ETCG 10-K & 10-Q changes, risk factors and insider trading

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ETC, have experienced extreme volatility throughout their existence, including in recent periodsperiods, and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including ETC, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022. This volatility became extreme in November 2022 when FTX, then a major Digital AssetFTX Trading Platform,Ltd. (“FTX”), halted customer withdrawals. Additionally, on October 10, 2025, it was reported that a sharp decline in digital asset market prices triggered the liquidation of approximately $20 billion in leveraged positions across the digital asset industry. Any similar halting of withdrawals or liquidations across leveraged positions in the digital asset industry in the future could further impact trading prices. See “—Recent developments in the digital asset economy have led to extreme volatility and disruption in digital asset markets, a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem, significant negative publicity surrounding digital assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity.” Digital asset prices, including ETC, have continued to fluctuate widely through the date of this Annual Report.

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

The open-source structure of many digital asset network protocols, such as the protocol for the Ethereum Classic Network, means that developers and other contributors are generallyoften not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols. As a result, the developers and other contributors of a particular digital asset may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the network or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies whose interests are at odds with other participants in a particular digital asset network. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the protocol of the Ethereum Classic Network could damage that network.

Moreover, in the past, flaws in the source code for digital asset networks and related protocols 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 ETCEthereum Classic Network could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective. Quantum computing technology is an emerging phenomenon which, because it is still developing, makes it difficult to predict its ultimate effect on the future value of ETC and other digital assets. However, if quantum computing technology is able to advance and significantly increase its capacity relative to the capacity of today’s leading quantum computers, it could potentially undermine the viability of many of the cryptographic algorithms used across the world’s information technology infrastructure, including the cryptographic algorithms used for digital assets like ETC. If quantum computing is able to advance in that way, there is a risk that quantum computing could materially reduce the security assumptions underlying the Ethereum Classic Network and result in the cryptography underlying the Ethereum Classic Network becoming ineffective. If such is realized, it could compromise the security of the Ethereum Classic Network or allow a malicious actor to compromise the wallets holding Ether owned by the Trust or others on the Ethereum Classic Network, which would result in losses to shareholders. For example, if sufficiently powerful quantum computers are developed, they could use known quantum algorithms to derive private keys from publicly available public keys, potentially allowing malicious actors to forge transaction signatures and misappropriate ETC. There is no guarantee that new quantum-proof architectures will be built and appropriate transitions will be implemented across the network at scale in a timely manner; any such changes could require the achievement of broad consensus within the Ethereum Classic Network community and may result in a fork (or multiple forks), and there can be no assurance that such consensus would be achieved or the changes implemented successfully. In such a scenario, the Ethereum Classic Network may not be able to transition to quantum-resistant cryptography in a timely or effective manner. In any of these circumstances, a malicious actor may be able to take the Trust’s ETC, which would adversely affect the value of the Shares. Moreover, functionality of the Ethereum Classic Network may be negatively affected by such an exploit such that it is no longer attractive to users, thereby dampening demand for ETC. Even if another digital asset other than ETC were affected by similar circumstances, any reduction in confidence in the source code or cryptography underlying digital asset networks and related protocols generally could negatively affect the demand for digital assets and therefore adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Moreover, because digital assets, including ETC, have existed for a short period of time and are continuing to be developed, there may be additional risks to the digital asset networks and related protocols that are impossible to predict as of the date of this Annual Report.

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

The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. ETC launched in 20152015. Ethereum Classic emerged in July 2016 as the continuation of the original Ethereum blockchain after the DAO hard fork and, along with Bitcoin, was one of the first cryptographic digital assets to gain global adoption and critical mass. In general, digital asset networks, including the Ethereum Classic Network and related protocols represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Certain privacy-preserving features have been or are expected to be introduced to a number of digital asset networks. If any such features are introduced to the Ethereum Classic Network, any trading platforms or businesses that facilitate transactions in ETC may be at an increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking services cut off if there is a concern that these features interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks. As of the date of this Annual Report, the Sponsor is not aware of any ongoing efforts to introduce further privacy-preserving features to the Ethereum Classic Network.

Smart contracts are a relatively new technology and ongoing development may magnify initial problems, cause volatility on the networks that use smart contracts and reduce interest in them, which could have an adverse impact on the value of ETC.

As of December 31, 2024,2025, the Ethereum Classic Network handled approximately 0.290.18 transactions per second. As of December 31, 20242025 the Ethereum Network handled approximately 1425 transactions per second. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assetsasset network 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 transaction fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum Network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. Since January 1, 2022,2023, Ether average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.56$0.13 per transaction, on AugustDecember 31,27, 2024,2025, to as high as $200.27$29.46 per transaction, on MayMarch 1,5, 2022.2024. As of December 31, 2024,2025, Ether average daily transaction fees stood at $3.52$0.15 per transaction. Since January 1, 2022,2023, ETC average daily transaction fees have ranged from $0.001 per transaction, on December 26, 2023, to as high as $0.029$0.079 per transaction, on NovemberMarch 12,30, 2023.2025. As of December 31, 2024,2025, ETC average daily transaction fees stood at $0.002$0.001 per transaction. Increased transaction fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ETC (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of ETC, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

If the digital asset awardreward for mining blocks and transaction fees for recording transactions on the Ethereum Classic Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expanding processing power or demand high transaction fees, which could negatively impact the value of ETC and the value of the Shares.

If the digital asset awardsrewards for mining blocks or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Ethereum Classic Network are not sufficiently high to incentivize miners, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate mining activities, miners may cease expending processing power to mine blocks and the security of the Ethereum Classic Blockchain could be compromised. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Digital asset mining operations 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. Additionally, miners may be forced to cease operations during an electricity shortage or power outage, or when the cost of electricity as compared to mining, validating, or transaction fees make conducting operations uneconomical.outage.

From time to time, digital assets may undergo name changes and associated rebranding initiatives. For example, Bitcoin Cash may sometimes be referred to as Bitcoin ABC in an effort to differentiate itself from any Bitcoin Cash hard forks, such as Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision, and in the third quarter of 2018, the team behind ZEN rebranded and changed the name of ZenCash to “Horizen.” We cannot predict the impact of any name change and any associated rebranding initiative on the Ethereum Classic networks or ETC. 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 ETC and the value of the Shares.

When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, sell or deliver, as applicable, ETC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized Participant, a Liquidity Provider or other similarly eligible financial institutions that are subject to federal and state licensing requirements and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations. When an Authorized Participant or a Liquidity Provider sources ETC in connection with the creation of the Shares or facilitates transactions in ETC at the direction of the Trust or the Sponsor, it directly faces its counterparty and, in all instances, the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider, as applicable, follow policies and procedures designed to ensure that it knows the identity of its counterparty. The Authorized Participant is a registered broker-dealer and therefore subject to AML and countering the financing of terrorism obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act as administered by FinCEN and further overseen by the SEC and FINRA.

In accordance with its regulatory obligations, the Authorized Participant, or the Liquidity Provider, conducts customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence on its counterparties, which enables it to determine each counterparty’s AML and other risks and assign an appropriate risk rating.

As part of its counterparty onboarding process, each of the Authorized Participant and the Liquidity Provider uses third-party services to screen prospective counterparties against various watch lists, including the Specially Designated Nationals List of the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) and countries and territories identified as non-cooperative by the Financial Action Task Force. If the Sponsor, the Trust, the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider were nevertheless to transact with such a sanctioned entity, the Sponsor, the Trust, the Authorized Participant and the Liquidity Provider would be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits.

SinceIn the fourthpast quarterand through the date of 2021this andAnnual to date,Report, digital asset prices have fluctuatedexperienced widely.significant Thisfluctuations, has ledleading 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 entered into insolvency proceedings. This resulted in a loss of confidence in participants in the digital asset ecosystem, negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly and market-wide declines in digital asset trading prices and liquidity.

Thereafter, in November 2022, FTX, the third largest Digital Asset Trading Platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and several affiliates of FTX filed for bankruptcy. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently brought criminal charges, including charges of fraud, violations of federal securities laws, money laundering, and campaign finance offenses, against FTX’s former CEO and others. 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. 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 Capital”), a subsidiary of Genesis Global Holdco, LLC (“Genesis Holdco”). The SEC also brought charges against Genesis Capital and Gemini Trust Company, LLC (“Gemini”) in January 2023 for their alleged unregistered offer and sale of securities to retail investors. In October 2023, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) brought charges against Gemini, Genesis Capital, Genesis Asia Pacific PTE. LTD. (“Genesis Asia Pacific”), Genesis Holdco (together with Genesis Capital and Genesis Asia Pacific, the “Genesis Entities”), Genesis Capital’s former CEO, DCG, and DCG’s CEO alleging violations of the New York Penal Law, the New York General Business Law and the New York Executive Law. In February 2024, the NYAG amended its complaint to expand the charges against Gemini, the Genesis Entities, Genesis Capital’s former CEO, DCG, and DCG’s CEO to include harm to additional investors. Also in February 2024, the Genesis Entities entered into a settlement agreement with the NYAG to resolve the NYAG’s allegations against the Genesis Entities, which settlement was subsequently approved by the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York.

These events have also led to significant negative publicity around digital asset market participants including DCG, Genesis and DCG’s other affiliated entities. This publicity could negatively impact the reputation of the Sponsor and have an adverse effect on the trading price and/or the value of the Shares. Moreover, sales of a significant number of Shares of the Trust as a result of these events could have a negative impact on the trading price of the Shares.

Anan increase in the global ETC supply that is publicly available for trading;

Feesfees associated with processing an ETC transaction and the speed at which ETC transactions are settled on the Ethereum Classic Network;

Many Digital Asset Trading Platforms, both in the United States and abroadabroad, are unlicensed, not subject to, or not in compliance with, regulation in relevant jurisdictions, or operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions and may take the position that they are not subject to laws and regulations that would apply to a national securities exchange or designated contract market in the United States, or may, as a practical matter, be beyond the ambit of U.S. regulators. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these Digital Asset Trading Platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading activity on or reported by regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2022 one report claimed that trading volumes on Digital Asset Trading Platforms were inflated by over 70% due to false or non-economic trades, with specific focus on unlicensed trading platforms located outside of the United States. Such reports may indicate that the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market is significantly smaller than expected and that the U.S. makes up a significantly larger percentage of the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market than is commonly understood, or that a much larger portion of digital asset market activity takes place on decentralized finance platforms than is commonly understood. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of ETC and/or negatively affect the market perception of ETC, which could in turn adversely impact the value of the Shares.

While smaller Digital Asset Trading Platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms more stable, larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and malwaremalware. andFor theirexample, shortcomingsin February 2025, hackers reportedly compromised a transaction from Bybit’s multisignature cold wallets, enabling the hackers to steal over $1.5 billion of Ether from Bybit. Shortcomings or ultimate failures of larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms are more likely to have contagion effects on the digital asset ecosystem, including on the price of ETC, and therefore may also be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, in November 2022, FTX, another of the world’s largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, filed for bankruptcy protection and subsequently halted customer withdrawals as well as trading on its FTX.US platform. Fraud, security failures and operational problems all played a role in FTX’s issues and downfall. Moreover, Digital Asset Trading Platforms have been a subject of enhanced regulatory and enforcement scrutiny, and Digital Asset Markets have experienced continued instability, following the failure of FTX. In particular, in June 2023, the SEC brought the Binance Complaint and Coinbase Complaint, alleging that Binance and Coinbase operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought the Kraken Complaint, alleging that Kraken operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants as well.

The Index has a limited history and the Index Price is a composite reference rate calculated using trading price data from various Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider have also changed over time. For example, on July 28, 2024, the Index Provider added Bitfinex to the Index due to the trading platform meeting the minimum liquidity requirement, and removed Crypto.com from the Index due to the trading platform failing to meet the Index Provider’s minimum liquidity requirement, as part of its scheduled quarterly review. The Index Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Index in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Digital Asset Trading Platforms in the Index, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ETC Industry and Market—ETC Value—The Index and the Index Price.”

As of December 31, 2024,2025, ETC was the 35th40th largest digital asset by market capitalization, as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of December 31, 2024,2025, the alternative digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com had a total market capitalization of approximately $3,291.9$2,678.0 billion (including the approximately $3.8$1.8 billion market cap of ETC), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding stablecoins and tokens pegged to other assets. In addition, many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms rather than open platforms like the Ethereum Classic Network. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms, such as Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche or Cardano, could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ETC and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The SEC has approved generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares and may approve other applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list competing digital assets as exchange-traded products, which could reduce demand for, and the price of, ETC and adversely impact the value of the Shares.

The Trust is a passive entity that is managed and administered by the Sponsor and does not have any officers, directors or employees. The Trust holds ETC and, from time to time on a periodic basis, issues Creation Baskets in exchange for deposits of ETC. As a passive investment vehicle, the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on ETC per Share) to reflect the value of ETC held by the Trust, determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in ETC, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to ETC. To date, the Trust has not met its investment objective and the Shares quoted on OTCQX have not reflected the value of the ETC held by the Trust, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, but instead have traded at both premiums and discounts to such value, which at times have been substantial. The Trust is not managed like a business corporation or an active investment vehicle. The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

The Trust considers investment transactions to be the receipt of ETC forby the Trust in connection with Share creations and the delivery of ETC forby the Trust in connection with Share redemptions or for payment of expenses in ETC. At this time, the Trust is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. The Trust records its investment transactions on a trade date basis and changes in fair value are reflected as net change in unrealized appreciation or depreciation on investments. Realized gains and losses are calculated using the specific identification method. Realized gains and losses are recognized in connection with transactions including settling obligations for the Sponsor’s Fee in ETC.

Financial Highlights for the Years ended December 31, 2024,2025, 20232024 and 20222023 (All amounts in the following table and the subsequent paragraphs, except Share, per Share, ETC and price of ETC amounts, are in thousands)

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC for the year ended December 31, 20222025 was ($211,501$151,890), which includes a realized gain of $6,261$3,061 on the transfer of ETC to pay the Sponsor’s Fee, and net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investment in ETC of ($217,762$154,951). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC for the year was driven by ETC price depreciation from $33.52$25.13 per ETC as of December 31, 2021,2024, to $15.82$11.47 per ETC as of December 31, 2022.2025. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($220,139$157,051) for the year ended December 31, 2022,2025, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $8,638.$5,161. Net assets decreased to $187,327$126,004 at December 31, 2022,2025, a 54%55% decrease for the year. The decrease in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ETC price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 314,749278,109 ETC to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

AsThe ofPrincipal DecemberMarket 31, 2024, 2023NAV and 2022, the Principal Market NAV per Share wasare calculated using the fair value of ETC based on the price provided by Coinbase, the Digital Asset Trading Platform that the Trust considered its principal market, as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date.date, Priorin toaccordance Februarywith 23,U.S. 2024, Principal Market NAV was referred to as NAV and Principal Market NAV per Share was referred to as NAV per Share.GAAP.

The Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share isare derived from the Index Price as represented by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Trust’s NAV per Share is calculated using a non-GAAP methodology where the price is derived from multiple Digital Asset Trading Platforms. Prior to February 23, 2024, NAV was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings and NAV per Share was referred to as Digital Asset Holdings per Share. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ETC Industry and Market—ETC Value—The Index and the Index Price” for a description of the Index and the Index Price. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2024 were Coinbase, Kraken and Bitfinex. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2023 were Coinbase, Kraken and Crypto.com. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2022 were Coinbase, Kraken and Binance.US.

The following table illustrates the movements in the Index Price from January 1, 20202021 to December 31, 2024. During such period, the Index Price has ranged from $4.20 to $148.63, with the straight average being $23.93 through December 31, 2024.2025. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the Constituent Trading Platforms individually or as a group.

The following table illustrates the movements in the Digital Asset Market price of ETC, as reported on the Trust’s principal market, from January 1, 20202021 to December 31, 2024. During such period, the price of ETC has ranged from $4.20 to $148.51, with the straight average being $23.96 through December 31, 2024:2025.

The Trust is a passive entity that is managed and administered by the Sponsor and does not have any officers, directors or employees. The Trust holds ETC and, from time to time on a periodic basis, issues Creation Baskets in exchange for deposits of ETC. As a passive investment vehicle, the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on ETC per Share) to reflect the value of the ETC held by the Trust, determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in ETC, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to ETC. To date, the Trust has not met its investment objective and the Shares quoted on OTCQXOTC Markets have not reflected the value of the ETC held by the Trust, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, but instead have traded at both premiums and discounts to such value, which at times have been substantial. The Trust is not managed like a business corporation or an active investment vehicle. The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

Financial Highlights for the Three and Six Months Ended MarchJune 31,30, 2026 and 2025 (All amounts in the following table and the subsequent paragraphs, except Share, ETC and price of ETC amounts, are in thousands)

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC for the three months ended MarchJune 31,30, 2026 was ($35,926$13,562), which includes a realized gain of $150$44 on the transfer of ETC to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investment in ETC of ($36,076$13,606). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC for the period was driven by ETC price depreciation from $11.47 per ETC as of December 31, 2025, to $8.19 per ETC as of March 31, 2026, to $6.94 per ETC as of June 30, 2026. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($36,586$14,118) for the three months ended MarchJune 31,30, 2026, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $660.$556. Net assets decreased to $89,418$75,300 at MarchJune 31,30, 2026, a 29%16% decrease for the three-month period. The decrease in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ETC price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 67,51367,841 ETC to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC for the three months ended MarchJune 31,30, 2025 was ($93,030$771), which includes a realized gain of $989$653 on the transfer of ETC to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investment in ETC of ($94,019$1,424). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC for the period was driven by ETC price depreciation from $25.13 per ETC as of December 31, 2024, to $16.84 per ETC as of March 31, 2025, to $16.77 per ETC as of June 30, 2025. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($94,541$1,950) for the three months ended MarchJune 31,30, 2025, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in ETC, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $1,511.$1,179. Net assets decreased to $188,514$186,564 at MarchJune 31,30, 2025, a 33%1% decrease for the three-month period. The decrease in net assets resulted from the aforementioned ETC price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 69,22269,559 ETC to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

The Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share are derived from the Index Price, as represented by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Trust’s NAV per Share is calculated using a non-GAAP methodology where the price is derived from multiple Digital Asset Trading Platforms. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index (the “Constituent Trading Platforms”) as of MarchJune 31,30, 2026 were Coinbase, Kraken, and Crypto.com. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of MarchJune 31,30, 2025 were Coinbase, Kraken, and Bitfinex. See “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ETC Industry and Market—ETC Value—The Index and the Index Price” in our Annual Report for a description of the Index and the Index Price.

The following chart illustrates the movement in the Trust’s NAV per Share versus the Index Price and the Trust’s Principal Market NAV per Share from April 24, 2017 (the inception of the Trust’s operations) to MarchJune 31,30, 2026. For more information on the determination of the Trust’s NAV, see “Item 1. Business—Overview of the ETC Industry and Market—ETC Value—The Index and the Index Price” in our Annual Report.

The following table illustrates the movements in the Index Price from AprilJuly 1, 2021 to MarchJune 31,30, 2026. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the Constituent Trading Platforms individually, or as a group.

The following table illustrates the movements in the Digital Asset Market price of ETC, as reported on the Trust’s principal market, from AprilJuly 1, 2021 to MarchJune 31,30, 2026.

The following chart sets out the historical closing prices for the Shares as reported by OTCQXOTC Markets and the Trust’s NAV per Share from May 10, 2018 to MarchJune 31,30, 2026.

The following chart sets out the historical premium and discount for the Shares calculated as a percentage of the historical closing prices for the Shares as reported by OTCQXOTC Markets divided by the Trust’s NAV per Share from May 10, 2018 to MarchJune 31,30, 2026.