Market Risk. Market risk is the risk that a particular security, or Shares of the Fund in general, may fall in value. Securities are subject to market fluctuations caused by such factors as economic, political, regulatory or market developments, changes in interest rates and perceived trends in securities prices. Shares of the Fund could decline in value or underperform other investments. In addition, local, regional or global events such as war, acts of terrorism, spread of infectious diseases or other public health issues, recessions, or other events could have a significant negative impact on the Fund and its investments. Such events may affect certain geographic regions, countries, sectors and industries more significantly than others. These events also adversely affect the prices and liquidity of the Fund’s portfolio securities or other instruments and could result in disruptions in the trading markets. Any of such circumstances could have a materially negative impact on the value of the Fund’s Shares and result in increased market volatility. During any such events, the Fund’s Shares may trade at increased premiums or discounts to their net asset value.

Bitcoin Risk. Bitcoin is a relatively new innovation and the market for bitcoin is subject to rapid price swings, changes and uncertainty. Trading prices of bitcoin and other digital assets have experienced significant volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including bitcoin, 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 bitcoin. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout bitcoin’s history, including in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018, before repeating again in 2021-2022. Throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025, bitcoin prices continued to exhibit extreme volatility. Such volatility may persist.

The further development of the Bitcoin Network and the acceptance and use of bitcoin are subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. The slowing, stopping or reversing of the development of the Bitcoin Network or the acceptance of bitcoin may adversely affect the price of bitcoin. Bitcoin is subject to the risk of fraud, theft, manipulation or security failures, operational or other problems that impact digital asset trading venues. Additionally, if one or a coordinated group of miners were to gain control of 51% of the Bitcoin Network, they would have the ability to manipulate transactions, halt payments and fraudulently obtain bitcoin. A significant portion of bitcoin is held by a small number of holders sometimes referred to as “whales.” Transactions of these holders may influence the price of bitcoin.

Unlike the exchanges for more traditional assets, such as equity securities and futures contracts, bitcoin and digital asset trading venues are largely unregulated and highly fragmented. Due to the fragmentation, regulatory non-compliance and lack of oversight of these trading venues there is a heightened potential for fraud and manipulation. Digital asset trading platforms on which bitcoin is traded, and which may serve as a pricing source for the calculation of the reference rate that is used for the purposes of valuing the Fund’s investments, are or may become subject to enforcement actions by regulatory authorities, and such enforcement actions may have a material adverse impact on the Fund, its investments, and its ability to implement its investment strategy.

As a result of the lack of regulation, individuals or groups may engage in fraud or market manipulation (including using social media to promote bitcoin in a way that artificially increases the price of bitcoin). Investors may be more exposed to the risk of theft, fraud and market manipulation than when investing in more traditional asset classes. Over the past several years, a number of digital asset trading venues have been closed due to fraud, failure or security breaches. Investors in bitcoin may have little or no recourse should such theft, fraud or manipulation occur and could suffer significant losses. New or changing laws and regulations may affect the use of blockchain technology and/or investments in crypto assets or crypto asset-related investments. In addition, digital asset trading venues, bitcoin miners, and other participants may have significant exposure to other cryptocurrencies. Instability in the price, availability or legal or regulatory status of those instruments may adversely impact the operation of the digital asset trading venues and the Bitcoin Network. The realization of any of these risks could result in a decline in the acceptance of bitcoin and consequently a reduction in the value of bitcoin, bitcoin futures, and the Fund. Finally, the creation of a “fork” (as described above) or a substantial giveaway of bitcoin (sometimes referred to as an “air drop”) may result in significant and unexpected declines in the value of bitcoin, bitcoin futures, and the Fund.

Futures Contracts Risk. Risks of futures contracts include: (i) an imperfect correlation between the value of the futures contract and the underlying asset; (ii) possible lack of a liquid secondary market; (iii) the inability to close a futures contract when desired; (iv) losses caused by unanticipated market movements, which may be unlimited; (v) an obligation for the Fund to make daily cash payments to maintain its required margin, particularly at times when the Fund may have insufficient cash; and (vi) unfavorable execution prices from rapid selling. Unlike equities, which typically entitle the holder to a continuing stake in a corporation, futures contracts normally specify a certain date for settlement in cash based on the reference asset. As the futures contracts approach expiration, they may be replaced by similar contracts that have a later expiration. This process is referred to as “rolling.” If the market for these contracts is in “contango,” meaning that the prices of futures contracts in the nearer months are lower than the price of contracts in the distant months, the sale of the near-term month contract would be at a lower price than the longer-term contract, resulting in a cost to “roll” the futures contract. The actual realization of a potential roll cost will be dependent upon the difference in price of the near and distant contract. The costs associated with rolling Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts typically are substantially higher than the costs associated with other futures contracts and may have a significant adverse impact on the performance of the Fund. Because the margin requirement for futures contracts is less than the value of the assets underlying the futures contract, futures trading involves a degree of leverage. As a result, a relatively small price movement in a futures contract may result in immediate and substantial loss, as well as gain, to the investor. For example, if at the time of purchase, 40% of the value of the futures contract is deposited as margin, a subsequent 20% decrease in the value of the futures contract would result in a loss of half of the margin deposit, before any deduction for the transaction costs, if the account were then closed out. A decrease in excess of 40% would result in a loss exceeding the original margin deposit, if the futures contract were closed out. Thus, a purchase or sale of a futures contract may result in losses in excess of the amount initially invested in the futures contract. However, the Fund would presumably have sustained comparable losses if, instead of investing in the futures contract, it had invested in the underlying financial instrument and sold it after the decline.

Cost of Futures Investment Risk. When a Bitcoin or Ether Futures Contract is nearing expiration, the Fund will generally sell it and use the proceeds to buy a Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contract with a later expiration date. This is commonly referred to as “rolling”. The costs associated with rolling Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts typically are substantially higher than the costs associated with other futures contracts and may have a significant adverse impact on the performance of the Fund.

Forked Digital Asset Risk. The Bitcoin Network and Ethereum Network operate using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the users and validators adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and validators consent to the modification, the change is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, 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, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Bitcoin Network or Ethereum Network, as applicable, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of the Bitcoin Network or the Ethereum Network running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in August 2017, bitcoin “forked” into Bitcoin and a new digital asset, Bitcoin Cash, as a result of a several-year dispute over how to increase the rate of transactions that the Bitcoin Network can process.

Forks may also occur as a network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in June 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum Network to syphon approximately $60 million of ether held by The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the hack, 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 Ether Classic, or ETC. ETC now trades on several digital asset trading platforms. A fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of otherwise compatible software that users run. Such a fork could lead to users and validators abandoning the digital asset with the flawed software. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and validators could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This could result in a permanent fork, as in the case of ether and ether classic.

In addition, many developers have previously initiated hard forks in the Blockchain to launch new digital assets, such as Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. To the extent such digital assets compete with bitcoin or ether, such competition could impact demand for bitcoin or ether and could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Furthermore, a hard fork can lead to new security concerns. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks split in July 2016. Replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network, plagued digital asset trading platforms through at least October 2016. A digital asset trading platforms announced in July 2016 that it had lost 40,000 Ether Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Another possible result of a hard fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of mining/validating power remaining on one network or migrating instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual validator or validator pool’s power to exceed levels necessary to execute an attack on the network

A future fork in the Bitcoin Network or Ethereum Network could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Digital Asset Competition Risk. Bitcoin was the first digital asset to gain global adoption and critical mass, and as a result, it has a “first to market” advantage over other digital assets, and remains the largest digital asset by market capitalization. As of December 31, 2025, ether was the second largest digital asset by market capitalization as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of December 31, 2025, bitcoin and ether comprised 71.4% of the total market capitalization of the digital asset ecosystem tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. Alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com had a total market capitalization of approximately $1.32 trillion as of December 31, 2025. Each such asset competes directly and indirectly with every other digital asset for developer mindshare, institutional and retail adoption, network effects, exchange listings, liquidity, and ultimately market value. Because none of these alternative digital assets currently enjoys a dominant share of the market, incremental changes in perceived technological superiority, scalability, security, regulatory treatment, or utility can cause rapid, material shifts in user adoption, capital flows, and market price.

Layer 2 scaling solutions present an additional dimension of competitive risk. So-called “Layer 2” solutions are protocols built on top of an underlying smart contract platform blockchain, and intended to provide scalability to the underlying blockchain by increasing transaction efficiency. For example, Polygon is a smart contract platform protocol built on top of the Ethereum blockchain; it is intended to provide scalability to Ethereum by allowing users to transact on a variety of blockchains deployed on the Ethereum Network. Under this model, Ethereum functions as the base layer, or “Layer 1” blockchain. The Polygon protocol offers developers sidechain, roll-ups and other Layer 2 solutions which can be tailored to an individual developer’s intended use case. Such solutions are intended to improve upon the transaction speed, cost and efficiency of transactions on their respective Layer 1. However, Layer 2 solutions have only been recently developed and may not function as intended. For example, smart contracts deployed on one Layer 2 solution may not be interoperable with smart contracts deployed on other Layer 2 solutions. In particular, the advent of Layer 2 solutions presents the possibility of fracturing liquidity of DeFi dApps on a smart contract platform’s mainchain by splitting such liquidity among multiple, non-interoperable Layer 2 solutions, which could limit their use case or reduce efficiency. Layer 2 solutions also rely, to various degrees, on the functionality of the underlying Layer 1 blockchain. To the extent that the Ethereum Network is viewed as an unreliable Layer 1 solution, or that other networks provide better speed, costs, efficiency and features than the Ethereum Network, use of the Ethereum Network as a Layer 1 solution may decline with a corresponding reduction in the demand for, and price of, ether. In addition, DeFi dApps have been the frequent target of numerous hacking and manipulation attempts, with some such attempts resulting in irreversible losses to their users. There is also considerable regulatory uncertainty regarding DeFi dApps status and compliance with a variety of legal regimes, including federal securities law, anti-money laundering laws, and federal and state money service business laws. To the extent that DeFi dApps continue to experience hacking events or adverse regulatory events, the Ethereum Networks value as a Layer 1 solution may decline with a corresponding reduction in the demand for, and price of, ether.

Liquidity Risk. The market for Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts is still developing and may be subject to periods of illiquidity. During such times it may be difficult or impossible to buy or sell a position at the desired price. Market disruptions or volatility can also make it difficult to find a counterparty willing to transact at a reasonable price and sufficient size. Illiquid markets may cause losses, which could be significant. The large size of the positions which the Fund may acquire increases the risk of illiquidity, may make its positions more difficult to liquidate, and increase the losses incurred while trying to do so.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements Risk. The Fund may invest in reverse repurchase agreements. Reverse repurchase agreements are transactions in which the Fund sells portfolio securities to financial institutions such as banks and broker-dealers, and agrees to repurchase them at a mutually agreed-upon date and price which is higher than the original sale price. Reverse repurchase agreements are a form of leverage and the use of reverse repurchase agreements by the Fund may increase the Fund’s volatility. The Fund incurs costs, including interest expense, in connection with the opening and closing of reverse repurchase agreements that will be borne by the shareholders.

Reverse repurchase agreements are also subject to the risk that the other party to the reverse repurchase agreement will be unable or unwilling to complete the transaction as scheduled, which may result in losses to the Fund. In situations where the Fund is required to post collateral with a counterparty, the counterparty may fail to segregate the collateral or may commingle the collateral with the counterparty’s own assets. As a result, in the event of the counterparty’s bankruptcy or insolvency, the Fund’s collateral may be subject to the conflicting claims of the counterparty’s creditors, and the Fund may be exposed to the risk of a court treating the Fund as a general unsecured creditor of the counterparty, rather than as the owner of the collateral. There can be no assurance that a counterparty will not default and that the Fund will not sustain a loss on a transaction as a result.

Reverse repurchase agreements also involve the risk that the market value of the securities sold by the Fund may decline below the price at which it is obligated to repurchase the securities. In addition, when the Fund invests the proceeds it receives in a reverse repurchase transaction, there is a risk that those investments may decline in value. In this circumstance, the Fund could be required to sell other investments in order to meet its obligations to repurchase the securities.

Valuation Risk. The Fund or the Subsidiary may hold securities or other assets that may be valued on the basis of factors other than market quotations. This may occur because the asset or security does not trade on a centralized exchange, or in times of market turmoil or reduced liquidity. There are multiple methods that can be used to value a portfolio holding when market quotations are not readily available. The value established for any portfolio holding at a point in time might differ from what would be produced using a different methodology or if it had been priced using market quotations. Portfolio holdings that are valued using techniques other than market quotations, including “fair valued” assets or securities, may be subject to greater fluctuation in their valuations from one day to the next than if market quotations were used. In addition, there is no assurance that the Fund or the Subsidiary could sell or close out a portfolio position for the value established for it at any time, and it is possible that the Fund or the Subsidiary would incur a loss because a portfolio position is sold or closed out at a discount to the valuation established by the Fund or the Subsidiary at that time. The Fund’s ability to value investments may be impacted by technological issues or errors by pricing services or other third-party service providers.

Target Exposure and Rebalancing Risks. The Fund will normally seek to maintain aggregate notional exposure to bitcoin and ether equal to 100% of the net assets of the Fund. However, in order to comply with certain tax qualification tests at the end of each tax quarter, the Fund may reduce its exposure to Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts on or about such dates. If the value of Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts rises during such periods that the Fund has reduced its exposure, the performance of the Fund will be less than it would have been had the Fund maintained is exposure through such period.

Volatility Risk. Volatility is the characteristic of a security or other asset, an index or a market to fluctuate significantly in price within a short time period. The prices of bitcoin, ether and Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts have historically been highly volatile. The value of the Fund’s investments in Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts – and therefore the value of an investment in the Fund – could decline significantly and without warning, including to zero. If you are not prepared to accept significant and unexpected changes in the value of the Fund and the possibility that you could lose your entire investment in the Fund, you should not invest in the Fund.

Capital Gains Distribution Risk. The Fund may realize and distribute significant net capital gains due to its use of rolling futures contracts. Such capital gains distributions may represent a significant percentage of the Fund’s net asset value. Each capital gains distribution will typically reduce the Fund’s net asset value by approximately the amount of the distribution on the ex-dividend date (i.e., the date by which you need to own a dividend-paying stock in order to receive the upcoming dividend payment). The repeated payment of distributions by the Fund, if any, may significantly erode the Fund’s net asset value and trading price over time. As a result, an investor may suffer significant losses to their investment. Short-term and long-term realized capital gains distributions paid by the Fund are taxable to its shareholders.

Clearing Broker Risk. The Fund’s investments in exchange-traded futures contracts expose it to the risks of a clearing broker (or a futures commission merchant (“FCM”)). Under current regulations, a clearing broker or FCM maintains customers’ assets in a bulk segregated account. There is a risk that Fund assets deposited with the clearing broker to serve as margin may be used to satisfy the broker’s own obligations or the losses of the broker’s other clients. In the event of default, the Fund could experience lengthy delays in recovering some or all of its assets and may not see any recovery at all. Furthermore, the Fund is subject to the risk that no FCM is willing or able to clear the Fund’s transactions or maintain the Fund’s assets. If the Fund’s FCMs are unable or unwilling to clear the Fund’s transactions, or if the FCM refuses to maintain the Fund’s assets, the Fund will be unable have its orders for Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts fulfilled or assets custodied. In such a circumstance, the performance of the Fund will likely deviate from the performance of bitcoin and ether and may result in the proportion of Bitcoin and Ether Futures Contracts in the Fund’s portfolio relative to the total assets of the Fund to decrease.

Frequent Trading Risk. The Fund regularly purchases and subsequently sells (i.e., “rolls”) individual futures contracts throughout the year so as to maintain a fully invested position. As the contracts near their expiration dates, the Fund rolls them over into new contracts. This frequent trading of contracts may increase the amount of commissions or mark-ups to broker-dealers that the Fund pays when it buys and sells contracts, which may detract from the Fund’s performance. High portfolio turnover may result in the Fund paying higher levels of transaction costs and may generate greater tax liabilities for shareholders. Frequent trading risk may cause the Fund’s performance to be less than expected.

Leverage Risk. The Fund seeks to achieve and maintain the exposure to the price of bitcoin and ether by using leverage inherent in futures contracts. Therefore, the Fund is subject to leverage risk. When the Fund purchases or sells an instrument or enters into a transaction without investing an amount equal to the full economic exposure of the instrument or transaction, it creates leverage, which can result in the Fund losing more than it originally invested. As a result, these investments may magnify losses to the Fund, and even a small market movement may result in significant losses to the Fund. Leverage may also cause a Fund to be more volatile because it may exaggerate the effect of any increase or decrease in the value of the Fund’s portfolio securities. Futures trading involves a degree of leverage and as a result, a relatively small price movement in futures instruments may result in immediate and substantial losses to the Fund. The Fund may at times be required to liquidate portfolio positions, including when it is not advantageous to do so, in order to comply with guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) regarding asset segregation requirements to cover certain leveraged positions.

Active Market Risk. Although the Shares are listed for trading on the Exchange, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for the Shares will develop or be maintained. Shares trade on the Exchange at market prices that may be below, at or above the Fund’s net asset value. Securities, including the Shares, are subject to market fluctuations and liquidity constraints that may be caused by such factors as economic, political, or regulatory developments, changes in interest rates, and/or perceived trends in securities prices. Shares of the Fund could decline in value or underperform other investments.

Authorized Participant Concentration Risk. Only an authorized participant may engage in creation or redemption transactions directly with the Fund. The Fund has a limited number of institutions that act as authorized participants on an agency basis (i.e. on behalf of other market participants). To the extent that these institutions exit the business or are unable to proceed with creation and/or redemption orders with respect to the Fund and no other authorized participant is able to step forward to create or redeem, in either of these cases, Shares may trade at a discount to the Fund’s net asset value and possibly face delisting.

Inflation Risk. Inflation may reduce the intrinsic value of increases in the value of the Fund. Inflation risk is the risk that the value of assets or income from investments will be less in the future as inflation decreases the value of money. As inflation increases, the value of the Fund’s assets can decline as can the value of the Fund’s distributions.

Operational Risk. The Fund is exposed to operational risks arising from a number of factors, including, but not limited to, human error, processing and communication errors, errors of the Fund’s service providers, counterparties or other third-parties, failed or inadequate processes and technology or systems failures. The Fund, Adviser and Sub-Adviser seek to reduce these operational risks through controls and procedures. However, these measures do not address every possible risk and may be inadequate to address these risks.

Small Fund Risk. The Fund currently has fewer assets than larger funds, and like other smaller funds, large inflows and outflows may impact the Fund’s market exposure for limited periods of time. This impact may be positive or negative, depending on the direction of market movement during the period affected. If the Fund fails to attract a large amount of assets, shareholders of the Fund may incur higher expenses as the Fund’s fixed costs would be allocated over a smaller number of shareholders. Failure to grow and large outflows may be factors the Board considers in any determination to cease the Fund’s operations and dissolve.

Trading Issues Risk. Trading in Fund Shares on the Exchange may be halted due to market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in Shares inadvisable. In addition, trading in Fund Shares on the Exchange is subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange’s “circuit breaker” rules. There can be no assurance that the requirements of the Exchange necessary to maintain the listing of the Fund will continue to be met or will remain unchanged. The Fund may have difficulty maintaining its listing on the Exchange in the event the Fund’s assets are small, the Fund does not have enough shareholders, or if the Fund is unable to proceed with creation and/or redemption orders.

Market Risk. Market risk is the risk that a particular security, or Shares of the Fund in general, may fall in value. Securities are subject to market fluctuations caused by such factors as economic, political, regulatory or market developments, changes in interest rates and perceived trends in securities prices. Shares of the Fund could decline in value or underperform other investments. In addition, local, regional or global events such as war, acts of terrorism, spread of infectious diseases or other public health issues, recessions, or other events could have a significant negative impact on the Fund and its investments. Such events may affect certain geographic regions, countries, sectors and industries more significantly than others. These events also adversely affect the prices and liquidity of the Fund’s portfolio securities or other instruments and could result in disruptions in the trading markets. Any of such circumstances could have a materially negative impact on the value of the Fund’s Shares and result in increased market volatility. During any such events, the Fund’s Shares may trade at increased premiums or discounts to their net asset value.

Digital Asset Industry Risk. The digital asset industry has recently been subject to a number of high-profile regulatory events as well as the introduction of new products and services. This has led to volatility and disruption in the digital asset markets and financial difficulties for several prominent industry participants, including digital asset trading platforms, hedge funds and lending platforms. For example, in the first half of 2022, digital asset lenders Celsius Network LLC and Voyager Digital Ltd. and digital asset hedge fund Three Arrows Capital each declared bankruptcy, and the stablecoin TerraUSD collapsed. These events caused a loss of confidence in participants in the digital asset ecosystem, negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly and market-wide declines in digital asset trading prices and liquidity.

Thereafter, in November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”), the third largest digital asset trading platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and numerous affiliates of FTX filed for bankruptcy. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) subsequently brought criminal charges, including charges of fraud, violations of federal securities laws, money laundering, and campaign finance offenses, against FTX’s former CEO and others. In November 2023, FTX’s former CEO was convicted of fraud and money laundering. Similar charges related to violations of anti-money laundering laws were brought in November 2023 against Binance and its former CEO. FTX is also under investigation by the SEC, the Justice Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as by various regulatory authorities in the Bahamas, Europe and other jurisdictions. In response to these events, the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and declines in liquidity, and regulatory and enforcement scrutiny has increased, including from the DOJ, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC. The SEC also brought charges against Genesis Global Capital, LLC and Gemini Trust Company, LLC on January 12, 2023, for their alleged unregistered offer and sale of securities to retail investors. In October 2023, the New York Attorney General brought charges against Gemini, Genesis Global Capital and numerous affiliates of Genesis Global Capital, and Digital Currency Group alleging violations of law relating to the Gemini Earn program. In May 2024, the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York approved a settlement of the charges with the Genesis entities.

These events resulted in calls for heightened scrutiny and regulation of the digital asset industry, with a specific focus on digital asset trading platforms, and custodians. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase (the “Coinbase Complaint”), two of the largest digital asset trading platforms, alleging that they solicited U.S. investors to buy, sell, and trade “crypto asset securities” through their unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance.US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint led to further volatility in digital asset prices. In January 2025, the SEC launched the Crypto Task Force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for digital assets led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Subsequently, Commissioner Peirce announced a list of specific priorities to further that initiative, which included pursuing final rules related to a digital asset’s security status, a revised path to registered offerings and listings for digital asset-based investment vehicles, and clarity regarding digital asset custody, lending and staking. In February 2025, Coinbase and the SEC entered into a joint stipulation to dismiss the SEC’s lawsuit with prejudice, subject to the court’s approval. Kraken has also announced that it reached an agreement in principle with the SEC to dismiss the SEC’s lawsuit, subject to formal approval by the SEC’s Commissioners. In May 2025, the SEC voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Binance. 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 lawsuits (to the extent not yet dismissed), their effect on the broader digital asset ecosystem and the reputational impact on industry participants, remain uncertain.

A wide range of U.S. regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board, the SEC, the CFTC, FinCEN, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the White House, have issued a growing number of reports and releases concerning digital assets and digital asset markets. In addition, the U.S. Congress has enacted and proposed a number of bills that will have significant impacts on the U.S. digital asset market. However, the extent and content of any forthcoming laws and regulations are not yet ascertainable with certainty, and it may not be ascertainable in the near future. It is possible that new laws and increased regulation and regulatory scrutiny may require the Fund to comply with certain regulatory regimes, which could result in new costs for the Fund. The Fund may have to devote increased time and attention to regulatory matters, which could increase costs to the Fund.

In 2025, Congress undertook significant legislative efforts to address the rapidly evolving landscape of digital assets and cryptocurrencies, culminating in the passage of a landmark bill: the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (the “GENIUS Act”). This legislative action represents the first comprehensive federal framework for the regulation of stablecoins in the United States.

The GENIUS Act, signed into law in July 2025, establishes the first federal regulatory framework for the issuance and operation of payment stablecoins—digital assets designed to maintain a stable value relative to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. The GENIUS Act requires that all payment stablecoins be fully backed on a one-to-one basis by high-quality liquid assets, such as U.S. dollars or short-term U.S. Treasury securities, and subjects issuers to rigorous reserve, audit, and disclosure requirements. The GENIUS Act introduces a dual licensing regime, allowing stablecoin issuers to operate under either federal or state regulatory oversight, provided that state regimes are “substantially similar” to federal standards. Issuers with more than $10 billion in outstanding stablecoins must obtain a federal license. The GENIUS Act also imposes strict AML, sanctions compliance, and consumer protection obligations, including prioritizing stablecoin holders’ claims in the event of issuer insolvency. Notably, the Act prohibits non-financial public companies from issuing stablecoins without special approval and restricts the payment of interest or yield on stablecoins.

In addition, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (the “CLARITY Act”) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2025. The CLARITY Act was designed to resolve longstanding regulatory uncertainty regarding the classification and oversight of digital assets. The CLARITY Act establishes a clear framework for distinguishing between digital assets that are securities, commodities, or payment stablecoins. It delineates the respective jurisdictions of the SEC and the CFTC, granting the CFTC exclusive authority over “digital commodities” and the SEC authority over “digital securities.” The CLARITY Act also introduces criteria for determining when a digital asset is sufficiently decentralized to be treated as a commodity rather than a security. In addition, the CLARITY Act imposes registration requirements and operational standards for digital asset intermediaries, including exchanges, brokers, and dealers. It mandates consumer protection measures, anti-money laundering (“AML”) and countering the financing of terrorism (“CFT”) compliance, and enhanced disclosure obligations. The Act aims to foster innovation while providing market participants with greater regulatory certainty and aligning U.S. policy with emerging international standards. Similar market structure legislation is currently under consideration by the U.S. Senate but there is no certainty whether the legislation will be enacted in 2026 or what form final legislation will take. 

These legislative efforts were accompanied by additional measures, such as the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail central bank digital currency without congressional authorization. While the GENIUS Act represents significant progress toward a comprehensive regulatory regime for digital assets, substantial uncertainty remains regarding the implementation and interpretation of this new law. The effectiveness of this framework, and the framework proposed under the CLARITY Act, if passed by Congress, will depend on subsequent rulemaking by federal and state regulators, interagency coordination, and the evolving approach to enforcement. Market participants may face transitional risks as regulatory standards are developed and applied, and there is potential for further legislative or regulatory changes as the digital asset ecosystem continues to evolve.

These events are continuing to develop at a rapid pace and it is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Fund, the Fund’s third-party service providers, or to the digital asset industry as a whole. Continued disruption and instability in the digital asset markets as these events develop, including further declines in the trading prices and liquidity of the digital assets tracked by the Index, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

Active Management Risk. The Fund is actively managed and its performance reflects the application of investment techniques and risk analyses in the investment decisions that the Sub-Adviser and Adviser make for the Fund. Such judgments about the Fund’s investments may prove to be incorrect. If the investments selected and the strategies employed by the Fund fail to produce the intended results, the Fund could underperform as compared to other funds with similar investment objectives and/or strategies, or could have negative returns.

Asset Concentration Risk. Since the Fund may take concentrated positions in certain securities, the Fund’s performance may be disproportionately and significantly impacted by the poor performance of those positions to which it has significant exposure. Asset concentration makes the Fund more susceptible to any single occurrence affecting the underlying positions and may subject the Fund to greater market risk than more diversified funds.

Cyber Security Risk. The Fund is susceptible to operational risks through breaches in cyber security. A breach in cyber security refers to both intentional and unintentional events that may cause the Fund to lose proprietary information, suffer data corruption or lose operational capacity. Such events could cause the Fund to incur regulatory penalties, reputational damage, additional compliance costs associated with corrective measures and/or financial loss. Cyber security breaches may involve unauthorized access to the Fund’s digital information systems through “hacking” or malicious software coding, but may also result from outside attacks such as denial-of-service attacks through efforts to make network services unavailable to intended users. In addition, cyber security breaches of the Fund’s third-party service providers, such as its administrator, transfer agent, custodian, or sub-adviser, as applicable, or issuers in which the Fund invests, can also subject the Fund to many of the same risks associated with direct cyber security breaches. While the Fund has established business continuity plans and risk management systems designed to reduce the risks associated with cyber security, there are inherent limitations in such plans and systems. Additionally, there is no guarantee that such efforts will succeed, especially because the Fund does not directly control the cyber security systems of issuers or third-party service providers.

Market Maker Risk. If the Fund has lower average daily trading volumes, it may rely on a small number of third-party market makers to provide a market for the purchase and sale of Shares. Any trading halt or other problem relating to the trading activity of these market makers could result in a dramatic change in the spread between the Fund’s net asset value and the price at which the Shares are trading on the Exchange, which could result in a decrease in value of the Shares. In addition, decisions by market makers or authorized participants to reduce their role or step away from these activities in times of market stress could inhibit the effectiveness of the arbitrage process in maintaining the relationship between the underlying values of the Fund’s portfolio securities and the Fund’s market price. This reduced effectiveness could result in Shares trading at a discount to net asset value and also in greater than normal intra-day bid-ask spreads for Shares.

Premium/Discount Risk. The market price of the Fund’s Shares will generally fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Fund’s net asset value as well as the relative supply of and demand for Shares on the Exchange. The Fund’s market price may deviate from the value of the Fund’s underlying portfolio holdings, particularly in time of market stress, with the result that investors may pay more or receive less than the underlying value of the Fund shares bought or sold. The Adviser and Sub-Adviser cannot predict whether Shares will trade below, at or above their net asset value because the Shares trade on the Exchange at market prices and not at net asset value. Price differences may be due, in large part, to the fact that supply and demand forces at work in the secondary trading market for Shares will be closely related, but not identical, to the same forces influencing the prices of the holdings of the Fund trading individually or in the aggregate at any point in time. However, given that Shares can only be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units, and only to and from broker-dealers and large institutional investors that have entered into participation agreements (unlike shares of closed-end funds, which frequently trade at appreciable discounts from, and sometimes at premiums to, their net asset value), the Adviser and Sub-Adviser believe that large discounts or premiums to the net asset value of Shares should not be sustained. During stressed market conditions, the market for the Fund’s Shares may become less liquid in response to deteriorating liquidity in the market for the Fund’s underlying portfolio holdings, which could in turn lead to differences between the market price of the Fund’s Shares and their net asset value. This can be reflected as a spread between the bid and ask prices for the Fund quoted during the day or a premium or discount in the closing price from the Fund’s net asset value.

Tax Risk. The Fund intends to elect and to qualify each year to be treated as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Code. As a RIC, the Fund will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the portion of its net investment income and net capital gain that it distributes to Shareholders, provided that it satisfies certain requirements of the Code. If the Fund does not qualify as a RIC for any taxable year and certain relief provisions are not available, the Fund’s taxable income will be subject to tax at the Fund level and to a further tax at the shareholder level when such income is distributed. Additionally, buying securities shortly before the record date for a taxable dividend or capital gain distribution is commonly known as “buying the dividend.” In the event a shareholder purchases Shares shortly before such a distribution, the entire distribution may be taxable to the shareholder even though a portion of the distribution effectively represents a return of the purchase price.

Mining Risk. Bitcoin miners and other necessary hardware are subject to malfunction, technological obsolescence, the global supply chain and difficulty and cost in obtaining new hardware. Bitcoin miners are subject to malfunctions and normal wear and tear, and, at any point in time, a certain number of bitcoin miners are typically off-line for maintenance or repair. The physical degradation of miners will require replacement of miners that are no longer functional. If there is a model wide component malfunction whether in the hardware or the software that powers these miners, the percentage of offline miners could increase substantially, disrupting mining operations. Any major bitcoin miner malfunction out of the typical range of downtime for normal maintenance and repair could cause significant economic damage. Additionally, as technology evolves, there may be a need to acquire newer models of miners to remain competitive in the market. New miners can be costly and may be in short supply. Given the long production period to manufacture and assemble bitcoin miners and the current global semiconductor chip shortage, there can be no assurance that miners can acquire enough bitcoin mining computers or replacement parts on a cost-effective basis for the maintenance and expansion necessary for efficient bitcoin mining operations. Many engaged in mining rely on third parties, principally located in China, to supply bitcoin miners and shortages of bitcoin miners or their component parts, material increases in bitcoin miner costs, or delays in delivery of orders, including due to trade restrictions and COVID-19 supply chain disruptions, could significantly interrupt plans for expanding bitcoin mining capacity in the near term and future. Shortages of bitcoin mining computers could result in reduced bitcoin mining capacity and increased operating costs, which could materially delay the completion of any planned bitcoin mining capacity expansion and result in a competitive disadvantage.

Global bitcoin supply, which is influenced by similar factors as global bitcoin demand, in addition to fiat currency (i.e., government currency not backed by an asset such as gold) may be effected by miners and taxpayers who may liquidate bitcoin holdings to meet tax obligations. In addition, the dedication of mining power to the Bitcoin Network and the willingness of bitcoin miners to clear bitcoin transactions for relatively low fees may impact the supply and price. An acute cessation of mining operations would reduce the collective processing power on the blockchain, 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 percent 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 mining processing power may adversely impact the price of bitcoin and the value of an investment in the Fund. Furthermore, the block reward will decrease over time and eventually cease entirely. As the block reward continues to decrease over time, the mining incentive structure will transition to a higher reliance on transaction verification fees in order to incentivize miners to continue to dedicate processing power to the blockchain. If transaction verification fees become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to use bitcoin.

Miners may cease expanding processing power to create blocks and verify transactions if they are not adequately compensated. Miners generate revenue from both newly created bitcoin (known as the “block reward”) and from fees taken upon verification of transactions. If the aggregate revenue from transaction fees and the block reward is below a miner’s cost, the miner may cease operations. An acute cessation of mining operations would reduce the collective processing power on the Blockchain, 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 percent 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 mining processing power may adversely impact the price of bitcoin. Furthermore, the block reward will decrease over time. In April 2024, the block reward was reduced from 6.25 to 3.125 bitcoin, and it is estimated that the block reward will further halve again in 2028. As the block reward continues to decrease over time, the mining incentive structure will transition to a higher reliance on transaction verification fees in order to incentivize miners to continue to dedicate processing power to the Blockchain. If transaction verification fees become too high, the marketplace may be reluctant to use bitcoin. Decreased demand for bitcoin may adversely affect its price, which may adversely affect an investment in the Fund.

Miners may also transition processing power from bitcoin mining to support artificial intelligence (“AI”) workloads. Due to the rapid development and increasingly widespread use of certain AI technologies, including machine learning models and generative AI, there has been a significant increase in demand for high-performance computing and GPU-based infrastructure to support AI workloads. High levels of competition in the bitcoin mining industry, bitcoin price volatility, and the perpetual reduction of bitcoin mining rewards due to halving events may make providing processing power for AI workloads more attractive to miners. As a result, miners may convert a portion of their bitcoin mining operations to provide processing power to support AI workloads or cease to provide processing power for bitcoin mining entirely.

Bitcoin mining activities are inherently energy-intensive and electricity costs account for a significant portion of the overall mining costs. The availability and cost of electricity will restrict the geographic locations of mining activities. High costs of electricity may incentivize miners to redirect their resources to other validation protocols, such a proof-of-stake blockchains, or abandon their validation activities entirely. A significant decrease in the computational resources dedicated to the Bitcoin Network’s validation protocol could reduce the security of the network which may erode bitcoin’s viability as a store of value or means of exchange. In addition, the significant consumption of electricity may have a negative environmental impact, including contribution to climate change, which may give rise to public opinion against allowing the use of electricity for bitcoin mining activities or government measures restricting or prohibiting the use of electricity for bitcoin mining activities. Any such developments could lower the demand for bitcoin and have a material and adverse effect on the price of bitcoin.

Concerns have been raised about the electricity required to secure and maintain digital asset networks. For example, as of January 15, 2026, over 1 billion tera hashes were performed every second in connection with mining on the Bitcoin Network. Although measuring the electricity consumed by this process is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. 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.

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. A significant reduction in mining activity as a result of such actions could adversely affect the security of the Bitcoin Network by making it easier for a malicious actor or botnet to manipulate the Bitcoin Network. If regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Bitcoin Network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Equity Securities Risk. The value of the Shares will fluctuate with changes in the value of the equity securities in which it invests. Equity securities prices fluctuate for several reasons, including changes in investors’ perceptions of the financial condition of an issuer or the general condition of the relevant stock market, such as the current market volatility, or when political or economic events affecting the issuers occur.

Information Technology Companies Risk. Information technology companies produce and provide hardware, software and information technology systems and services. Information technology companies are generally subject to the following risks: rapidly changing technologies and existing produce obsolescence, short product life cycles, fierce competition, aggressive pricing and reduced profit margins, the loss of patent, copyright and trademark protections, cyclical market patterns, evolving industry standards and frequent new product introductions and new market entrants. Information technology companies may be smaller and less experienced companies, with limited product lines, markets or financial resources and fewer experienced management or marketing personnel. Information technology company stocks, particularly those involved with the internet, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that are often unrelated to their operating performance. In addition, information technology companies are particularly vulnerable to federal, state and local government regulation, and competition and consolidation, both domestically and internationally, including competition from foreign competitors with lower production costs. Information technology companies are facing increased government and regulatory scrutiny and may be subject to adverse government or regulatory action. Information technology companies also face competition for services of qualified personnel and heavily rely on patents and intellectual property rights and the ability to enforce such rights to maintain a competitive advantage.

Smaller Companies Risk. Small and/or mid-capitalization companies may be more vulnerable to adverse general market or economic developments, and their securities may be less liquid and may experience greater price volatility than larger, more established companies as a result of several factors, including limited trading volumes, products or financial resources, management inexperience and less publicly available information. Accordingly, such companies are generally subject to greater market risk than larger, more established companies.

Non-U.S. Securities Risk. Securities issued by non-U.S. companies present risks beyond those of securities of U.S. issuers. Risks of investing in the securities of non-U.S. companies include: different accounting standards; expropriation, nationalization or other adverse political or economic developments; currency devaluation, blockages or transfer restrictions; changes in foreign currency exchange rates; taxes; restrictions on non-U.S. investments and exchange of securities; and less government supervision and regulation of issuers in non-U.S. countries. Prices of non-U.S. securities also may be more volatile.

Emerging Markets Risk. Investments in securities issued by governments and companies operating in emerging market countries involve additional risks relating to political, economic, or regulatory conditions not associated with investments in securities and instruments issued by U.S. companies or by companies operating in other developed market countries. This is due to, among other things, the potential for greater market volatility, lower trading volume, a lack of liquidity, potential for market manipulation, higher levels of inflation, political and economic instability, greater risk of a market shutdown and more governmental limitations on foreign investments in emerging market countries than are typically found in more developed market countries. Moreover, emerging market countries often have less uniformity in accounting and reporting requirements, unsettled securities laws, less reliable securities valuations and greater risks associated with custody of securities than developed markets. In addition, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which regulates auditors of U.S. public companies, is unable to inspect audit work papers in certain emerging market countries. Emerging market countries often have greater risk of capital controls through such measures as taxes or interest rate control than developed markets. Certain emerging market countries may also lack the infrastructure necessary to attract large amounts of foreign trade and investment. Local securities markets in emerging market countries may trade a small number of securities and may be unable to respond effectively to increases in trading volume, potentially making prompt liquidation of holdings difficult or impossible. Settlement procedures in emerging market countries are frequently less developed and reliable than those in the U.S. and other developed market countries. In addition, significant delays may occur in registering the transfer of securities. Settlement or registration problems may make it more difficult for the Fund to value its portfolio securities and could cause the Fund to miss attractive investment opportunities. Investing in emerging market countries involves a higher risk of expropriation, nationalization, confiscation of assets and property or the imposition of restrictions on foreign investments and on repatriation of capital invested by certain emerging market countries. Enforcing legal rights may be made difficult, costly and slow in emerging markets as there may be additional problems enforcing claims against non-U.S. governments. As such, the rights and remedies associated with emerging market investment securities may be different than those available for investments in more developed markets. For example, it may be more difficult for shareholders to bring derivative litigation or for U.S. regulators to bring enforcement actions against issuers in emerging markets. In addition, due to the differences in regulatory, accounting, audit and financial recordkeeping standards, including financial disclosures, less information about emerging market companies is publicly available and information that is available may be unreliable or outdated.

Non-Diversification Risk. The Fund is classified as “non-diversified” under the 1940 Act. As a result, the Fund is only limited as to the percentage of its assets which may be invested in the securities of any one issuer by the diversification requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Fund may invest a relatively high percentage of its assets in a limited number of issuers. As a result, the Fund may be more susceptible to a single adverse economic or regulatory occurrence affecting one or more of these issuers, experience increased volatility and be highly invested in certain issuers.