The Benchmark 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 Pricing Benchmark will appropriately track the price of SOL in the future. The Benchmark Provider has no obligation to take the needs of the Trust or the Shareholders into consideration in determining, composing, or calculating the Pricing Benchmark.

Pricing sources used by the Pricing Benchmark are digital asset spot markets that facilitate the buying and selling of SOL 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 SOL 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. These circumstances could affect the price of SOL used in Pricing Benchmark calculations and, therefore, could adversely affect the SOL price as reflected by the Pricing Benchmark.

The Pricing Benchmark is based on various inputs which include price data from various third-party SOL spot markets. The Pricing Benchmark 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 benchmark.

The Sponsor, in its sole discretion, may cause the Trust to track (or price its portfolio based upon) an index, benchmark or standard other than the Pricing Benchmark at any time, with prior notice to the Shareholders, if investment conditions change or the Sponsor believes that another index, benchmark or standard better aligns with the Trust’s investment objective and strategy. The Sponsor may make this decision for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to the following:

●

Third parties may be able to purchase and sell SOL on public or private markets not included among the Constituent Exchanges, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Pricing Benchmark price.

●

There may be variances in the prices of SOL on the various Constituent Exchanges, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Constituent Exchanges.

●

The prices on each Constituent Exchange or pricing source may not be equal to the value of an SOL as represented by the Pricing Benchmark.

●

To the extent the Pricing Benchmark price differs materially from the actual prices available on a Constituent Exchange, or the global market price of SOL, the price of the Shares may no longer track, whether temporarily or over time, the global market price of SOL, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust by reducing investors’ confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of SOL.

●

To the extent market prices differ materially from the Pricing Benchmark price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of SOL, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Sponsor, however, is under no obligation whatsoever to make such changes in any circumstance.

Risks related to pricing.

As set forth under “NAV Determinations” below, the Trust’s portfolio will be priced, including for purposes of determining the NAV, based upon the Pricing Benchmark. The price of SOL in U.S. Dollars or in other currencies available from other data sources may not be equal to the prices used to calculate the NAV.

The NAV or the Principal Market NAV of the Trust will change as fluctuations occur in the market price of the Trust’s SOL holdings as reflected in the Pricing Benchmark. Shareholders should be aware that the public trading price per Share may be different from the NAV and the Principal Market NAV for a number of reasons, including price volatility, trading activity, the closing of SOL 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 SOL.

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

In the event that the value of the Trust’s SOL holdings or SOL 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

The SEC has previously taken the view that SOL was offered and sold as a “security,” and a final determination that SOL or any other digital asset is offered and sold as a “security” may adversely affect the value of SOL and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.

Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered to be offered and sold as a “security” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is offered and sold as a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Public, though non-binding, statements by senior officials at the SEC have indicated that the SEC did not consider Bitcoin or Ether to be offered and sold as securities and does not currently consider Bitcoin to be offered and sold as a security. In addition, the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving the exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based ETPs, appears to have implicitly taken the view that Ether is not offered and sold as a security. The SEC staff has also provided informal assurances via no-action letter to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not offered and sold as securities. On the other hand, the SEC under former SEC Chair Gensler’s leadership brought enforcement actions against the issuers and promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities. More recently, the SEC under former SEC Chair Gensler’s leadership brought enforcement actions against digital asset trading platforms for allegedly operating unregistered securities exchanges on the basis that certain of the digital assets traded on their platforms were securities.

For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought complaints against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase (the “Coinbase Complaint”), alleging violations of a variety of securities laws. In its complaints, the SEC asserted that SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, ATOM, SAND, MANA, ALGO, AXS, COTI, CHZ, FLOW, ICP, NEAR, VGX, DASH and NEXO, were securities under the federal securities laws. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that Kraken operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency, and in its complaint the SEC again asserted that various digital assets were offered and sold as securities under the federal securities laws. In February 2025, a 60-day stay was granted in the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance in response to a joint request by both the SEC and Binance, which acknowledged that the SEC’s newly formed Crypto Task Force’s focus on developing a federal securities law framework for digital assets may resolve the case. Then in May 2025, the judge presiding over the Binance Complaint lawsuit granted the SEC and Binance’s joint motion for dismissal with prejudice. Dismissal of the Binance Complaint was preceded by the dismissal of both the Coinbase Complaint and Kraken Complaint in March of 2025. Several other digital asset market participants have also announced that the SEC informed them that the SEC was terminating its investigation or enforcement action into their firm. The final outcome of these and future lawsuits (to the extent not yet dismissed), their effect on the broader digital asset ecosystem and the reputational impact on industry participants, remain uncertain.

Whether a digital asset is offered and sold as a security under federal securities laws depends on whether it is included in the lists of instruments making up the definition of “security” in such laws. Digital assets as such do not appear in any of these lists, although each list includes the terms “investment contract” and “note,” and the SEC has typically analyzed whether a particular digital asset is offered and sold as a security by reference to whether it meets the tests developed by federal courts interpreting these terms, known as the Howey and Reves tests, respectively. For many digital assets, whether or not the Howey or Reves tests are met is difficult to resolve definitively, and substantial legal arguments can often be made both in favor of and against a particular digital asset qualifying as being offered and sold as a security or a particular offer and sale of a digital asset qualifying as a securities transaction under one or both of the Howey and Reves tests. Adding to the complexity, the SEC staff has indicated that the security status of a particular digital asset can change over time as the relevant facts evolve, though recent arguments advanced in ongoing litigation may suggest that the SEC no longer believes the status of a digital asset can change over time.

As part of determining whether SOL is offered and sold as a security or a transaction in SOL by the Sponsor is a securities transaction, for purposes of the federal securities laws, the Sponsor takes into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under the federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases and their progeny, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC, its commissioners and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security or when an offer and sale of a digital asset may be a securities transaction for purposes of the federal securities laws. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that SOL is not offered and sold as a security in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests.

In light of the uncertainties and the fact-based nature of the analysis, the Sponsor acknowledges that the SEC, at least under former Chair Gensler’s leadership, had taken the position that SOL is offered and sold as a security and the Sponsor’s conclusion, even if reasonable under the circumstances, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on the presence of an offer and sale of a security.

As is the case with SOL, analyses from counsel typically review the often-complex facts surrounding a particular digital asset’s underlying technology, creation, use case and usage development, distribution and secondary-market trading characteristics as well as contributions of and marketing or promotional efforts by the individuals or organizations who appear to be involved in these activities, among other relevant facts, usually drawing on publicly available information. This information, usually found on the internet, often includes both information that originated with or is attributed to such individuals or organizations, as well as information from third-party sources and databases that may or may not have a connection to such individuals or organizations, and the availability and nature of such information can change over time. The Sponsor and counsel often have no independent means of verifying the accuracy or completeness of such information, and therefore of necessity usually must assume that such information is materially accurate and complete for purposes of the Howey and Reves analyses. After having gathered this information, counsel typically analyzes it in light of the Howey and Reves tests, in order to inform a judgment as to whether or not a federal court would conclude that the digital asset, or transactions in the digital asset, in question is or is not offered and sold as a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, for purposes of the federal securities laws. Often, certain factors appear to support a conclusion that the digital asset in question, or transactions in the digital asset, is a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, while other factors appear to support the opposite conclusion, and in such a case counsel endeavors to weigh the importance and relevance of the competing factors.

This analytical process is further complicated by the fact that, at present, federal judicial case law applying the relevant tests to digital assets is limited and in some situations inconsistent, with no federal appellate court having considered the question on the merits, as well as the fact that because each digital asset presents its own unique set of relevant facts, it is not always possible to directly analogize the analysis of one digital asset to another. Because of this factual complexity and the current lack of a well-developed body of federal case law applying the relevant tests to a variety of different fact patterns, the Sponsor has not in the past received, and currently does not expect that it would be able to receive, “opinions” of counsel stating that a particular digital asset, or transactions in the digital asset, is or is not offered and sold as a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, for federal securities law purposes. The Sponsor understands that as a matter of practice, counsel is generally able to render a legal “opinion” only when the relevant facts are substantially ascertainable and the applicable law is both well-developed and settled. As a result, given the relative novelty of digital assets, the challenges inherent in fact-gathering for particular digital assets, and the fact that federal courts have only recently been tasked with adjudicating the applicability of federal securities law to digital assets, the Sponsor understands that at present counsel is generally not in a position to render a legal “opinion” on the securities law status of SOL or any other particular digital asset.

As such, notwithstanding the Sponsor’s receipt of a memorandum regarding the status of SOL under the federal securities laws from external counsel and the Sponsor’s view that SOL is not offered and sold as a security, and the Sponsor’s transactions in SOL are not securities transactions, the SEC under former SEC Chair Gensler’s leadership took, and a federal court may in the future take, a different view as to the security status of SOL.

If the Sponsor determines that SOL or transactions in SOL are offered and sold as a security or securities transactions, respectively, under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because a federal court upholds an allegation that SOL is offered and sold as a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding SOL in a way that would violate the federal securities laws (and therefore would either dissolve the Trust or potentially seek to operate the Trust in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act). Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset is offered and sold as securities often leaves room for interpretation, for so long as the Sponsor believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that the Trust’s SOL is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that SOL could at some future point be finally determined to be offered and sold as a security.

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that SOL or transactions in SOL are offered and sold as a security, or securities transactions, respectively, or a court decision to that effect, would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of SOL, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset or transactions in that digital asset are determined to be offered and sold as a security or it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants’ ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars. Any assertion that a digital asset or transactions in that digital asset are offered and sold as a security or securities transactions, respectively, by the SEC or another regulatory authority may have similar effects.

For example, in 2020, the SEC filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through the offer and sale of XRP that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. In the years prior to the SEC’s action, XRP’s market capitalization at times reached over $140 billion. However, in the weeks following the SEC’s complaint, XRP’s market capitalization fell to less than $10 billion, which was less than half of its market capitalization in the days prior to the complaint.

Subsequently, in July 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that while XRP is not a “security”, certain sales of XRP to certain buyers (but not other types of sales to other buyers) amounted to “investment contracts” under the Howey test. The District Court entered a final judgment in the case on August 7, 2024. On January 15, 2025, the SEC filed an appeal against the judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judicial approval of the settlement remains pending. On May 8, 2025, the SEC and Ripple Labs, Inc. (the initial issuer of XRP) jointly filed a settlement agreement with the district court outlining that Ripple Labs, Inc. was to pay a $50 million judgement in return for not admitting any wrongdoing on its part and in exchange for the dissolution of the injunction barring Ripple Labs, Inc. from engaging in certain activities.

Likewise, in the days following the announcement of SEC enforcement actions against certain digital asset issuers and trading platforms, the prices of various digital assets declined significantly and may continue to decline if or as such cases advance through the federal court system. Furthermore, the decisions in cases involving digital assets have resulted in seemingly inconsistent views of different district court judges, including one that explicitly disagreed with the analysis underlying the decision regarding XRP, which underscore the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets or transactions in digital assets are securities and what the correct analysis is to determine each digital asset’s status. Notwithstanding the settlement of the SEC’s XRP-related lawsuit, the conflicting district court opinions and analyses demonstrate that factors such as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is, the manner in which it is offered, sold or promoted and whether it has actual use in commercial transactions, ultimately may have limited to no bearing on whether the SEC, a state securities regulator or any particular court will find it to be offered and sold as a security.

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

Moreover, whether or not the Sponsor or the Trust were subject to additional regulatory requirements as a result of any determination that the Trust’s assets include securities or the Trust’s transactions in digital assets constitute securities transactions, the Sponsor may nevertheless decide to terminate the Trust, in order, if possible, to liquidate the Trust’s assets while a liquid market still exists. If the SEC or a federal court were to determine that SOL is offered and sold as a security or transactions in SOL are securities transactions, it is likely that the value of the Shares of the Trust would decline significantly. Furthermore, if a federal court upholds an allegation that SOL is offered and sold as a security or transactions in SOL are securities transactions, the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.

There is a lack of consensus regarding the regulation of digital assets, including SOL.

Regulation of digital assets continues to evolve across different jurisdictions worldwide, which may cause uncertainty and insecurity as to the legal and tax status of a given digital asset. As SOL 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 (including FinCEN, SEC, OCC, CFTC, FINRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS, state financial institution regulators, and others) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset spot market. Many of these state and federal agencies have brought enforcement actions and issued advisories and rules relating to digital asset markets. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or any single digital asset in particular 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.

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

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

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) requires any administrator or exchanger of convertible digital assets to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters. In 2015, FinCEN assessed a $700,000 fine against a sponsor of a digital asset for violating several requirements of the BSA by acting as a money services business and selling the digital asset without registering with FinCEN, and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program. In a March 2018 letter from FinCEN’s assistant secretary for legislative affairs to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, the assistant secretary indicated that under current law both the developers and the exchanges involved in the sale of tokens in an initial coin offering (“ICO”) may be required to register with FinCEN as money transmitters and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations applicable to money transmitters.

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

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

In February 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.”

In March 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 digital currency to evade economic sanctions.

In March 2022, former President Biden signed an Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets (the “Executive Order”), which 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 very broad, and, at this time, it is unclear what impact it may have on the regulation of SOL 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. On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” that outlined the administration’s commitment to strengthening U.S. leadership in the digital asset space and established an inter-agency working group for artificial intelligence and digital assets that is tasked with proposing a regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets, including stablecoins, in the United States.

In March 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. Treasury Department (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.”

In April 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 depository 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 Exchange Act, and the 1940 Act.

In June 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 bitcoin and SOL, 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 BSA will apply to digital asset providers. The Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21^st Century Act (“FIT21”) advanced through the United States House of Representatives in a vote along bipartisan lines.

FIT21 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 FIT21. 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 BSA 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 “Advisers Act”), the 1940 Act, the 1933 Act, the Exchange Act and the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 to specify that payment stablecoins are not securities for purposes of those federal securities laws. On February 4, 2025, Sen. Bill Hagerty introduced the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins of 2025 Act – the GENIUS Act – cosponsored by Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott and Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Cynthia Lummis, which would establish a U.S. regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. Like the McHenry Bill, the GENIUS Act contemplates a regulatory framework where payment stablecoin issuers may be either a subsidiary of an insured bank, an uninsured depository institution or trust bank, or a nonbank, and primarily regulated at either the federal or state level. It would also prescribe stablecoin reserve requirements and require bank-like regulation for both bank and nonbank stablecoin issuers.

Several other bills have advanced through Congress to curb digital assets 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 digital currency. 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 digital-asset 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 digital currency 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.

Under regulations from the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), businesses involved in digital asset business activity for third parties in or involving New York, excluding merchants and consumers, must apply for a license, commonly known as a BitLicense, from the NYDFS and must comply with anti-money laundering, cyber security, consumer protection, and financial and reporting requirements, among others. As an alternative to a BitLicense, a firm can apply for a charter to become a limited purpose trust company under New York law qualified to engage in 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 inconsistency in applying money transmitting licensure requirements to certain businesses may make it more difficult for these businesses to provide services, which may affect consumer adoption of SOL and its price. In an attempt to address these issues, the Uniform Law Commission passed a model law in July 2017, the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act, which has many similarities to the BitLicense and features a multistate reciprocity licensure feature, wherein a business licensed in one state could apply for accelerated licensure procedures in other states. It is still unclear, however, how many states, if any, will adopt some or all of the model legislation.

The transparency of blockchains has in the past facilitated investigations by law enforcement agencies. However, certain privacy-enhancing features have been or are expected to be introduced to a number of digital asset networks, and these features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction histories. Although no regulatory action has been taken to treat privacy-enhancing digital assets differently, this may change in the future.

In addition, a determination that SOL is offered and sold as a security under U.S. or foreign law could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

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 laws and 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 SOL and related products and services continues to evolve, may take many different forms and will, therefore, impact SOL and its usage in a variety of manners. The inconsistent, unpredictable, and sometimes conflicting regulatory landscape may make it more difficult for SOL businesses to provide services, which may impede the growth of the SOL economy and have an adverse effect on consumer adoption of SOL. 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 SOL’s status as a not being offered and sold as a security, changes to regulations surrounding SOL digital asset futures or derivatives or other related products, or actions by a United States or foreign government or quasi-governmental agencies exerting regulatory authority over SOL, the Solana network, SOL trading, or related activities impacting other parts of the digital asset market, may adversely impact SOL and therefore may have an adverse effect on the value of your investment in the Trust.

A number of jurisdictions worldwide have adopted prohibitions or restrictions on SOL trading and other activity relating to virtual currency and digital assets which could negatively affect SOL prices or demand. For instance, some observers believe that Chinese governmental regulatory actions regarding digital asset mining and trading activity were one factor that contributed to the drawdowns in global SOL prices in May 2021.

The legal status of SOL and other digital assets varies substantially from country to country. In many countries, the legal status of SOL is still undefined or changing. Some countries have deemed the usage of certain digital assets illegal. Other countries have banned digital assets or securities or derivatives in respect to them (including for certain categories of investors), banned the local banks from working with digital assets or have restricted digital assets in other ways. For example, SOL and other digital assets currently face an uncertain regulatory landscape in many foreign jurisdictions, such as the European Union, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, Russia, Israel, Poland, India and Canada. In some countries, such as the United States, different government agencies define digital assets differently, leading to further regulatory conflict and uncertainty.

In addition, 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 SOL. The effect of any existing regulation or future regulatory change on the Trust or SOL 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 SOL, particularly with respect to SOL spot markets, trading venues and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. Countries may, in the future, explicitly restrict, outlaw or curtail the acquisition, use, trade or redemption of SOL. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of SOL by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the SOL economy in these jurisdictions as well as in the United States and elsewhere, or otherwise negatively affect the value of SOL, and, in turn, the value of the Shares.

Any change in regulation in any particular jurisdiction may impact the supply and demand of that specific jurisdiction and other jurisdictions due to the global network of exchanges for SOL, as well as composite prices used to calculate the underlying value of the Trust’s SOL, as such data sources span multiple jurisdictions.

Future legal or regulatory developments may negatively affect the value of SOL or require the Trust or the Sponsor to become registered with the SEC or CFTC, which may cause the Trust to incur unforeseen expenses or liquidate.

Current and future legislation, SEC and CFTC rulemaking, and other regulatory developments may impact the manner in which SOL are treated for classification and clearing purposes. In particular, although SOL is currently understood to be a commodity when transacted on a spot basis, SOL itself in the future might be classified by the CFTC as a “commodity interest” under the CEA, subjecting all transactions in SOL to full CFTC regulatory jurisdiction. Alternatively, in the future SOL might be classified by the SEC or one or more federal courts as a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws — indeed, at least one federal court has already ruled that the SEC has plausibly alleged that SOL was offered and sold to investors without registration in transactions that amounted to “investment contracts” (and therefore securities), in violation of the Securities Act (notably, the finality of this determination remains pending in light of a settlement reached by the SEC). In the face of such developments, the required registrations and compliance steps may result in extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust. In particular, the Trust may be required to rapidly unwind its entire position in SOL at potentially unfavorable prices and potentially terminate, in the event that transactions of SOL were determined to fall under the definition being offered and sold as securities under U.S. securities laws. If the Sponsor decides to terminate the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances, the Trust may be dissolved or liquidated at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders.

To the extent that SOL is determined to be offered and sold as a security, the Trust and the Sponsor may also be subject to additional regulatory requirements, including under the 1940 Act, and the Sponsor may be required to register as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. If the Sponsor determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s SOL at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders. 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.

To the extent that SOL is deemed to fall within the definition of a “commodity interest” under the CEA, the Trust and the Sponsor may be subject to additional regulation under the CEA and CFTC regulations. The Sponsor may be required to register as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor with the CFTC and become a member of the National Futures Association and may be subject to additional regulatory requirements with respect to the Trust, including disclosure and reporting requirements. These additional requirements may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or nonrecurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor and/or the Trust determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor may terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s SOL at a time that is disadvantageous to Shareholders.

In a number of complaints in federal courts against digital asset exchanges, the SEC has specifically and repeatedly sought to assert regulatory authority over SOL and has expressed the view that offers and sales of SOL should be classified and treated as offers and sales of securities for purposes of U.S. federal securities laws. These claims have been found to be plausible by at least one federal court, the District Court of the Southern District of New York. The SEC has also commented on SOL and Solana-related market developments and has taken action against investment schemes involving Solana. For example, in a recent letter regarding the SEC’s review of proposed rule changes to list and trade shares of certain SOL-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. The SEC also determined that certain digital assets are securities under the U.S. securities laws. In these determinations, the SEC reasoned that the unregistered offer and sale of digital assets can, in certain circumstances, including ICOs, be considered illegal public offering of securities. A significant amount of funding for digital asset startups has come from ICOs, and if ICOs are halted or face obstacles, or companies that rely on them face legal action or investigation, it could have a negative impact on the value of digital assets, including SOL. Finally, the SEC’s Division of Examinations (then the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”)) has stated that digital assets and SEC-registrants transacting in digital assets were an examination priority for 2024. In particular, OCIE intended to focus its examination on the offer, sale, recommendation of, advice regarding, trading in, and other activities in digital assets or related products by SEC-registrants.

The SEC has recently proposed rule changes amending and redesignating rule 206(4)-2 under the Advisers Act (the “Custody Rule”). The proposed “Safeguarding Rule” would amend the definition of a “qualified custodian” under the Custody Rule and expand the scope of the Custody Rule to cover all digital assets, including SOL, and related advisory activities. If enacted as proposed, these rule changes would likely impose additional regulatory requirements with respect to the custody and storage of digital assets, including SOL. The Sponsor is studying the impact that such amendments may have on the Trust and its arrangements with the SOL Custodian. It is possible that such amendments, if adopted, could prevent the SOL Custodian from serving as service providers to the Trust, or require potentially significant modifications to existing arrangements, which could cause the Trust to bear potentially significant increased costs. If the Sponsor is unable to make such modifications or appoint successor service providers to fill the roles that the SOL Custodian currently plays, the Trust’s operations (including in relation to creations and redemptions of Baskets and the holding of SOL) could be negatively affected, the Trust could dissolve (including at a time that is potentially disadvantageous to Shareholders), and the value of the Shares or an investment in the Trust could be affected. Further, the proposed amendments could have a severe negative impact on the price of SOL and therefore the value of the Shares if enacted, by, among other things, making it more difficult for investors to gain access to SOL, or causing certain holders of SOL to sell their holdings.

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 service 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 BSA, such Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate the Authorized Participant to implement anti-money laundering programs, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain 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, including gains and losses realized in connection with the use or sale of SOL to pay Trust expenses. 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. If a Shareholder 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 SOL and transactions involving SOL for United States federal income tax purposes may change.

Under current IRS guidance, SOL is treated as property, not as currency, for U.S. federal income tax purposes and transactions involving payment in SOL 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 SOL is exchanged and the taxpayer’s basis in the SOL. However, because SOL 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 SOL or in transactions relating to investments in SOL may change from that described in this prospectus, possibly with retroactive effect. Any such change in the U.S. federal income tax treatment of SOL may have a negative effect on prices of SOL 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 SOL. In addition, the IRS and U.S. Department of the Treasury have promulgated final Treasury regulations regarding the tax information reporting rules for digital currency transactions. While the Treasury and the IRS have started to issue such additional guidance, whether any future guidance will adversely affect the U.S. federal income tax treatment of an investment in SOL or in transactions relating to investments in SOL 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.

Investors should consult their personal tax advisors before making any decision to purchase the Shares of the Trust. Additionally, the tax considerations contained herein are in summary form and may not be used as the sole basis for the decision to invest in the Shares from a tax perspective, since the individual situation of each investor must also be taken into account. Accordingly, the considerations regarding taxation contained herein do not constitute any sort of material information or tax advice nor are they in any way to be construed as a representation or warranty with respect to specific tax consequences.

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

Because SOL is a new technological innovation, the tax treatment of SOL 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 SOL for state and local tax purposes may be issued in the future. A state or local government authority’s treatment of SOL may have negative consequences, including the imposition of a greater tax burden on investors in SOL or the imposition of a greater cost on the acquisition and disposition of SOL generally. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the tax treatment by tax authorities and courts could be interpreted differently or could be subject to changes in the future. Any such treatment may have a negative effect on prices of SOL and may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The taxation of SOL and associated companies can vary significantly by jurisdiction and is subject to risk of significant revision. Such revision, or the application of new tax schemes or taxation in additional jurisdictions, may adversely impact the Trust’s performance. Before making a decision to invest in the Trust, investors should consult their local tax advisor on taxation.

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

The Trust intends to disclaim any digital assets created by a fork of the Solana blockchain. Although in certain circumstances the Sponsor may claim or receive new digital assets created by such a fork and use good faith efforts to make those digital assets (or at the Sponsor’s discretion, the proceeds thereof) available to Shareholders as of the record date of the fork, there can be no assurance that the Sponsor will do so. Therefore, if a fork of the Solana network results in holders of SOL receiving a new digital asset of value, the Trust and the Shareholders may not participate in that value.

If a hard fork occurs in the Solana blockchain and the Trust claims the new forked asset, the Trust could hold both the original SOL and the new “forked” asset. Under current IRS guidance, a hard fork resulting in the receipt of new units of digital assets is a taxable event giving rise to ordinary income equal to the value of the new digital asset. The Trust Agreement will require that, if such a transaction occurs, the Trust will as soon as possible direct the SOL Custodian to distribute the new forked asset in-kind to the Sponsor, as agent for the Shareholders, and the Sponsor will arrange to sell the new forked asset and for the proceeds to be 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 asset at the time it was received by the Trust. A hard fork may therefore give rise to additional tax liabilities for Shareholders.

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 expected to be listed for trading on the Exchange under the market symbol “[●]”. 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.

SOL is extremely volatile, and concerns exist about the stability, reliability and robustness of many spot markets where SOL trade. In a highly volatile market, or if one or more spot markets supporting the SOL 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.

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 or the Principal Market NAV per Share.

The Sponsor relies heavily on key personnel. The departure of any such key personnel could negatively impact the Trust’s operations and adversely impact an investment in the Trust.

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.

In addition, certain personnel performing services on behalf of the Sponsor will be shared with the respective affiliates of the Sponsor, including with respect to execution, Trust operations and legal, regulatory and tax oversight. Such individuals will devote a small percentage of their time to those activities.

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 (such as, for example, where the current and anticipated total assets of the Trust relative to the current and anticipated total expenses of the Trust would make continued operation of the Trust impracticable), 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.

The exclusive jurisdiction for certain types of actions and proceedings and waiver of trial by jury clauses set forth in the Trust Agreement may have the effect of limiting a Shareholder’s rights to bring legal action against the Trust and could limit a purchaser’s ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with the Trust.

The Trust Agreement provides that the courts of the state of Delaware and any federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware will be the exclusive jurisdiction for any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, provided that causes of actions for violations of the Exchange Act or the 1933 Act will not be governed by the exclusive jurisdiction provision of the Trust Agreement. By purchasing Shares in the Trust, Shareholders waive certain claims that the courts of the state of Delaware and any federal courts located in Wilmington, Delaware is an inconvenient venue or is otherwise inappropriate. As such, Shareholders could be required to litigate a matter relating to the Trust in a Delaware court, even if that court may otherwise be inconvenient for the Shareholder.

The Trust Agreement also waives the right to trial by jury in any such claim, suit, action or proceeding, provided that causes of actions for violations of the Exchange Act or the 1933 Act will not be governed by the waiver of the right to trial by jury provision of the Trust Agreement. If a lawsuit is brought against the Trust, it may be heard only by a judge or justice of the applicable trial court, which would be conducted according to different civil procedures and may result in different outcomes than a trial by jury would have, including results that could be less favorable to the plaintiffs in any such action. By purchasing Shares in the Trust, Shareholders waive a right to a trial by jury which may limit a Shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with the Trust.

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 Exchange Act.

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 (for example, as a result of a significant technical failure, power outage, or network error), or (2) such other period as the Sponsor determines to be necessary for the protection of the Shareholders of the Trust (for example, where acceptance of the total deposit required to create each Basket (“Creation Basket Deposit”) would have certain adverse tax consequences to the Trust or its Shareholders). 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 or the Principal Market NAV calculation of the Trust due to the valuation methodology employed on the date of the NAV or the Principal Market NAV calculation.

The value established by using the Pricing Benchmark may be different from what would be produced through the use of another methodology. SOL valued using techniques other than those employed by the Pricing Benchmark, including SOL investments that are “fair valued,” may differ from the value established by the Pricing Benchmark.

SOL, SOL MARKETS AND REGULATION OF SOL

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

Solana and Solana Network

SOL is a digital asset, also referred to as a digital currency, which serves as the unit of account on the open-source, peer-to-peer Solana network (“Solana” or “Solana network”). SOL may be used to pay for goods and services, stored for future use, or converted to a fiat currency. The value of SOL is not backed by any government, corporation, or other identified body.

The value of SOL is determined in part by the supply of and demand for SOL in the markets for exchange that have been organized to facilitate the trading of SOL. SOL is the fifth largest digital asset by market capitalization. As of June 12, 2025, SOL had a total market capitalization of approximately $76 billion, representing the sixth largest digital asset by market capitalization. No single entity owns or operates the Solana network. The Solana network is accessed through software and governs SOL’s creation and movement. The source code for the Solana network is open-source, and anyone can contribute to its development. The Solana network is governed by a set of rules that are commonly referred to as the “Solana protocol”.

The Solana software source code allows for the creation of decentralized applications (“DApps”) that are supported by a transaction protocol referred to as “smart contracts,” which includes the cryptographic operations that verify and secure SOL transactions. A smart contract operates by a predefined set of rules (i.e., “if/then statements”) that allows it to automatically execute code the same way on any Solana node on the network. Such actions taken by the pre-defined set of rules are not necessarily contractual in nature, but are intended to eliminate the involvement of a third party for carrying out code execution on behalf of users, making the system more decentralized, while empowering developers to create a wide range of applications layering together different smart contracts. Smart contracts can be utilized across several different applications ranging from art to finance. Currently, one of the most popular applications is the use of smart contracts for underpinning the operability of decentralized financial services (“DeFi”), which consist of numerous highly interoperable protocols and applications. DeFi offers many opportunities for innovation and has the potential to create an open, transparent, and immutable financial infrastructure, with democratized access.

The Solana network employs a two-tier fee system, combining a small, fixed base fee and an optional priority fee. Solana’s base fee for every transaction is currently set at 0.000005 SOL. Users can choose to pay an optional priority fee to speed-up their transaction processing during periods of high network traffic. Unlike some other blockchains, Solana does not collect transaction fees in a central vault. Rather, Solana pools transaction fees in the recipient’s account. Half of all transaction fees are burned to combat inflation. The other half of all transaction fees goes directly to the leader validator who proposed the specific block.

The Solana network introduced the proof-of-history (“PoH”) timestamping mechanism. PoH automatically orders on-chain transactions by creating a historical record that proves an event has occurred at a specific moment in time. PoH operates by affixing a timestamp to every action occurring within the blockchain. The timestamps are linked together, establishing consensus on the precise sequence of events. The proof-of-history consensus mechanism may subject Solana and SOL to new and unexpected vulnerabilities not applicable to proof-of-work and proof-of-stake consensus models.

Overview of the Solana Network’s Operations

In order to own, transfer or use SOL directly on the Solana 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 Solana network. SOL transactions may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary. To prevent the possibility of double-spending SOL, a user must notify the Solana network of the transaction by broadcasting the transaction data to its network peers. The Solana network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every peer-to-peer transaction in the Solana blockchain, which is publicly accessible and transparent. This memorialization and verification against double-spending of peer-to-peer transactions is accomplished through the Solana network validation process, which adds “blocks” of data, including recent transaction information, to the Solana blockchain.

Smart Contracts and Development on the Solana 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 Solana network involves building more complex tools on top of smart contracts, such as 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. Moreover, the Solana network has also been used as a platform for creating new digital assets and conducting their associated initial coin offerings.

More recently, the Solana 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 stablecoins, which are digital assets pegged to a reserve asset such as fiat currency. Over the course of 2022, between $20 billion and $98 billion worth of digital assets were locked up as collateral on DeFi platforms on the Solana network.

In addition, the Solana network and other smart contract platforms have been used for creating 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 Solana 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.

Summary of a SOL Transaction

Prior to engaging in SOL transactions directly on the Solana Network, a user generally must first install on its computer or mobile device a Solana Network software program that will allow the user to generate a private and public key pair associated with a SOL address. The Solana Network software program and the SOL address also enable the user to connect to the Solana Network and transfer SOL to, and receive SOL from, other users.

Each Solana Network address, or wallet, is associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair. To receive SOL, the SOL recipient must provide its public key to the party initiating the transfer. 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 payor 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 where the payor is transferring the SOL. The recipient, however, does not make public or provide to the sender its related private key.

Neither the recipient nor the sender reveal their private keys in a transaction, because the private key authorizes transfer of the funds in that address to other users. Therefore, if a user loses his private key, the user may permanently lose access to the SOL contained in the associated address. Likewise, SOL is irretrievably lost if the private key associated with them is deleted and no backup has been made. When sending SOL, a user’s Solana Network software program must validate the transaction with the associated private key. In addition, since every computation on the Solana Network requires processing power, there is a transaction fee involved with the transfer that is paid by the payor The resulting digitally validated transaction is sent by the user’s Solana Network software program to the Solana Network validators to allow transaction confirmation.

Solana Network validators record and confirm transactions when they validate and add blocks of information to the Solana Blockchain. When a validator validates a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) newly submitted and accepted transactions and (ii) a reference to the prior block in the Solana Blockchain to which the new block is being added. The validator becomes aware of outstanding, unrecorded transactions through the data packet transmission and distribution discussed above.

Upon the addition of a block of SOL transactions, the Solana Network software program of both the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction on the Solana Blockchain and reflect an adjustment to the SOL balance in each party’s Solana Network public key, completing the SOL transaction. Once a transaction is confirmed on the Solana Blockchain, it is irreversible. Some SOL transactions are conducted “off-blockchain” and are therefore not recorded in the Solana Blockchain.

Some “off-blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of control over, or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding SOL or the reallocation of ownership of certain SOL in a pooled-ownership digital wallet, such as a digital wallet owned by a digital asset exchange. In contrast to on-blockchain transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Solana Blockchain, information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. Therefore, off-blockchain transactions are not truly SOL transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Solana Network and do not reflect a movement of SOL between addresses recorded in the Solana Blockchain. For these reasons, off-blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of SOL ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Solana Network or recorded in, and validated through, the blockchain mechanism.

SOL Markets and Exchanges

SOL can be transferred in direct peer-to-peer transactions through the direct sending of SOL over the Solana blockchain from one SOL address to another. Among end-users, SOL can be used to pay other members of the Solana network for goods and services under what resembles a barter system. Consumers can also pay merchants and other commercial businesses for goods or services through direct peer-to-peer transactions on the Solana blockchain or through third-party service providers.

In addition to using SOL to engage in transactions, investors may purchase and sell SOL to speculate as to the value of SOL in the SOL market, or as a long-term investment to diversify their portfolio. The value of SOL within the market is determined, in part, by the supply of and demand for SOL in the global SOL market, market expectations for the adoption of SOL as a store of value, the number of merchants that accept SOL as a form of payment, and the volume of peer-to-peer transactions, among other factors.

SOL spot markets typically permit investors to open accounts with the market and then purchase and sell SOL via websites or through mobile applications. Prices for trades on SOL spot markets are typically reported publicly. An investor opening a trading account must deposit an accepted government-issued currency into their 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 a SOL market and trading SOL is different from, and should not be confused with, the process of users sending SOL from one SOL address to another SOL address on the Solana blockchain. This latter process is an activity that occurs on the Solana 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 SOL in its internal books and records, rather than on the Solana blockchain. The spot market ordinarily does not transfer SOL to the investor on the Solana blockchain unless the investor makes a request to the exchange to withdraw the SOL in their exchange account to an off-exchange SOL wallet.

Outside of the spot markets, SOL 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 SOL, investment managers, proprietary trading firms, high-net-worth individuals that trade SOL on a proprietary basis, entities with sizeable SOL 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 SOL. 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 phone or email—and then one of the two parties will then initiate the transaction. For example, a seller of SOL could initiate the transaction by sending the SOL to the buyer’s SOL address. The buyer would then wire U.S. dollars to the seller’s bank account. OTC trades are sometimes hedged and eventually settled with concomitant trades on SOL spot markets.

As of the date of this prospectus, SOL futures and options trading does not occur on exchanges in the U.S. regulated by the CFTC.

As discussed in more detail below, barring the liquidation of the Trust or extraordinary circumstances, the Trust will not directly purchase or sell SOL, although the Trustee may direct the SOL Custodian to sell SOL to pay certain expenses. Instead, Authorized Participants will deliver SOL to the Trust’s account with the SOL Custodian in exchange for Shares of the Trust, and the Trust, through the SOL Custodian, will deliver SOL to Authorized Participants when those Authorized Participants redeem Shares.

Regulation of Solana and Government Oversight

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 FinCEN, SEC, CFTC, 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 regulators) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the digital asset spot 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 spot markets or other service-providers that hold digital assets for users. Many of these state and federal agencies have issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors.

Recent events, including among others the bankruptcy filings of FTX and its subsidiaries, Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, Genesis, BlockFi and others, and other developments in the digital asset markets, have resulted in calls for heightened scrutiny and regulation of the digital asset industry, with a specific focus on intermediaries such as digital asset exchanges, platforms, and custodians.

In addition, federal and state agencies, and other countries have issued rules or guidance about the treatment of digital asset transactions or requirements for businesses engaged in digital asset activity. In several complaints against operators of digital asset exchanges, the SEC has alleged that SOL was offered and sold without a registration as an investment contract (and therefore a security) in violation of the Federal securities laws. At least one federal court, in ruling on a motion to dismiss the SEC’s complaint against a digital asset exchange, has ruled that the SEC has adequately pleaded that investors have engaged in transactions involving SOL that amounted to “investment contracts” under the Securities Act.

The CFTC may have regulatory jurisdiction over SOL derivatives markets, if these were to develop in the U.S. In addition, if the CFTC determines that SOL is a “commodity” under the CEA and the rules thereunder, it may have jurisdiction to prosecute fraud and manipulation in the cash, or spot, market for SOL. The CFTC may pursue enforcement actions relating to fraud and manipulation involving SOL and SOL markets. Beyond instances of fraud or manipulation, the CFTC generally would not oversee cash or spot market exchanges or transactions involving SOL that do not use collateral, leverage, or financing.

Various foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to, in the near future, adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the Solana network, the SOL markets, and their users, particularly SOL spot markets and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. Foreign jurisdictions including Canada, Brazil and Switzerland have also approved exchange-traded SOL products.

The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or SOL is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.

THE TRUST AND SOL PRICES

Overview of the Trust

The Trust is an exchange-traded fund that issues Shares that trade on the Exchange. The Trust’s investment objective is to track the performance of SOL, as measured by the performance of the Pricing Benchmark, adjusted for the Trust’s expenses and liabilities. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Trust will hold SOL and will value its Shares daily based on the SOL prices reported by the Pricing Benchmark. The Trust is sponsored by 21Shares US LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of 21co Holdings Limited (formerly known as Amun Holdings Limited).

The Sponsor believes that the Trust will provide a cost-efficient way for Shareholders to implement strategic and tactical asset allocation strategies that use SOL by investing in the Trust’s Shares rather than purchasing, holding and trading SOL directly. The latter alternative would require selecting a SOL spot market and opening an account or arranging a private transaction, establishing a personal computer system capable of transacting directly on the blockchain, and incurring the risk associated with maintaining and protecting a private key that is irrecoverable if lost, among other difficulties.

Use of the CME CF Solana-Dollar Reference Rate – New York Variant.

The net assets of the Trust and its Shares are valued on a daily basis with reference to CME CF Solana-Dollar Reference Rate – New York Variant, the Pricing Benchmark, a standardized reference rate published by CF Benchmarks Ltd., the Benchmark Provider, that is designed to reflect the performance of SOL in U.S. dollars. The Pricing Benchmark is calculated daily and aggregates the notional value of SOL trading activity across major SOL spot exchanges. The Benchmark Provider is the administrator of the Pricing Benchmark. The Trust also uses the Pricing Benchmark to calculate its NAV, which is the aggregate U.S. Dollar value of SOL in the Trust, based on the Pricing Benchmark, less its liabilities and expenses. “NAV per Share” is calculated by dividing NAV by the number of Shares currently outstanding. NAV and NAV per Share are not measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. NAV is not intended to be a substitute for the Trust’s Principal Market NAV calculated in accordance with GAAP, and NAV per Share is not intended to be a substitute for the Trust’s Principal Market NAV per Share calculated in accordance with GAAP.

The Pricing Benchmark was created to facilitate financial products based on SOL and provides a USD-denominated reference rate for the spot price of SOL. The Pricing Benchmark leverages real-time prices from multiple constituent exchanges (the “Constituent Exchanges”) to provide a representative spot price. Each constituent exchange is weighted proportionally to its trailing 24-hour liquidity with adjustments for price variance and inactivity.

As of [●], 2025, the Constituent Exchanges included in the Pricing Benchmark that is utilized by the Trust are Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken and LMAX Digital. As of [●], 2025, [●] makes up [●]% of the volume of the Pricing Benchmark, with [●] holding [●]%, [●] holding [●]% and [●] holding the remaining [●]%.

Coinbase provides a platform for people to engage with digital assets through trading, staking, and other activities. As of December 31, 2024, Coinbase had an annual trading volume of $1,162,000,000,000. Kraken also provides a platform for people to engage with digital assets with accessible trading and investment options. As of December 31, 2024, Kraken had an annual trading volume of $665,000,000,000. Gemini is a cryptocurrency exchange platform that facilitates the trading, buying, selling, and storing of digital assets. As of December 31, 2024, Gemini had an annual trading volume of [●]. LMAX Digital also provides a platform for people to engage with digital assets with accessible trading and investment options. As of December 31, 2025, LMAX Digital had an annualized trading volume of [●].

Gemini’s headquarters are located in New York, New York, and Gemini 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. Coinbase operates as a remote-first company and has no physical headquarters, and 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. Kraken’s headquarters are located in San Francisco, California, and 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 GFSC as a DLT provider for execution and custody services. LMAX Digital does not hold a BitLicense and is part of LMAX Group, a U.K.-based operator of a FCA regulated Multilateral Trading Facility and Broker-Dealer.

While each of the Constituent Exchanges is subject to a range of federal and state laws regarding various aspects of their functioning, neither of the Constituent Exchanges is currently registered with the SEC as a national securities exchange, broker-dealer or clearing agency. Further information regarding the domicile, regulation and legal compliance of the Constituent Exchanges may be found, where available, on the websites for such Constituent Exchanges and public registers for compliance with local regulations, among other places.

An oversight function is implemented by the Benchmark Provider in seeking to ensure that the Pricing Benchmark is administered through the Benchmark Provider’s codified policies for Pricing Benchmark integrity. The Pricing Benchmark is administered through the Benchmark Provider’s codified policies for Pricing Benchmark integrity, including a conflicts of interest policy, a control framework, an accountability framework, and an input data policy. It is also subject to UK BMR, compliance with which regulations has been subject to a Limited Assurance Audit under the ISAE 3000 standard as of September 12, 2022, which is publicly available.

The Pricing Benchmark is subject to oversight by the CME CF Oversight Committee. The CME CF Oversight Committee shall be comprised of at least five members, including at least: (i) two who are representatives of CME (“CME Members”); (ii) one who is a representative of CF (“CF Member”); and (iii) two who bring expertise and industry knowledge relating to benchmark determination, issuance and operations. The CME CF Oversight Committee meets no less frequently than quarterly. The CME CF Oversight Committee’s Founding Charter and quarterly meeting minutes are publicly available.

The Sponsor believes that the use of the Pricing Benchmark is reflective of a reasonable valuation of the average spot price of SOL and that resistance to manipulation is a priority aim of its design methodology. The methodology: (i) takes an observation period and divides it into equal partitions of time; (ii) then calculates the volume-weighted median of all transactions within each partition; and (iii) the value is determined from the arithmetic mean of the volume-weighted medians, equally weighted. By employing the foregoing steps, the Pricing Benchmark thereby seeks to ensure that transactions in SOL conducted at outlying prices do not have an undue effect on the value of a specific partition, large trades or clusters of trades transacted over a short period of time will not have an undue influence on the benchmark level, and the effect of large trades at prices that deviate from the prevailing price are mitigated from having an undue influence on the benchmark level.

The Sponsor holds full discretion to change either the Pricing Benchmark or the Pricing Benchmark provider subject to proper notification to shareholders. Shareholder approval is not required.

A trading venue is eligible as a “Constituent Exchange” in any of the CME CF Cryptocurrency Pricing Products offers a market that facilitates the spot trading of the relevant cryptocurrency base asset against the corresponding quote asset, including markets where the quote asset is made fungible with Accepted Assets (as defined below) (the “Relevant Pair”) and makes trade data and order data available through an Automatic Programming Interface (“API”) with sufficient reliability, detail and timeliness. The CME CF Oversight Committee considers a trading venue to offer sufficiently reliable, detailed and timely trade data and order data through an API when: (i) the API for the “Constituent Exchange” does not fall or become unavailable to a degree that impacts the integrity of the Pricing Benchmark given the frequency of calculation; (ii) the data published is at the resolution required so that the benchmark can be calculated, with the frequency and dissemination precision required; and (iii) the data is broadcast and available for retrieval at the required frequency (and not negatively impacted by latency) to allow the methodologies to be applied as intended. “Accepted Asset” means a digital asset that is a fully reserve backed digital token, commonly referred to as a “stablecoin”, that seeks to peg its value to that of the quote asset, where the issuer operates a 1:1 redemption facility and solely holds reserve assets that are in line with the prevailing regulations enforced for government security money market funds in major jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union.

Furthermore, it must, in the opinion of the CME CF Oversight Committee, fulfill the following criteria:

	1.	The venue’s Relevant Pair spot trading volume for an index must meet the minimum thresholds for it to be admitted as a constituent exchange.

	2.	The average daily volume the venue would have contributed during the observation window for the Reference Rate of the Relevant Pair exceeds 3% for two consecutive calendar quarters.

	3.	The venue has policies to ensure fair and transparent market conditions at all times and has processes in place to identify and impede illegal, unfair or manipulative trading practices.

	4.	The venue does not impose undue barriers to entry or restrictions on market participants, and utilizing the venue does not expose market participants to undue credit risk, operational risk, legal risk or other risks.

	5.	The venue complies with applicable law and regulation, including, but not limited to, capital markets regulations, money transmission regulations, client money custody regulations, KYC and AML regulations.

	6.	The venue cooperates with inquiries and investigations of regulators and the Administrator upon request and must execute data sharing agreements with CME Group. Once admitted, a constituent exchange must demonstrate that it continues to fulfill criteria 2 to 5 inclusive. Should the average daily contribution of a constituent exchange fall below 3% for any Reference Rate, then the continued inclusion of the venue as a constituent exchange to the Relevant Pair shall be assessed by the CME CF Oversight Committee.

The Sponsor has selected the Pricing Benchmark for its quality and rigor as well as its broad, well-balanced universe, which the Sponsor believes best reflects the market price of SOL.

The Sponsor has entered into a licensing agreement with the Benchmark Provider to use the Benchmark (the “Benchmark Licensing Agreement”). The Trust is entitled to use the Pricing Benchmark pursuant to a sub-licensing arrangement with the Sponsor.

As the Pricing Benchmark is calculated as a price return, it does not track airdrops involving SOL. Accordingly, the Trust does not participate in airdrops, as further described above in “Risk Factors — The inability to recognize the econ21shomic benefit of a “fork” or an “airdrop” could adversely impact an investment in the Trust.”

[●] DATA IS USED UNDER LICENSE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THE TRUST’S PRODUCTS. [●], ITS AGENTS AND LICENSORS HAVE NO OTHER CONNECTION TO THE TRUST’S PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AND DOES NOT SPONSOR, ENDORSE, RECOMMEND OR PROMOTE ANY OF THE TRUST’S PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. [●], ITS AGENTS AND LICENSORS HAVE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRUST’S PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. [●], ITS AGENTS AND LICENSORS DO NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY AND/OR THE COMPLETENESS OF ANY BENCHMARK LICENSED TO THE TRUST AND SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INTERRUPTIONS THEREIN.

NAV DETERMINATIONS

Calculation of NAV and NAV per Share

The Trust’s NAV will be calculated based on the Trust’s net asset holdings as reconciled to the SOL Custodian’s accounts on a market approach, determined on a daily basis in accordance with the Pricing Benchmark price at 4:00 p.m. ET. The Sponsor believes that use of the Pricing Benchmark 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, the fact that there are multiple SOL 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 exchanges.

The Trust’s NAV per Share is calculated by:

●

taking the current market value of its total assets based on the SOL price determined by the Pricing Benchmark;

●

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. ET. Trading during the core trading session on the Exchange typically closes at 4:00 p.m. ET. However, NAVs are not officially struck until later in the day (often by 5:30 p.m. ET and almost always by 8:00 p.m. EST). The pause between 4:00 p.m. ET and 5:30 p.m. ET (or later) provides an opportunity for the Administrator to algorithmically detect, flag, investigate, and correct unusual pricing should it occur. Any such correction could adversely affect the value of the Shares. If the Pricing Benchmark is not available, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Pricing Benchmark does not reflect an accurate SOL price, then the Administrator will determine NAV by reference to the Trust’s principal market. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment as to which of the rules the Sponsor will apply, and the Sponsor may make this determination in its sole discretion.

In addition, in order to provide updated information relating to the Trust for use by Shareholders and market professionals, [●] will calculate and disseminate throughout the core trading session on each trading day an updated intraday indicative value (“IIV”). The IIV will be calculated by using the prior day’s closing NAV as a base and updating that value during the trading day based off of more recent SOL pricing information to reflect any changes in the value of the Trust’s underlying assets and, therefore, the Trust’s NAV.

The IIV disseminated during the Exchange core trading session hours should not be viewed as an actual real time update of the NAV, because NAV per Share is calculated only once at the end of each trading day based upon the relevant end of day values of the Trust’s investments. The IIV will be disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during regular Exchange core trading session hours of 9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET. [●] will disseminate the IIV value through the facilities of CTA/CQ High Speed Lines. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters. The IIV may differ from the NAV due to the differences in the time window of trades used to calculate each price (the NAV uses a sixty-minute window, whereas the IIV draws prices from the last trade on each exchange in an effort to produce a relevant, real-time price). The Sponsor does not believe this will cause confusion in the marketplace, as Authorized Participants are the only Shareholders who interact with the NAV and the Sponsor will communicate its NAV calculation methodology clearly.

Dissemination of the IIV provides additional information that is not otherwise available to the public and is useful to Shareholders and market professionals in connection with the trading of the Trust’s Shares on the Exchange. Shareholders and market professionals will be able throughout the trading day to compare the market price of the Trust and the IIV. If the market price of the Trust’s Shares diverges significantly from the IIV, market professionals will have an incentive to execute arbitrage trades. For example, if the Trust appears to be trading at a discount compared to the IIV, a market professional could buy the Trust’s Shares on the Exchange and sell short futures contracts. Such arbitrage trades can tighten the tracking between the market price of the Trust and the IIV and thus can be beneficial to all market participants. Dissemination of the IIV provides additional information that is not otherwise available to the public and is useful to Shareholders and market professionals in connection with the trading of the Trust’s Shares on the Exchange. Shareholders and market professionals will be able throughout the trading day to compare the market price of the Trust and the IIV. If the market price of the Trust’s Shares diverges significantly from the IIV, market professionals will have an incentive to execute arbitrage trades. For example, if the Trust appears to be trading at a discount compared to the IIV, a market professional could buy the Trust’s Shares on the Exchange and sell short futures contracts. Such arbitrage trades can tighten the tracking between the market price of the Trust and the IIV and thus can be beneficial to all market participants.

The Trust does not expect that price differentials for SOL across exchanges would have a meaningful impact on this arbitrage mechanism. Furthermore, the Trust does not expect that the closure of any single one exchange would meaningfully impact the arbitrage mechanism because Authorized Participants typically source underlying spot SOL liquidity from multiple exchanges. The Trust acknowledges, however, that this arbitrage mechanism could potentially be adversely impacted if halts in the trading of spot SOL were to occur across multiple exchanges, whether due to breaches, or otherwise.

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.

Calculation of Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share

In addition to calculating NAV and NAV per Share, for purposes of the Trust’s financial statements, the Trust determines the Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share on each valuation date for such financial statements. The determination of the Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share is identical to the calculation of NAV and NAV per Share, respectively, except that the value of SOL is determined using the fair value of SOL based on the price in the SOL market that the Trust considers its “principal market” as of 4:00 p.m. ET on the valuation date, rather than using the Pricing Benchmark.

The Trust has adopted a valuation policy, which provides for the procedure for valuing the Trust’s assets. The policy also sets forth the procedures to determine the principal market (or in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market) for purposes of determining the Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share in accordance with FASB ASC 820-10, which outlines the application of fair value accounting. Under its valuation policy, the Trust determines its principal market (or in the absence of a principal market the most advantageous market) annually and conducts an analysis at least on a quarterly basis to determine whether there have occurred any changes in SOL markets and its operations that would require a change in the Trust’s determination of its principal market.

The Trust identifies and determines the SOL principal market (or in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market) for GAAP purposes consistent with the application of fair value measurement framework in FASB ASC 820-10. This analysis is performed from the perspective of both the Trust and the SOL Counterparty.

ASC 820-10 determines fair value to be the price that would be received for Solana in a current sale, which assumes an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. ASC 820-10 requires the Trust to assume that SOL is sold in its principal market to market participants or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market. Market participants are defined as buyers and sellers in the principal or most advantageous market that are independent, knowledgeable and willing and able to transact.

Under ASC 820-10, a principal market is the market with the greatest volume and activity level for the asset or liability. The determination of the principal market will be based on the market with the greatest volume and level of activity that can be accessed.

The Trust receives SOL from SOL Counterparties and may also transact on any “Digital Asset Markets”, which are defined as Exchange Markets, Brokered Markets, Dealer Markets, and Principal-to-Principal Markets, each as defined in ASC 820-10-35-36A.

In determining which of the eligible Digital Asset Markets is the Trust’s principal market, the Trust obtains reliable volume and level of activity information and reviews these criteria in the following order:

First, the Trust reviews a list of Digital Asset Markets and scopes in the markets that the Trust reasonably believes are operating in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and those that are accessible to the Trust and the Authorized Participant.

Second, the Trust sorts the remaining Digital Asset Markets from high to low based on volume and level of activity of SOL traded on each Digital Asset Market.

Third, the Trust then reviews intra-day pricing fluctuations and the degree of variances in price on Digital Asset Markets to identify any material notable variances that may impact the volume or price information of a particular Digital Asset Market.

Fourth, the Trust then selects a Digital Asset Market as its principal market based on the highest market-based volume, level of activity, and price stability in comparison to the other Digital Asset Markets on the list. Based on information reasonably available to the Trust, Exchange Markets have the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset. The Trust therefore looks to accessible Exchange Markets as opposed to the Brokered Market, Dealer Market and Principal-to-Principal Markets to determine its principal market.

As a result of the analysis, the Trust will select an Exchange Market as the Trust’s principal market. Based on the Trust’s initial assessment, the NAV and NAV per Share will be calculated using the fair value of SOL based on the price provided by this Exchange, as of 4:00 p.m., ET on the measurement date for GAAP purposes. The Trust anticipates that this Exchange will be normally transacted on by both the Trust and the SOL Counterparty.

The Trust will update its Principal Market analysis periodically and as needed to the extent that events have occurred, or activities have changed in a manner that could change the Trust’s determination of the principal market.

The Sponsor on behalf of the Trust will determine in its sole discretion the valuation sources and policies used to prepare the Trust’s financial statements in accordance with GAAP.

The cost basis of the investment in SOL recorded by the Trust for financial reporting purposes is the fair value of SOL at the time of transfer. The cost basis recorded by the Trust may differ from proceeds collected by the Authorized Participant from the sale of the corresponding Shares to investors.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUST

The Trust

The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust, formed on June 3, 2024 pursuant to the DSTA. The Trust continuously issues common shares representing fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust (“Shares”) that may be purchased and sold on the Exchange. The Trust will operate pursuant to the Trust Agreement. 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 June 16, 2021.

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 equivalent to the amount of SOL represented by the NAV of the Baskets being created or redeemed. The total amount of SOL 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 Trust has no operating history. The Trust and the Sponsor face competition with respect to the creation of competing products, such as exchange-traded products offering exposure to the spot SOL market or other digital assets. There can be no assurance that the Trust will grow to or maintain an economically viable size. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will maintain a commercial advantage relative to competitors offering similar products. Whether or not the Trust is successful in achieving its intended scale may be impacted by a range of factors, such as the Trust’s timing in entering the market and its fee structure relative to those of competitive products.

The Trust has no fixed termination date.

The Trust’s Fees and Expenses

The Trust will pay the unitary Sponsor Fee of [●]% of the Trust’s NAV [●]. The Sponsor Fee is paid by the Trust to the Sponsor as compensation for services performed under the Trust Agreement.

The Sponsor will calculate the Sponsor Fee on a daily basis by applying a [●]% annualized rate to the Trust’s NAV (as defined below), and the amount of SOL payable in respect of each daily accrual shall be determined by reference to the Pricing Benchmark. The Sponsor has agreed to pay all operating expenses (except for litigation expenses and other extraordinary expenses) out of the Sponsor Fee.

As partial consideration for receipt of the Sponsor Fee, the Sponsor shall 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 Marketing Fee, (ii) fees to the Administrator, if any, (iii) fees to the SOL Custodian, (iv) fees to the Transfer Agent, (v) fees to the Trustee, (vi) the fees and expenses related to any future listing, trading or quotation of the Shares on any listing exchange or quotation system (including legal, marketing and audit fees and expenses), (vii) ordinary course legal fees and expenses but not litigation-related expenses, (viii) audit fees, (ix) regulatory fees, including if applicable any fees relating to the registration of the Shares under the Securities Act or Exchange Act, (x) printing and mailing costs, (xi) costs of maintaining the Trust’s website and (xii) applicable license fees (each, a “Sponsor-paid Expense” and together, the “Sponsor-paid Expenses”), provided that any expense that qualifies as an Additional Trust Expense will be deemed to be an Additional Trust Expense and not a Sponsor-paid Expense.

The Sponsor will not, however, assume certain extraordinary, non-recurring expenses that are not Sponsor-paid Expenses, including, but not limited to, 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 or the interests of Shareholders, any indemnification of the SOL Custodian, Administrator or other agents, service providers or counterparties of the Trust, the fees and expenses related to the listing, and extraordinary legal fees and expenses, including any legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with litigation, regulatory enforcement or investigation matters (collectively, “Additional Trust Expenses”). Of the Sponsor-paid Expenses, ordinary course legal fees and expenses shall be subject to a cap of not in excess of $[●] per annum. In the Sponsor’s sole discretion, all or any portion of a Sponsor-paid Expense may be redesignated as an Additional Trust Expense.

After the payment of the Sponsor Fee to the Sponsor, the Sponsor may elect to convert some or all of the Sponsor Fee into cash by selling this SOL at market prices, in the Sponsor’s sole discretion. Due to the variance in market prices for SOL, the rate at which the Sponsor converts SOL to cash may differ from the rate at which the Sponsor Fee was initially paid in SOL.

The SOL Custodian will assume the transfer fees associated with the transfer of SOL to the Sponsor with respect to the Sponsor Fee, and any further expenses associated with such transfer will be assumed by the Sponsor. The Trust shall not be responsible for any fees and expenses incurred by the Sponsor to convert SOL received in payment of the Sponsor Fee into cash.

Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor or its delegates will direct the SOL Custodian to transfer SOL from the Trust’s Cold Vault Balance as needed to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses, if any. The Sponsor or its delegates will endeavor to transfer the smallest amount of SOL needed to pay applicable expenses. The Sponsor, in arranging for payment of Additional Trust Expenses, may in its discretion direct that the Trust’s SOL be exchanged for U.S. Dollars. Under such circumstances, the Trust will not utilize the SOL Custodian to arrange for the sale of the Trust’s SOL to pay the Trust’s expenses and liabilities. Rather, the Sponsor will arrange for the Prime Broker, an affiliate of the SOL Custodian, or another third-party digital asset trading platform to exchange the Trust’s SOL for U.S. dollars in such a situation.

Termination of the Trust

The Sponsor will notify Shareholders at least 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 US 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 SOL;

●

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 SOL 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 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 the Depository Trust Company (“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 SOL 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 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 or require a BitLicense under New York law; 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 the dissolution of the Trust, the Sponsor (or in the event there is no Sponsor, such person (the “Liquidating Trustee”) as the majority in interest of the beneficial owners of the Trust may propose and approve) shall take full charge of the property of the Trust. Any Liquidating Trustee so appointed shall have and may exercise, without further authorization or approval of any of the parties hereto, all of the powers conferred upon the Sponsor under the terms of the Trust Agreement, subject to all of the applicable limitations, contractual and otherwise, upon the exercise of such powers, and provided that the Liquidating Trustee shall not have general liability for the acts, omissions, obligations and expenses of the Trust. Thereafter, in accordance with section 3808(e) of the DSTA, 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, and the proceeds therefrom shall be applied and distributed in the following order of priority: (a) to the expenses of liquidation and termination and to creditors, including registered owners and beneficial owners of the Trust who are creditors, to the extent otherwise permitted by law, in satisfaction of liabilities of the Trust (whether by payment or the making of reasonable provision for payment thereof) other than liabilities for distributions to registered owners of the Trust, and (b) to the beneficial owners of the Trust pro rata in accordance with their respective percentage interests of the property of the Trust. 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 SOL 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 SOL holdings upon the dissolution of the Trust.

Upon termination 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 the owners of the beneficial interests of Shares in a prospectus supplement or in its periodic Exchange Act reports, as applicable, and on the Sponsor’s website.

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.

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 SOL Custodian, or the Pricing Benchmark Provider. 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 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 21co Holdings Limited (formerly known as Amun Holdings Limited). At present, the primary business activities of 21co Holdings Limited. are providing exchange traded products and technology services in the digital asset space through its subsidiaries.

21Shares AG, an affiliate of the Sponsor, has considerable experience issuing and operating exchange-traded products that provide exposure to digital assets, operating such exchange-traded products since 2018. As of [●], 2025, 21Shares AG oversees approximately $[●] billion in assets under management and nearly [●] digital asset-related exchange-traded products across various jurisdictions. Although the Sponsor is a relatively new entity within the broader structure of 21Shares AG and its affiliates (collectively, the “21Shares Group”), the Sponsor utilizes a similar management team that the 21Shares Group has used in issuing and operating these exchange-traded products. Since January 2024 and July 2024, the Sponsor has served as sponsor to Ark 21Shares Bitcoin ETF and 21Shares Core Ethereum Trust, each an exchange-traded product registered under the 1933 Act and which provide exposure to spot bitcoin and trades and spot Ethereum and trades, and which trade on the Exchange under the symbols “ARKB” and “CETH”, respectively. The Sponsor also serves as sponsor to the following entities: (i) since December 2024, to 21Shares XRP Trust, a Delaware statutory trust that filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC on November 1, 2024; (ii) since January 7, 2025, to 21Shares Polkadot Trust, a Delaware statutory trust that filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC on January 31, 2025; (iii) since January 7, 2025, to 21Shares Sui ETF, a Delaware statutory trust that filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC on May 1, 2025; and (iv) since April 1, 2025, the Sponsor has served as sponsor to 21Shares Dogecoin ETF, a Maryland statutory trust that filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC on April 9, 2025. If the registration statements for 21Shares Core XRP Trust, 21Shares Polkadot Trust, 21Shares Sui ETF or 21Shares Dogecoin ETF are subsequently declared effective by the SEC, 21Shares XRP Trust, 21Shares Polkadot Trust, 21Shares Sui ETF and 21Shares Dogecoin ETF each expect to become exchange-traded products registered under the 1933 Act that will provide exposure to spot XRP, DOT, SUI and DOGE, respectively, and trade on an exchange. Additionally, as of [●], 2025, the Sponsor serves as sub-adviser to [●] investment companies registered under the 1940 Act.

The principal office of the Sponsor is:

21Shares US LLC

477 Madison Avenue, 6^th Floor

New York, New York 10022

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 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.

General duty of care of Trustee.

The Trustee is a fiduciary under the Trust Agreement; provided, however, that the fiduciary duties and responsibilities and liabilities of the Trustee are limited by, and are only those specifically set forth in, the Trust Agreement.

Resignation, discharge or removal of Trustee; successor Trustees.

The Trustee may resign at any time by giving at least 30 days’ advance written notice to the Sponsor. The Sponsor may remove the Trustee at any time by giving at least 30 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 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.

The Administrator

Under the Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement, the Administrator provides necessary administrative, tax and accounting services and financial reporting for the maintenance and operations of the Trust, including the determination of NAV, NAV per Share, Principal Market NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share. In addition, the Administrator makes available the office space, equipment, personnel and facilities to provide such services.

The SOL Custodian

The SOL Custodian is responsible for safekeeping all of the SOL owned by the Trust. The SOL Custodian was selected by the Sponsor. The SOL Custodian has responsibility for opening the Solana Account, as well as facilitating the transfer of SOL required for the operation of the Trust.

The Transfer Agent

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.

Benchmark Services

The Benchmark Provider is responsible for analyzing SOL market data relating to the calculation and maintenance of the Pricing Benchmark.

The Marketing Agent

[●] (the “Marketing Agent”) is responsible for reviewing and approving the marketing materials prepared by the Sponsor for compliance with applicable SEC and FINRA advertising laws, rules, and regulations.

CUSTODY OF THE TRUST’S ASSETS

The Trust’s Custodian will keep custody of the Trust’s SOL. The transfer of SOL to and from SOL Counterparties is directed by the Sponsor.

The SOL Custodian will keep custody of all of the Trust’s SOL, other than that which is maintained in the Trading Balance with the Prime Broker, in the Vault Balance. The SOL Custodian will keep a substantial portion of the private keys associated with the Trust’s SOL in “cold storage” or similarly secure technology. Cold storage is a safeguarding method with multiple layers of protections and protocols, by which the private key(s) corresponding to the Trust’s SOL is (are) generated and stored in an offline manner. Private keys are generated in offline computers that are not connected to the internet so that they are resistant to being hacked. By contrast, in hot storage, the private keys are held online, where they are more accessible, leading to more efficient transfers, though they are potentially more vulnerable to being hacked. While the SOL Custodian will generally keep a substantial portion of the Trust’s SOL in cold storage on an ongoing basis, it is possible that, from time to time, portions of the Trust’s SOL will be held outside of cold storage temporarily in the Trading Balance maintained by the Prime Broker as part of trade facilitation in connection with creations and redemptions of Baskets, to sell SOL including to pay Trust expenses, or to pay the Sponsor Fee, as necessary. The Trust’s SOL held in the Cold Vault Balance by the SOL Custodian are held in segregated wallets and therefore are not commingled with the SOL Custodian’s or other customer assets.

Cold storage of private keys may involve keeping such keys on a non-networked computer or electronic device or storing the public key and private keys on a storage device or printed medium and deleting the keys from all computers. The SOL Custodian may receive deposits of SOL but may not send SOL without use of the corresponding private keys. In order to send SOL when the private keys are kept in cold storage, unsigned transactions must be physically transferred to the offline cold storage facility and signed using a software/hardware utility with the corresponding offline keys. At that point, the SOL Custodian can upload the fully signed transaction to an online network and transfer the SOL. Such private keys are stored in cold storage facilities within the United States and Europe, exact locations of which are not disclosed for security reasons. A limited number of employees at the SOL Custodian are involved in private key management operations, and the SOL Custodian has represented that no single individual has access to full private keys.

The SOL Custodian’s internal audit team performs periodic internal audits over custody operations, and the SOL Custodian has represented that SOC attestations covering private key management controls are also performed on the SOL Custodian by an external provider.

The SOL Custodian maintains a commercial crime insurance policy, which is intended to cover the loss of client assets held in cold storage, including from employee collusion or fraud, physical loss including theft, damage of key material, security breach or hack, and fraudulent transfer. The insurance maintained by the SOL Custodian is shared among all of the SOL Custodian’s customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding SOL with the SOL Custodian, and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses.

SOL held in the Trust’s account with the SOL Custodian is the property of the Trust. The Trust, the Sponsor and the 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, other than in connection with the Post-Trade Financing Agreement (as defined below). The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

In the event of a fork, the Custodial Services Agreement provides that the SOL Custodian may temporarily suspend services, and may, in their sole discretion, determine whether or not to support (or cease supporting) either branch of the forked protocol entirely, provided that the SOL Custodian shall use commercially reasonable efforts to avoid ceasing to support both branches of such forked protocol and will support, at a minimum, the original digital asset. The Custodial Services Agreement provides that, other than as set forth therein, and provided that the SOL Custodian shall make commercially reasonable efforts to assist the Trust to retrieve and/or obtain any assets related to a fork, airdrop or similar event the SOL Custodian shall have no liability, obligation or responsibility whatsoever arising out of or relating to the operation of the underlying software protocols relating to the Solana network or an unsupported branch of a forked protocol and, accordingly, Client acknowledges and assumes the risk of the same. The SOL Custodian Agreement further provides that, unless specifically communicated by the SOL Custodian and its affiliates through a written public statement on the Coinbase website, the SOL Custodian does not support airdrops, metacoins, colored coins, side chains, or other derivative, enhanced or forked protocols, tokens or coins, which supplement or interact with SOL.

Under the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor has the right, in its sole discretion, to determine what action to take in connection with the Trust’s entitlement to or ownership of Incidental Rights or any IR Virtual Currency, and Trust may take any lawful action necessary or desirable in connection with the Trust’s ownership of Incidental Rights, including the acquisition of IR Virtual Currency, as determined by the Sponsor in the Sponsor’s sole discretion, unless such action would adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise be prohibited by this Trust Agreement. With respect to any airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. In the event the Trust seeks to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by the Exchange seeking approval to amend its listing rules.

Under the Custodial Services Agreement, the SOL Custodian’s liability is limited as follows, among others: (i) other than with respect to claims and losses arising from spot trading of SOL, or fraud or willful misconduct, among others, the SOL Custodian’s aggregate liability under the Custodial Services Agreement shall not exceed the greater of (A) the greater of (x) $5 million and (y) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the SOL Custodian in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the SOL Custodian’s liability, and (B) the value of the affected SOL or cash giving rise to the SOL Custodian’s liability; (ii) the SOL Custodian’s aggregate liability in respect of each cold storage address shall not exceed $100 million; (iii) in respect of the SOL Custodian’s obligations to indemnify the Trust and its affiliates against third party claims and losses to the extent arising out of or relating to, among others, the SOL Custodian’s violation of any law, rule or regulation with respect to the provision of its services, the SOL Custodian’s liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) $5 million and (B) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the SOL Custodian in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the SOL Custodian’s liability; and (iv) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the SOL Custodian is not liable, even if the SOL Custodian has been advised of or knew or should have known of the possibility thereof. The SOL Custodian is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service to the extent it is directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the SOL Custodian. Under the Custodial Services Agreement, except in the case of its negligence, fraud, material violation of applicable law or willful misconduct, the SOL Custodian shall not have any liability, obligation, or responsibility for any damage or interruptions caused by any computer viruses, spyware, scareware, Trojan horses, worms or other malware that may affect the Trust’s computer or other equipment, or any phishing, spoofing or other attack, unless the SOL Custodian fails to have commercially reasonable policies, procedures and technical controls in place to prevent such damages or interruptions.

The SOL Custodian may terminate the Custodial Services Agreement for any reason upon providing the applicable notice to the Trust, or immediately for Cause (as defined in the Custodial Services Agreement), including, among others, if the Trust: materially breaches the Prime Broker Agreement and such breach remains uncured, or undergoes a bankruptcy event.

The Trust’s Transfer Agent will facilitate the settlement of Shares in response to the placement of creation orders and redemption orders from Authorized Participants. The Trust generally does not intend to hold cash or cash equivalents. However, there may be situations where the Trust will unexpectedly hold cash on a temporary basis, including in connection with the settlement of creation and redemption transactions. The Trust’s cash and cash equivalents will be held at its account at the Cash Custodian, pursuant to the Cash Custody Agreement.

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, add or terminate SOL custodians at any time. The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, change the SOL Custodian for the Trust’s SOL holdings, but it will have no obligation whatsoever to do so or to seek any particular terms for the Trust from other such SOL custodians.

Prime BRoker

Pursuant to the Prime Broker Agreement, a portion of the Trust’s SOL holdings and cash holdings from time to time may be held with the Prime Broker, an affiliate of the SOL Custodian, in the Trading Balance, in connection with the creation and redemption of Shares via cash transactions or to pay for Trust Expenses not assumed by the Sponsor in consideration for the Sponsor Fee. The amount of SOL that may be held in the Trading Balance will be limited to the amount necessary to process a given creation or redemption transaction, as applicable, or to pay for Trust Expenses not assumed by the Sponsor in consideration for the Sponsor Fee.

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, add or terminate prime brokers at any time. The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, change the prime broker for the Trust, but it will have no obligation whatsoever to do so or to seek any particular terms for the Trust from other such prime brokers.

These periodic holdings held in the Trading Balance with the Prime Broker represent an omnibus claim on the Prime Broker’s SOL held on behalf of clients; these holdings exist across a combination of omnibus hot wallets, omnibus cold wallets or in accounts in the Prime Broker’s name on a trading venue (including third-party venues and the Prime Broker’s own execution venue) where the Prime Broker executes orders to buy and sell SOL on behalf of clients (each such venue, a “Connected Trading Venue”). The Prime Broker is not required to hold any of the SOL in the Trust’s Trading Balance in cold storage or to hold any such SOL in segregation, and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor can control the method by which the Prime Broker holds the SOL credited to the Trust’s Trading Balance. Within the Trust’s Trading Balance, the Prime Broker Agreement provides that the Trust does not have an identifiable claim to any particular SOL (and cash). Instead, the Trust’s Trading Balance represents an entitlement to a pro rata share of the SOL (and cash) the Prime Broker holds on behalf of customers who hold similar entitlements against the Prime Broker. In this way, the Trust’s Trading Balance represents an omnibus claim on the Prime Broker’s SOL (and cash) held on behalf of the Prime Broker’s customers.

Within such omnibus hot and cold wallets and accounts, the Prime Broker has represented to the Sponsor that it keeps the majority of assets in cold wallets, to promote security, while the balance of assets are kept in hot wallets to facilitate rapid withdrawals. However, the Sponsor has no control over, and for security reasons the Prime Broker does not disclose to the Sponsor, the percentage of SOL that the Prime Broker holds for customers holding similar entitlements as the Trust which are kept in omnibus cold wallets, as compared to omnibus hot wallets or omnibus accounts in the Prime Broker’s name on a trading venue. The Prime Broker has represented to the Sponsor that the percentage of assets maintained in cold versus hot storage is determined by ongoing risk analysis and market dynamics, in which the Prime Broker attempts to balance anticipated liquidity needs for its customers as a class against the anticipated greater security of cold storage.

The Prime Broker is not required by the Prime Broker Agreement to hold any of the SOL in the Trust’s Trading Balance in cold storage or to hold any such SOL in segregation, and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor can control the method by which the Prime Broker holds the SOL credited to the Trust’s Trading Balance.

To the extent the Trust sells SOL through the Prime Broker, the Trust’s orders will be executed at Connected Trading Venues that have been approved in accordance with the Prime Broker’s due diligence and risk assessment process. The Prime Broker has represented that its due diligence on Connected Trading Venues include reviews conducted by the legal, compliance, security, privacy and finance and credit-risk teams. The Connected Trading Venues, which are subject to change from time to time, currently include Coinbase, Gemini, LMAX Digital and Kraken, the exchange operated by the Prime Broker, as well as four additional non-bank market makers (“NBMMs”). The Prime Broker has represented to the Trust that it is unable to name the NBMMs due to confidentiality restrictions.

Pursuant to the Prime Broker Agreement, the Trust may engage in purchases or sales of SOL by placing orders with the Prime Broker. The Prime Broker will route orders placed by the Sponsor through the Prime Broker’s execution platform (the “Trading Platform”) to a Connected Trading Venue where the order will be executed. Each order placed by the Sponsor will be sent, processed and settled at each Connected Trading Venue to which it is routed. The Prime Broker Agreement provides that the Prime Broker is subject to certain conflicts of interest, including: (i) the Trust’s orders may be routed to the Prime Broker’s own execution venue where the Trust’s orders may be executed against other customers of the Prime Broker or with Coinbase acting as principal, (ii) the beneficial identity of the counterparty purchaser or seller with respect to the Trust’s orders may be unknown and therefore may inadvertently be another client of the Prime Broker, (iii) the Prime Broker does not engage in front-running, but is aware of the Trust’s orders or imminent orders and may execute a trade for its own inventory (or the account of an affiliate) while in possession of that knowledge and (iv) the Prime Broker may act in a principal capacity with respect to certain orders. As a result of these and other conflicts, when acting as principal, the Prime Broker may have an incentive to favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the Trust’s interests.

Subject to the foregoing, and to certain policies and procedures that the Prime Broker Agreement requires the Prime Broker to have in place to mitigate conflicts of interest when executing the Trust’s orders, the Prime Broker Agreement provides that the Prime Broker shall have no liability, obligation, or responsibility whatsoever for the selection or performance of any Connected Trading Venue, and that other Connected Trading Venues and/or trading venues not used by Coinbase may offer better prices and/or lower costs than the Connected Trading Venue used to execute the Trust’s orders.

Once the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, places an order to purchase or sell SOL on the Trading Platform in connection with the creation or redemption of Shares via a cash transaction, the associated SOL or cash used to fund or fill the order, if any, will be placed on hold and will generally not be eligible for other use or withdrawal from the Trust’s Trading Balance. The Trust’s Vault Balance may be used directly to fund orders. With each Connected Trading Venue, the Prime Broker shall establish an account in the Prime Broker’s name, or in its name for the benefit of clients, to trade on behalf of its clients, including the Trust, and the Trust will not, by virtue of the Trading Balance the Trust maintains with the Prime Broker, have a direct legal relationship, or account with, any Connected Trading Venue.

The Prime Broker may terminate the Prime Broker Agreement in its entirety for any reason and without Cause (as defined below) by providing at least ninety (90) days’ prior written notice to the Trust. The Trust may terminate the Prime Broker Agreement in its entirety for any reason and without Cause by providing at least 30 (thirty) days’ prior written notice to the Prime Broker; provided, however, the Trust’s termination of the Prime Broker Agreement shall not be effective until the Trust has fully satisfied its obligations the Prime Broker Agreement.

The Prime Broker and the SOL Custodian may, in their sole discretion, suspend, restrict or terminate the Trust’s prime broker services, including by suspending, restricting or closing any account of the Trust covered under the Prime Broker Agreement for Cause, at any time and with prior notice to the Trust.

For purposes of the Prime Broker Agreement, “Cause” shall mean: (i) the Trust (a) fails to make a payment when due or (b) materially breaches any provision of this Prime Broker Agreement and such breach is not cured within one (1) Business Day after notice of such breach is given to Trust in the case of a payment-related breach or is not cured within ten (10) Business Days after notice of such breach is given to Trust in the case of a non-payment related breach; (ii) the Trust takes any action to dissolve or liquidate, in whole or part; (iii) the Trust becomes insolvent, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, becomes subject to direct control of a trustee, receiver or similar authority; (iv) the Trust becomes subject to any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding under any applicable laws, rules and regulations, such termination being effective immediately upon any declaration of bankruptcy; (v) termination is required pursuant to a court order or binding order of a government authority; (vi) the Trust’s account with the Prime Broker is subject to any pending litigation, investigation or government proceeding that is reasonably likely to affect the legality, validity or enforceability against it of the Prime Broker Agreement or its ability to perform its obligations under the Prime Broker Agreement; or (vii) The Prime Broker reasonably suspects Trust of attempting to circumvent the Prime Broker’s controls or uses the Prime Broker’s services in a manner the Prime Broker otherwise deems inappropriate or potentially harmful to itself or third parties, and Trust fails to provide the Prime Broker written evidence reasonably acceptable to the Prime Broker of Trust’s non-circumvention of such controls within three (3) Business Days following written notice from the Prime Broker.

The Trust may terminate this Prime Broker Agreement upon prior notice to the Prime Broker upon an event which constitutes “Coinbase Cause.” “Coinbase Cause” means (i) the Prime Broker takes any action to dissolve or liquidate, in whole or part; (ii) the Prime Broker becomes insolvent, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, becomes subject to direct control of a trustee, receiver or similar authority; (iii) the Prime Broker becomes subject to any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding under any applicable laws, rules and regulations, such termination being effective immediately upon any declaration of bankruptcy; or (iv) termination is required pursuant to a court order or binding order of a government authority.

A decision by the Prime Broker or the SOL Custodian to take certain actions, including suspending, restricting or terminating the Trust’s accounts covered under the Prime Broker Agreement, may be based on confidential criteria that are essential to the Prime Broker’s risk management and security practices and agrees that the Prime Broker and the SOL Custodian are under no obligation to disclose the details of its risk management and security practices to the Trust. The parent company of the SOL Custodian and Prime Broker, Coinbase Global, Inc. (referred to herein as “Coinbase Global”) maintains a commercial crime insurance policy, which is intended to cover the loss of client assets held by Coinbase Global and all of its subsidiaries, including the SOL Custodian and the Prime Broker (collectively, Coinbase Global and its subsidiaries are referred to as the “Coinbase Insureds”). This policy covers the loss of client assets held by the SOL Custodian and Prime Broker, including from employee collusion or fraud, physical loss including theft, damage of key material, security breach or hack and fraudulent transfer. The insurance maintained by the Coinbase Insureds is shared among all of their customers, is not specific to the Trust or to customers holding SOL with the SOL Custodian or Prime Broker and may not be available or sufficient to protect the Trust from all possible losses or sources of losses.

Under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Prime Broker’s liability is limited as follows, among others: (i) other than with respect to claims and losses arising from spot trading of SOL, or fraud or willful misconduct, among others, the Prime Broker’s aggregate liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) the greater of (x) $5 million and (y) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Prime Broker in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability, and (B) the value of the cash or affected SOL giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability; (ii) in respect of the Prime Broker’s obligations to indemnify the Trust and its affiliates against third party claims and losses to the extent arising out of or relating to, among others, the Prime Broker’s violation of any law, rule or regulation with respect to the provision of its services, or the full amount of the Trust’s assets lost due to the insolvency of or security event at a Connected Trading Venue, the Prime Broker’s liability shall not exceed the greater of (A) $5 million and (B) the aggregate fees paid by the Trust to the Prime Broker in the 12 months prior to the event giving rise to the Prime Broker’s liability; and (iii) in respect of any incidental, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or similar losses, the Prime Broker is not liable, even if the Prime Broker has been advised of or knew or should have known of the possibility thereof. The Prime Broker is not liable for delays, suspension of operations, failure in performance, or interruption of service to the extent it is directly due to a cause or condition beyond the reasonable control of the Prime Broker. Both the Trust and the Prime Broker and its affiliates (including the SOL Custodian) are required to indemnify each other under certain circumstances. The Prime Broker Agreement is governed by New York law and provides that disputes arising under it are subject to arbitration.

In connection with the Prime Broker Agreement, the Trust has entered into a Post-Trade Financing Agreement (the “Post-Trade Financing Agreement”) with Coinbase Credit, Inc. (the “Lender”), pursuant to which the Trust may borrow SOL or cash as trade credit (“Trade Credit”) the Lender on a short-term basis to avoid having to pre-fund the Trust’s Trading Balance. This allows the Trust to buy or sell SOL through the SOL Counterparty in an amount that exceeds the cash or SOL credited to the Trust’s Trading Balance at the SOL Counterparty at the time such order is submitted to the SOL Counterparty, which is expected to facilitate the Trust’s ability to process cash creations and redemptions and pay the Sponsors Fee and any other Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, to the extent applicable, in a timely manner by seeking to lock in the SOL price on the trade date for creations and redemptions or the payment date for payment of the Sponsor’s Fee or any other Trust Expenses not assumed by the Sponsor, rather than waiting for the funds associated with the creation to be transferred by the Cash Custodian to the SOL Counterparty prior to purchasing the SOL or for the SOL held in the Vault Balance to be transferred to a Trading Balance prior to selling the SOL.

In connection with a purchase order, the Trust may first borrow cash from the Lender using the Trade Financing Agreement, and then purchase SOL. In connection with a redemption order, the Trust may first borrow SOL from the Lender using the Trade Financing Agreement, and then sell this SOL.

The Sponsor does not generally intend to fund the Trading Balance at the Prime Broker with sufficient cash or SOL in connection with creation and redemption transactions or to pay fees and expenses, and instead the Sponsor regularly expects to utilize the Post-Trade Financing Agreement in connection with such creation and redemption transactions or for such fees and expenses. The purpose of borrowing the SOL or cash used in connection with cash creation and redemption or to pay these fees and expenses from the Lender is to lock in the SOL price on the trade date or the payment date, as applicable, rather than waiting for the funds associated with the creation to be transferred by the Cash Custodian to the SOL Counterparty prior to purchasing the SOL or for the SOL held in the Vault Balance to be transferred to a Trading Balance prior to selling the SOL (a process which may take up to twenty four hours, or longer if the Solana blockchain is experiencing delays in transaction confirmation, or if there are other delays). In the event Trade Credits are unavailable from the Lender or become exhausted, the Sponsor would require the Authorized Participant to deliver cash on the trade date so that a purchase order can be settled in a timely manner.

Because the Trust’s Trading Balance may not be funded with cash on trade date for the purchase of SOL associated with the purchase order, the Trust may borrow Trade Credits in the form of cash from the Lender pursuant to the Post-Trade Financing Agreement or may require the Authorized Participant to deliver the required cash for the purchase order on trade date. The extension of Trade Credits on trade date allows the Trust to purchase SOL through the SOL Counterparty on trade date, with such SOL being deposited in the Trust’s Trading Balance. For settlement of a redemption, the Trust delivers Shares to the Authorized Participant in exchange for cash received from the Authorized Participant. To the extent Trade Credits were utilized, the Trust uses the cash to repay the Trade Credits borrowed from the Lender. Any financing fee owed to the Lender is deemed part of trade execution costs and embedded in the trade price for each transaction, and therefore is the cash-denominated responsibility of the Authorized Participants. To the extent this position changes and financing fees owed to the Lender would be a responsibility of the Trust, such expenses could impact the net assets of the Trust over time by increasing the operational expenses of the Trust.

The Trust is currently not aware of the maximum amount of Trade Credit, but such maximum amount of Trade Credit may exist at some point in the future.

The Lender is only required to extend Trade Credits up to an authorized amount (the “Authorized Amount”) for use on the Prime Broker’s Trading Platform. Once the Lender has approved the Trust to receive Trade Credits up to the Authorized Amount, the Trust may place orders up to amounts up to the then-current amount available to the Trust to place orders (the “Available Balance”). The “Authorized Amount” will be an amount to be determined, on a daily basis, based on the Lender’s sole discretion considering factors including, but not limited to, availability of financing and credit due diligence of the Trust. The Lender is only required to extend Trade Credits to the Trust to the extent such SOL or cash is actually available to the Lender. For example, if the Lender is unable to itself borrow SOL to lend to the Trust as a Trade Credit, or there is a material market disruption (as determined by the Lender in good faith and in its sole discretion), the Lender is not obligated to extend Trade Credits to the Trust. The Lender is under no obligation to continue to provide Trade Credits for certain specific fiat currencies and/or digital assets, and Lender may impose black-out periods during which Trade Credits for currencies or digital assets may be unavailable.

To the extent that Trade Credits are not available, (1) there may be delays in the selling of SOL, (2) Trust assets may be in held the Trading Balance for a longer duration than if Trade Credits were available, and (3) the execution price associated with such trades may deviate significantly from the Pricing Benchmark price used to determine the Trust’s NAV. To the extent that the execution price for sales of SOL deviates significantly from the Pricing Benchmark price used to determine the NAV of the Trust, the remaining Shareholders may be negatively impacted. If Trade Credits are unavailable to the Trust, the Trust must pre-fund its Trading Balance with cash and/or SOL in order to sell SOL through the Prime Broker.

The Trust generally must repay Trade Credits by 6:00 p.m. ET (the “Settlement deadline”) on the Business Day immediately following the day the Trade Credit was extended by the Lender to the Trust (or, if such day is not a Business Day, on the next Business Day). Pursuant to the Post-Trade Financing Agreement, the Trust has granted a security interest in, lien on and right of set off against all of the Trust’s right, title and interest, the Trust’s Trading Balance and Vault Balance established pursuant to the Prime Broker Agreement and Custodial Services Agreement, in order to secure the repayment by the Trust of the Trade Credits and financing fees to the Lender. The Trust and Lender may terminate the Post-Trade Financing Agreement immediately upon giving the other Party written notice. Upon such notice of termination, the SOL Custodian and the Prime Broker have agreed to comply with instructions and entitlement orders from the Lender with respect to the disposition of the assets in the Trust’s Trading Balance without further consent by the Trust. If the Trust fails to repay the Trade Credits to the Lender on time and in full, the Lender shall have the right to instruct the Prime Broker (and Prime Broker agrees to comply with such instruction) to transfer the Trust’s assets from the Trust’s Trading Balance to the Lender to repay the Trade Credit debt owed by the Trust to the Lender and/or liquidate or cancel outstanding orders.

Other than in connection with the Post-Trade Financing Agreement, (1) the Trust, the Sponsor and the 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, other than in connection with the Post-Trade Financing Agreement; and (2) the Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

Interest rates on Trade Credits (“financing fee”) will be an amount to be determined, on a daily basis, based on the Lender’s sole discretion considering factors including, but not limited to, availability of financing, market prices, and credit due diligence of the Trust.

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 (“Register”). 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 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 Exchange 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 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 or Participants has or have given such direction.

PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION

Buying and Selling Shares

Most investors buy and sell Shares of the Trust in secondary market transactions through brokers. Shares are expected to trade on the Exchange under the ticker symbol “[●].” Shares are expected to be bought and sold throughout the trading day like other publicly traded securities. When buying or selling Shares through a broker, most investors will 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. The Trust continuously offers Baskets consisting of 10,000 Shares to Authorized Participants. Authorized Participants pay a transaction fee for each order they place to create or redeem one or more Baskets.

The 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. 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.

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 equivalent to the amount of SOL represented by the Baskets being created or redeemed, the amount of which is based on the quantity of SOL attributable to each Share of the Trust (net of accrued but unpaid Sponsor Fees and any accrued but unpaid extraordinary expenses or liabilities) being created or redeemed determined as of 4:00 p.m. ET 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, which 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 Sponsor. The Authorized Participant Agreement provides the procedures for the creation and redemption of Baskets and for the delivery of the SOL required for such creation and redemptions. The Authorized Participant Agreement and the related procedures attached thereto may be amended by the Trust, without the consent of any Shareholder or Authorized Participant. Authorized Participants pay the Transfer Agent a fee for each order they place to create or redeem one or more Baskets. The transaction fee may be reduced, increased or otherwise changed by the Sponsor.

The SOL Counterparty is a designated third party with whom the Sponsor has entered into an agreement on behalf of the Trust that will deliver, receive or convert to U.S. dollars the SOL related to the Authorized Participant’s creation or redemption order. The Trust will create Shares by receiving SOL from a SOL Counterparty that is not the Authorized Participant, and the Trust — not the Authorized Participant — is responsible for selecting the SOL Counterparty to deliver the SOL. Further, the SOL Counterparty will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust. The SOL Counterparty is not contractually obligated to participate in cash orders for creations. The SOL Counterparty reserves the right to refuse or to cancel any pending creation order at any time before the Sponsor places a purchase order.

The Trust will create Shares by receiving SOL from a SOL Counterparty that is not the Authorized Participant, and the Trust—not the Authorized Participant—is responsible for selecting the SOL Counterparty to deliver the SOL. Further, the SOL Counterparty will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the SOL to the Trust. The SOL Counterparty is not contractually obligated to participate in cash orders for redemptions. The SOL Counterparty reserves the right to refuse or to cancel any pending redemption order at any time before the Sponsor places a purchase order.

The Trust will redeem Shares by delivering SOL to a SOL Counterparty that is not the Authorized Participant and the Trust—not the Authorized Participant —is responsible for selecting the SOL Counterparty to receive the SOL. Further, the SOL Counterparty will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the SOL from the Trust or acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the SOL from the Trust.

Generally speaking, SOL Counterparties deliver SOL related to the Authorized Participant’s purchase order to the Trust’s Cold Balance Vault Account. Authorized Participants and SOL Counterparties are not required to maintain an account with the SOL Custodian.

Creations and redemptions of Shares may result in certain slippage being incurred as a result of, for example, trading fees, spreads, or commissions. Any slippage so incurred will be the responsibility of the Authorized Participant, as a cash liability, and not of the Trust or Sponsor.

100

Each Authorized Participant will be required to be registered as a broker-dealer under the Exchange 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 Sponsor performs extensive due diligence as a part of its SOL Counterparty selection and onboarding process. As part of this process the Sponsor assesses SOL Counterparty candidates against various criteria, including those relating to candidates’ (1) financial standing, (2) reputation, (3) settlement history with the Sponsor and (4) regulatory oversight.

Creations and redemptions will generally be “on-chain” transactions reflected in the Trust’s Vault Account. Under certain circumstances, these transactions may be “off-chain” transactions that are represented in the books and records of the Prime Broker.

The Trust will be responsible for SOL-related on-chain transaction fees associated with creation and redemption transactions and transactions with the Prime Broker, and that the Sponsor will assume such expenses of the Trust in consideration for the Sponsor Fee. The Authorized Participant is responsible for only a cash liability relating to creation and redemption costs, such as trading fees and slippage.

Authorized Participants will place orders through the Transfer Agent. The Transfer Agent will coordinate with the Trust’s Custodian in order to facilitate settlement of the Shares and SOL as described in more detail in the Creation Procedures and Redemption Procedures sections below.

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

Cash Creation Procedures

On any Business Day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent via the order taking portal to create one or more Baskets via a cash transaction.

Purchase orders must be placed by 12:00 p.m. ET, the close of regular trading on the Exchange, or another time determined by the Sponsor. The day on which an order is received by the Transfer Agent is considered the purchase order date.

Upon the Sponsor’s approval, a creation request by an Authorized Participant will produce an affirmation confirming the acceptance of the order by the Sponsor. Upon publication of the Trust’s NAV, the Sponsor, Transfer Agent and Authorized Participant will receive a confirmation receipt including trade details such as trade date, settlement date, direction of trade, number of Shares, SOL entitlement and Authorized Participant details. On the settlement date, the Sponsor and Authorized Participant will settle entirely in cash.

Prior to the delivery of Baskets for a purchase order, the Authorized Participant must also have wired to the Transfer Agent the nonrefundable transaction fee due for the creation order. Authorized Participants may not withdraw a creation request.

101

To effectuate a creation order, the Authorized Participant will be required to prefund with cash the Trust’s purchase of SOL in an amount set by the Sponsor. The Authorized Participant will be required to transfer the cash deposit amount associated with such creation order to the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian. The Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will instruct a SOL Counterparty to purchase the amount of SOL 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 Pricing Benchmark price used by the Trust to calculate NAV, taking into account any spread, commissions, or other trading costs on the applicable Creation Order Date. The resulting SOL will be deposited in the Trust’s account with the SOL 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 SOL acquired by the SOL Counterparty at settlement is less than the cash deposit amount, such cash difference will be remitted to the Authorized Participant. To the extent the execution price of the SOL acquired by the SOL Counterparty exceeds the cash deposit amount, such cash difference will be the responsibility of the Authorized Participant and not the Trust or Sponsor.

No Shares will be issued unless and until the Sponsor and Transfer Agent have confirmed that any outstanding cash due from the Authorized Participant has been settled with the Trust. Disruption of services at the Prime Broker or Custodian would have the potential to delay settlement of the SOL related to Share creations. To the extent the SOL Counterparty is not able to deliver SOL associated with a purchase order as of a specified time on the settlement date, the Sponsor or Transfer Agent will cancel the purchase order. To the extent that SOL transfers from the Trust’s Trading Balance to the Trust’s Vault are delayed due to congestion or other issues with the Solana network, such SOL will not be held in cold storage in the Vault until such transfers can occur.

Following an Authorized Participant’s purchase order, the Trust’s Custodian account must be credited with the required SOL by the end of the Business Day following the purchase order date. Under most circumstances, the SOL associated with a Creation Basket Deposit will be deposited with the SOL Custodian in the Trust’s Cold Vault Balance, although in some circumstances, SOL may be deposited outside of cold storage. Upon receipt of the SOL deposit amount in the Trust’s Custodian account, the SOL Custodian will notify the Transfer Agent, the Authorized Participant, and the Sponsor that the SOL has been deposited. Upon confirmation by the Sponsor and Transfer Agent that any outstanding cash due from the Authorized Participant has been settled with the Trust, the Transfer Agent will then direct DTC to credit the number of Shares created to the applicable DTC account of the Authorized Participant.

The Authorized Participant understands and agrees that in the event the Creation Basket Deposit is not deposited to the Trust by the time specified above and in compliance with the applicable procedures, and any outstanding cash due from the Authorized Participant has not been settled with the Trust, the applicable Purchase Order will be canceled by the Sponsor.

None of the Sponsor, the Trust, the Marketing Agent, or the Transfer Agent shall be liable to the Authorized Participant if a SOL Counterparty fails to deliver SOL representing the Creation Basket Deposit for such Authorized Participant’s Purchase Order to the Trust’s account with the SOL Custodian unless such failure is due to an act or omission of the Sponsor or Trust.

102

Determination of Required Cash Deposits

The total cash deposit amount required to create each Basket (“Basket Deposit”) is the amount of cash equivalent to the amount of SOL that is in the same proportion to the total assets of the Trust, net of accrued expenses and other liabilities, on the date the order to purchase is properly received, as the number of Shares to be created under the purchase order is in proportion to the total number of Shares outstanding on the date the order is received, plus a cash buffer set by the Sponsor.

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 SOL represented by the Basket Deposit as appropriate to reflect accrued expenses and any loss of SOL that may occur. The computation is made by the Administrator as promptly as practicable after 4:00 p.m. ET. Each night, the Sponsor will publish the amount of SOL that is represented by each Basket Deposit.

Delivery of Required Cash 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 SOL Custodian, the Sponsor will notify the Transfer Agent that the SOL has been received, the Transfer Agent and Sponsor will determine whether any outstanding cash due from the Authorized Participant has been settled with the Trust, and the Transfer Agent will direct DTC to credit the number of Shares ordered to the Authorized Participant’s DTC account on the Business Day following the purchase order date.

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 or Basket Deposit is not in proper form;

●

it would not be in the best interest of the Shareholders of the Trust;

●

the acceptance of the purchase order or the Basket Deposit would have adverse tax consequences to the Trust or its Shareholders;

●

the acceptance or receipt of which would, in the opinion of counsel to the Sponsor, be unlawful; or

●

circumstances outside the control of the Trust, the Sponsor, the Marketing Agent or the SOL Custodian make it, for all practical purposes, not feasible to process Creations Baskets (including if the Sponsor determines that the investments available to the Trust at that time will not enable it to meet its investment objective).

103

None of the Sponsor, the Transfer Agent or the SOL Custodian will be liable for the rejection of any purchase order or Basket Deposit.

The Marketing Agent shall notify the Authorized Participant of a rejection or revocation of any Purchase Order. The Marketing Agent is under no duty, however, to give notification of any specific defects or irregularities in the delivery of the Creation Basket Deposit nor shall the Marketing Agent or the Trust incur any liability for the failure to give any such notification. The Trust and the Marketing Agent may not revoke a previously accepted Purchase Order.

Cash Redemption Procedures

The procedures by which an Authorized Participant can redeem one or more Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Baskets with an additional safeguard on SOL being removed from the Trust’s Custodian account.

On any Business Day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent via the order taking portal to redeem one or more Baskets. For purposes of processing redemption orders, a “Business Day” means each day other than a day when the Exchange or the New York Stock Exchange is closed for regular trading.

Sell orders must be placed by 12:00 p.m. ET, or the close of regular trading on the Exchange, or another time as determined by the Sponsor. The day on which an order is received by the Transfer Agent is considered the sell order date.

Upon the Sponsor’s approval, a redemption request by an Authorized Participant will produce an affirmation confirming the acceptance of the order by the Sponsor. Upon publication of the Trust’s NAV, the Sponsor, Transfer Agent and Authorized Participant will receive a confirmation receipt including trade details such as trade date, settlement date, direction of trade, number of Shares, SOL entitlement and Authorized Participant details. On the settlement date, the Sponsor and Authorized Participant will settle entirely in cash.

To effectuate a redemption order via a cash transaction, the Authorized Participant will be required to prefund a cash amount determined by the Sponsor to the Trust’s account with the Transfer Agent no later than 2:00 pm ET on the sell order date or at another time as determined by the Sponsor. Because the Shares associated with the redemption order may not be available at the time that the Authorized Participant places the redemption order, the Sponsor may require cash to be pre-funded to cover related trading costs. The Shares associated with the redemption order are due to be delivered to the Trust’s DTC account on the settlement date. Upon receipt of the required cash indicated in the redemption order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, will instruct the SOL Counterparty to convert SOL into cash by effectuating a SOL sale executed, in the Sponsor’s reasonable efforts, at the Pricing Benchmark price used by the Trust to calculate NAV, and deposit the cash proceeds of such sale in the Trust’s account with the Cash Custodian for settlement with the Authorized Participant (taking into account any spread, commission, or other trading costs).

The redemption distribution due from the Trust is delivered to the SOL Counterparty on the Redemption Distribution Date (which is the next Business Day after the redemption order is received) if the Trust’s DTC account has been credited with the Baskets to be redeemed. Once the Sponsor determines that the Shares have been received in the Trust’s DTC account, the Sponsor authorizes the SOL Custodian to transfer the redemption SOL amount from the Trust’s Custodian account to the SOL Counterparty for conversion to cash to be distributed to the Authorized Participant upon settlement. To the extent the Shares associated with the redemption order are not received in the Trust’s DTC account on the settlement date, the redemption order will be canceled.

104

Upon receipt of the redemption distribution of SOL by the SOL Counterparty, the SOL Counterparty, as a counterparty to the Trust, shall convert the SOL associated with the redemption order to cash for settlement with the Trust. Under most circumstances, this transfer of SOL will be made from the Trust’s Cold Vault Balance with the SOL Custodian, although in some circumstances, SOL may be transferred from outside of cold storage.

Determination of Cash Redemption Distribution

The redemption distribution from the Trust consists of a transfer to a SOL Counterparty of an amount of SOL equal to the NAV of the Trust multiplied by the number of Shares to be redeemed under the redemption order, with such amount of SOL to be converted by the Trust to cash for settlement with the redeeming Authorized Participant.

Delivery of Cash Redemption Distribution

The Trust, through the Cash Custodian, will deliver cash to the Authorized Participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust. This distribution of cash will be delivered to the Authorized Participant on the Business Day following the date that a redemption order is received in satisfactory form by the Marketing Agent (the “Redemption Order Date”) if, by 2:00 p.m. ET, on such Business Day (or another time as determined by Sponsor), the Trust’s DTC account has been credited with the Baskets to be redeemed. If the Trust’s DTC account has not been credited with all of the Baskets to be redeemed by such time, the redemption distribution will also be delayed.

Suspension or Rejection of Redemption Orders

The Sponsor may, in its discretion, suspend the right of redemption, or postpone the redemption settlement date, (1) for any period during which the Exchange is closed other than customary weekend or holiday closings, or trading on the Exchange is suspended or restricted, (2) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which delivery, disposal or evaluation of SOL is not reasonably practicable, or (3) for such other period as the Sponsor determines to be necessary for the protection of the Shareholders. 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, it may be appropriate to suspend redemptions until such time as such circumstances are rectified. None of the Sponsor, the person authorized to take redemption orders in the manner provided in the Authorized Participant Agreement, or the SOL 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.

105

Redemption orders must be made in whole Baskets. The Sponsor 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, (2) the fulfillment of which its counsel advises may be illegal under applicable laws and regulations, or (3) if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor, the person authorized to take redemption orders in the manner provided in the Authorized Participant Agreement or the SOL Custodian make it for all practical purposes not feasible for the Shares to be delivered under the redemption order. The Sponsor may also reject a redemption order if the number of Shares being redeemed would reduce the remaining outstanding Shares to 10,000 Shares (i.e., 1 Basket) or less.

The Marketing Agent shall notify the Authorized Participant of a rejection or suspension of any redemption order. The Marketing Agent is under no duty, however, to give notification of any specific defects or irregularities nor shall the Marketing Agent or the Trust incur any liability for the failure to give any such notification. The Trust and the Marketing Agent may not revoke a previously accepted redemption order.

Potential In-Kind Creation and Redemption of Shares

In the future, the Trust may also permit Authorized Participants (or third parties for which the Authorized Participant is acting on behalf) to create and redeem Shares via in-kind transactions, subject to receiving regulatory approval. The timing of applicable regulatory approval is unknown and there is no guarantee that such regulatory approval will be received. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that Authorized Participants (or third parties for which the Authorized Participant is acting on behalf) would be permitted to create or redeem Shares via in-kind transactions with the Trust in the future. If such regulatory approval is received, and if the Sponsor chooses to allow in-kind creations and redemptions, the Trust will notify the owners of the beneficial interests of Shares in a prospectus supplement, in its periodic Exchange Act reports, as applicable, and on the Sponsor’s website.

Creation and Redemption Transaction Fee

To compensate the Transfer Agent for expenses incurred in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets, an Authorized Participant is required to pay a transaction fee to the Transfer Agent to create or redeem Baskets, which does not vary in accordance with the number of Baskets in such order. The transaction fee may be reduced, increased or otherwise changed by the Sponsor. The Sponsor will notify DTC of any change in the transaction fee and will not implement any increase in the fee for the redemption of Baskets until thirty (30) days after the date of notice.

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 equivalent to the amount of SOL represented by the number of Shares included in the Baskets being created or redeemed, as determined on the day the order to create or redeem Baskets is properly received.

106

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, which 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 SOL or other portfolio investments. 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 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 SOL.

USE OF PROCEEDS

Proceeds received by the Trust from the issuance of Baskets consist of SOL. Such deposits are held by the SOL Custodian on behalf of the Trust until (i) delivered out in connection with redemptions of Baskets or (ii) transferred or sold by the SOL Custodian to pay fees due to the Sponsor and to pay the Trust’s expenses and liabilities not assumed by the Sponsor.

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. The Trust anticipates that, on or about [●], [●] will purchase [●] Shares for an aggregate purchase price of [●].

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.

107

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 Trust Agreement, 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 officers, directors and employees of the Sponsor do not devote their time exclusively to the Trust. These persons are directors, officers or employees of other entities which may compete with the Trust for their services. They could have a conflict between their responsibilities to the Trust and to those other entities.

The Sponsor has the authority to manage the investments and operations of the Trust, and this may allow them to act in a way that furthers their own interests which may create a conflict with shareholders’ best interests. Shareholders have very limited voting rights, which limits their ability to influence matters such as amendment of the Trust Agreement, change in the Trust’s basic investment policy, dissolution of the Trust, or the sale or distribution of the Trust’s assets.

The Sponsor serves as the sponsor to the Trust. The Sponsor may have a conflict to the extent that its trading decisions for the Trust may be influenced by the effect they would have on other funds its affiliates may manage. In addition, the Sponsor may be required to 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.

108

The Sponsor has an affiliate, 21Shares AG, that issues various exchange traded products providing exposure to certain digital assets in non-U.S. jurisdictions. In addition, the Sponsor’s affiliate(s) may take management fees in-kind in SOL, and as such, may engage in trading of the underlying asset across affiliates. The Sponsor has adopted and implemented policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable law, including a Code of Ethics providing guidance on conflicts of interest (collectively, the “Policies”). As of the effectiveness of the Registration Statement, the Sponsor’s Policies are in place and require that the Sponsor eliminate, mitigate, or otherwise disclose conflicts of interest. Additionally, the Sponsor has adopted policies and procedures requiring that certain applicable personnel pre-clear personal trading activity in which SOL is the referenced asset. The Sponsor has also implemented an Information Barrier Policy restricting certain applicable personnel from obtaining sensitive information. The Sponsor believes that these controls are reasonably designed to mitigate the risk of conflicts of interest and other impermissible activity.

Furthermore, the Sponsor or its affiliates may participate in transactions related to SOL, either for their own account or for the account of a client. 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 SOL held by the Trust and, consequently, on the market value of SOL. In addition, the Sponsor or its affiliates may act in other capacities with regard to other investment products offered by either party.

The Sponsor or its affiliates may issue derivative instruments relating to SOL. The Sponsor’s affiliate may offer investment products that offer short exposure to SOL and offers other products that offer long exposure to SOL, which may take market share from the Trust or affect the value of SOL or an investment in the Trust. Introduction of such competing products may affect the market value of SOL and an investment in the Trust. The Sponsor and its affiliated companies may also receive non-public information relating to SOL and neither the Sponsor nor any of its affiliates will undertake to make this information available to investors in the Trust.

The Sponsor and its employees and affiliates, may engage in long or short transactions in SOL in their personal accounts (subject to certain internal employee trading policies and procedures), and in doing so may take positions opposite to those held by the Trust or may compete with the Trust for positions in the marketplace.

Records of trading by these parties will not be available for inspection by shareholders. Because these parties may trade SOL for their own accounts at the same time as the Trust, prospective shareholders should be aware that such persons may take positions in SOL which are opposite, or ahead of, the positions taken for the Trust. There can be no assurance that any of the foregoing will not have an adverse effect on the performance of the Trust.

If the Sponsor acquires knowledge of a potential transaction or arrangement that may be an opportunity for the Trust, it will have no duty to offer such opportunity to the Trust. The Sponsor will not be liable to the Trust or the Shareholders for breach of any fiduciary or other duty if Sponsor pursues such opportunity or directs it to another person or does not communicate such opportunity to the Trust. Neither the Trust nor any Shareholder will have any rights or obligations by virtue of the Trust Agreement, the trust relationship created thereby, or this Prospectus in such business ventures or the income or profits derived from such business ventures. The pursuit of such business ventures, even if competitive with the activities of the Trust, will not be deemed wrongful or improper.

109

Resolution of Conflicts Procedures

The Trust Agreement provides that (i) whenever a conflict of interest exists or arises between the Sponsor or any of its Affiliates, on the one hand, and the Trust, any shareholder or any other person, on the other hand; or (ii) whenever the Trust Agreement or any other agreement contemplated by the Trust Agreement provides that the Sponsor shall act in a manner that is, or provides terms that are, fair and reasonable to the Trust, any shareholder or any other person, the Sponsor shall 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, any customary or accepted industry practices, 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 shall not constitute a breach of this Trust Agreement or any other agreement contemplated herein or of any duty or obligation of the Sponsor at law or in equity or otherwise.

DUTIES OF THE SPONSOR

The general fiduciary duties which 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:

●

To enter into, execute, accept, deliver and maintain, and to cause the Trust to perform its obligations under, contracts, agreements and any or all other documents and instruments incidental to the Trust’s purposes, including, but not limited to, contracts with third parties to provide various services, it being understood that any document or instrument so executed or accepted by the Sponsor in the Sponsor’s name shall be deemed executed and accepted on behalf of the Trust by the Sponsor; provided, however, that such services may be performed by an Affiliate or Affiliates of the Sponsor so long as the Sponsor has made a good faith determination that: (A) the Affiliate that it proposes to engage to perform such services is qualified to do so (considering the prior experience of the Affiliate or the individuals employed by the Affiliate); (B) the terms and conditions of the agreement pursuant to which such Affiliate is to perform services for the Trust are no less favorable to the Trust than could be obtained from equally-qualified unaffiliated third parties; and (C) the maximum period covered by the agreement pursuant to which such Affiliate is to perform services for the Trust shall not exceed one year, and such agreement shall be terminable without penalty upon one hundred twenty (120) days’ prior written notice by the Trust;

●

To establish, maintain, deposit into, and sign checks and/or otherwise draw upon, accounts on behalf of the Trust with appropriate banking and savings institutions;

●

To cause legal title to any Trust property to be held by or in the name of the Sponsor, or to have any contract entered into in the name of the Sponsor, on such terms as the Sponsor may determine, with the same effect as if such property were held in the name of the Trust or such contract were entered into in the name of the Trust;

110

●

To deposit, withdraw, pay, retain and distribute the Trust Estate or any portion thereof in any manner consistent with the provisions of this Trust Agreement;

●

To supervise the preparation of any offering materials for the Trust (including but not limited to offering memoranda and prospectuses) and supplements and amendments thereto;

●

To pay or authorize the payment of distributions to the Shareholders and expenses of the Trust;

●

To prepare, or cause to be prepared, and file, or cause to be filed, an application to enable the Shares to be traded on any listing exchange or over-the-counter quotation or listing platform as determined by the Sponsor in its sole discretion and to take any other action and execute and deliver any certificates or documents that may be necessary to effectuate such listing;

●

To appoint one or more SOL custodians or other security vendors as the Sponsor deems necessary in its sole discretion, including itself or any Affiliate, to provide for custodian, security services or to determine not to appoint any custodian or other security vendors, and to otherwise take any action with respect to the SOL Custodian or any SOL custodians or other security vendors to safeguard the Trust Estate;

●

In the sole and absolute discretion of the Sponsor, to admit an Affiliate or Affiliates of the Sponsor as additional Sponsors;

●

Delegate those of its duties hereunder as it shall determine from time to time to one or more service providers, and add any additional service providers, including but not limited to any sub-adviser, administrator, transfer agent, custodian(s), index or benchmark provider, Authorized Participants, marketing agent(s), insurer(s) and any other service provider(s) and cause the Trust to enter into contracts with such service provider(s) if needed and as applicable;

●

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

●

Under the Trust Agreement, the Sponsor has the right, in its sole discretion, to determine what action to take in connection with the Trust’s entitlement to or ownership of Incidental Rights or any IR Virtual Currency, and Trust may take any lawful action necessary or desirable in connection with the Trust’s ownership of Incidental Rights, including the acquisition of IR Virtual Currency, as determined by the Sponsor in the Sponsor’s sole discretion, unless such action would adversely affect the status of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes or otherwise be prohibited by the Trust Agreement. However, with respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. In the event the Trust seeks to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by the Exchange seeking approval to amend its listing rules;

●

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in the event of a hard fork of the Solana Network, the Sponsor may, in reasonable good faith, determine which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Solana Network, is generally accepted as the Solana Network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes;

●

In general, to do everything necessary, suitable or proper for the accomplishment of any purpose or the attainment of any objective 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 to, or growing out of or connected with, the aforesaid purposes, objects or powers;

●

In addition, and without limiting the foregoing, 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 Trust Agreement, 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.

To the extent that at 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.

111

LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION

Trustee

As further discussed in the Trust Agreement, 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 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 hereunder, if the Trustee shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the payment of such funds or adequate indemnity against such risk or liability is not reasonably assured or provided to it;

(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.

112

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 SOL or other assets held in trust hereunder; provided, however, that 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 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 against any losses, judgments, liabilities, expenses and amounts paid in settlement of any claims 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, provided that (i) the Sponsor was acting on behalf of, or performing services for, the Trust and has determined, in good faith, that such course of conduct was in the best interests of the Trust and such liability or loss was not the result of fraud, gross negligence, bad faith, willful misconduct, or a material breach of this Trust Agreement on the part of the Sponsor and (ii) any such indemnification will be recoverable only from the Trust Estate. Any amounts payable to a Sponsor Indemnified Party under 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

113

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

Each Share represents a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net assets of the Trust. Upon redemption of the Shares, the applicable Authorized Participant shall be paid solely out of the funds and property of the Trust. All Shares are transferable, fully paid and non-assessable. The assets of the Trust consist primarily of SOL held by the SOL Custodian on behalf of the Trust.

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.

Owners of Shares do not generally have any voting rights. The Shares do not represent a traditional investment and are not similar to shares of a corporation operating a business enterprise with management and a board of directors. All Shares are of the same class with equal rights and privileges. By acquiring Shares, you are not acquiring the right to elect directors, to receive dividends, to vote on certain matters regarding the issuer of your Shares or to take other actions normally associated with the ownership of shares. The Shares do not entitle their holders to any conversion or pre-emptive rights or any redemption rights. In certain circumstances, Shareholders may vote to appoint a successor Sponsor following the Voluntary Withdrawal of the Sponsor, or to continue the Trust in certain instances of dissolution of the Trust. Shareholders shall otherwise have no voting rights with respect to the Trust.

114

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.

The Trust does not have any directors, officers or employees. The creation and operation of the Trust has been arranged by the Sponsor. The following persons, in their capacities as executive officers of the Sponsor, a Delaware limited liability company, perform certain functions with respect to the Trust that, if the Trust had directors or executive officers, would typically be performed by them.

Russell Barlow is CEO of the Sponsor, Duncan Moir is President of the Sponsor, Edel Bashir is Chief Operating Officer of the Sponsor and Andres Valencia is the Sponsor’s Executive Vice President of Investment Management.

Mr. Russell Barlow, 51, has been the Chief Executive Officer of the Sponsor since March 1, 2025, contributing more than 25 years of expertise in regulated asset management. Previously, Russell was the Global Head of Multi Asset and Alternative Investment Solutions and Global Head of Alternative Investment Solutions at abrdn plc, a global investment company (“abrdn”). Over the course of his career, he has designed, launched and managed a wide range of investment products. Additionally, Russell has held a position as a Non-Executive Director at Archax, the UK’s first FCA-regulated digital asset exchange.

Mr. Duncan Moir, 39, has been the President of the Sponsor since March 1, 2025, with deep expertise in crypto and blockchain strategy. Previously, Duncan was a Senior Investment Manager at abrdn. He is an independent board member of Hedera Hashgraph LLC and an advisor to Web3 companies. A University of Strathclyde graduate with a BA (Hons) in Economics, he is also a CFA and CAIA charterholder.

Ms. Edel Bashir, 45, has been the Chief Operating Officer of the Sponsor since March 1, 2025, with over 20 years of experience in asset management. Previously, Edel was the COO of Multi Asset and Alternative Investment Solutions, COO of Alternatives and a Senior Investment Manager at abrdn. Her expertise includes operation strategy, portfolio management, and hedge fund research. A graduate of University of College Cork, Ireland with a BSc in Finance, she has held senior roles across Bermuda, Dublin and Boston.

Mr. Andres Valencia, 37, is the Executive Vice President of Investment Management at the Sponsor and a member of the Executive Committee. Before Andres joined in June 2021, he was a VP of Operations at JPMorgan as part of the Beta Strategies Group and helped launch and build the company’s ETF business. Andres has over ten years of experience managing ETFs. Andres started his career in Asset Servicing at Bank of New York Mellon covering commodity and currency ETFs.

BOOKS AND RECORDS

The Trust keeps its books of record and account at the office 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 also 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.

115

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 Exchange 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.

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. Such consent is not required for any person to assert a claim of Delaware jurisdiction over the Sponsor, the Trust.

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 Securities 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 Exchange Act.

LEGAL MATTERS

Dechert LLP has advised the Sponsor in connection with the Shares being offered. Dechert LLP advises the Sponsor with respect to its responsibilities as sponsor of, and with respect to matters relating to, the Trust. 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 statements of the Trust will be included herein in reliance on the report of Cohen & Company, Ltd., an independent registered public accounting firm, given on the authority of said firm as experts in auditing and accounting.

116

OTHER MATERIAL CONTRACTS

Cash Custody Agreement

21Shares Core Solana ETF S-1/A