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

Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets and smart contracts platforms,assets, such as Bitcoin, Solana, Avalanche orAvalanche, Cardano, and numerous others and smart contracts platforms could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, ether and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Fund’s timingfee instructure, reachingliquidity, theor markettrading volume and fee structurespreads relative to other competitor ether products could have a detrimental effect on the scale and sustainability of the Fund.

The Index (as defined below) has a limited performance history, and could experience calculation or other errors, in which case the Index price could fail to track the global ether price, and a failure of the Index price could adversely affect the value of the Shares.Shares, and the Index’s methodology may be subject to change.

Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of the Fund and the Shares Digital asset markets in the U.S. exist in a state of regulatory uncertainty, and adverse legislative or regulatory developments could significantly harm the value of ether or the Shares, such as by banning, restricting or imposing onerous conditions or prohibitions on the use of ether, validation activity, digital wallets, the provision of services related to trading and custodying ether, the operation of the Ethereum network, or the digital asset markets generally.

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

The trading prices of many digital assets, including ether, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, there were steep increases in the value of certain digital assets, including ether, over the course of 2021, and multiple market observers assertasserted that digital assets were experiencing a “bubble.” These increases were followed by steep drawdowns throughout 2022 in digital asset trading prices, including for ether. These episodes of rapid price appreciation followed by steep drawdowns have occurred multiple times throughout ether’s history, including in 2021-2023.2021-2025. As of the enddate of thethis reporting period covered herein,report, digital asset prices have continued to fluctuate. For example, ether lost approximately 12.2% of its value according to some sources in mid- October 2025 as part of wider digital asset market turmoil, precipitated by global trade tensions and structural leverage, which triggered a number of dislocations in the digital asset market (the “October 2025 Flash Crash”), including liquidations of up to $20 billion in collateral in the form of various digital assets (including, but not limited to, ether) securing trades (particularly perpetual futures contracts and various forms of financing transactions), along with reported service interruptions, halted orders, forced unwinding of trades, and other issues, across centralized and decentralized exchanges.

Extreme volatility may persist and the value of the Shares may significantly decline in the future without recovery. The digital asset markets may still be experiencingexperience a bubble or maysignificant experience a bubble againcorrection in the future. Digital assets including ether remain susceptible to cyber security events, fraud, manipulation or similar disruptions. For example, in the first half of 2022, each of Celsius Network, Voyager Digital Ltd., and Three Arrows Capital declared bankruptcy, resulting in a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem and negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly. In November 2022, FTX Trading Ltd. (‟FTX”), one of the largest digital asset platforms by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency, which were subsequently corroborated by its CEO. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the United States, while other affiliates have entered insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings around the globe, following which the U.S. Department of Justice brought criminal fraud and other charges, and the SEC and CFTC brought civil securities and commodities fraud charges, against certain of FTX’s and its affiliates’ senior executives, including its former CEO. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis”). In April 2025, the DOJ issued a policy memo ending "regulation by prosecution" for crypto actors, refocusing on fraud, illicit finance, and aligning enforcement with executive directives. Acting CFTC Chairman directed staff to follow the DOJ's new policy, pausing certain prosecutions. In July 2025, BlockFi reached a $35 million settlement with the DOJ, clearing legal hurdles for creditor distributions. In response to these events (collectively, the ‟2022 Events”), the digital asset markets have experienced extreme price volatility and other entities in the digital asset industry have been, and may continue to be, negatively affected, further undermining confidence in the digital asset markets. These events have also negatively impacted the liquidity of the digital asset markets as certain entities affiliated with FTX engaged in significant trading activity. If the liquidity of the digital asset markets continues to be negatively impacted by similar events, digital asset prices, including ether, may continue to experience significant volatility or price declines and confidence in the digital asset markets may be further undermined. In addition, regulatory and enforcement scrutiny increased in response to these events, and could further increase in response to similar events in the future, including from federal as well as state regulators and authorities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fund is not actively managed and willdoes not havepursue any formal strategy relating to the development of the Ethereum network.

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

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

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

As of MarchMay 31,6, 2025,2026, the Ethereum network couldprocessed handlean approximatelyaverage 15of 28.14 transactions per second.second during the second quarter of 2026 (source: token terminal). In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital asset networks are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions. As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. For example, the Ethereum network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. In December 2017, the popularity of the blockchain-based game Cryptokitties led to significant network congestion on the Ethereum network. The game, which allows players to trade and create virtual kitties, represented by non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), was reported by some sources to have accounted for more than 10% of the entire Ethereum network traffic at the time causing increases in transaction fees and delays in transaction processing times, and driving Ethereum network traffic to a reported then-all time high. From April 30, 2023, ether transaction fees decreased from $9.52 per ether transaction, on average, to a high of $3.83 per transaction, on average, on April 30, 2024. As of MarchMay 31,6, 2025,2026, ether transaction fees wereaveraged $0.46$0.35 per transaction,transaction onduring average.the second quarter of 2026 (source: token terminal). Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for ether (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, ether, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In September 2022, the Ethereum network transitioned to a proof-of-stake consensus model, in an upgrade referred to as the “Merge.” Following the Merge, a hard fork of the Ethereum network occurred, as a small number of Ethereum validators and network participants planned to maintain the proof-of-work consensus mechanism that was removed as part of the Merge. This version of the network, which is not backwards-compatible with the Ethereum LayLayer 1 blockchain, is considered a forked branch and was rebranded as “Ethereum Proof-of-Work.” To the extent significant developer talent, users or validators abandon the Ethereum Layer 1 network and adopt the Ethereum Proof-of-Work blockchain instead, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected. The Merge occurred on September 15, 2022 and the price of ether decreased by approximately 17.4% from September 12, 2022 to September 16, 2022, the day after the Merge.

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

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

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto of the Trust and the Fund, included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K.

This annual report on Form 10-K, including this “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. All statements (other than statements of historical fact) included in this Form 10-K that address activities, events or developments that may occur in the future, the Trust’s and the Fund’s operations, the Sponsor’s plans and references to the Trust’s and the Fund’s future success and other similar matters are forward-looking statements. Words such as “could,” “would,” “may,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “predict,” and variations on such words or negatives thereof, and similar expressions that reflect our current views with respect to future events and Trust and Fund performance, are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are only predictions, subject to risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control, and actual results could differ materially from those discussed. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed therein. We express our estimates, expectations, beliefs, and projections in good faith and believe them to have a reasonable basis. However, we make no assurances that management’s estimates, expectations, beliefs, or projections will be achieved or accomplished. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions about many important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Such factors are discussed in: Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this Form 10-K; Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors of this Form 10-K,Factors, and other parts of this Form 10-K. We do not intend to update any forward-looking statements even if new information becomes available or other events occur in the future, except as required by the federal securities laws.

The Franklin Ethereum Trust (the “Trust”) was formed as a Delaware statutory trust on February 8, 2024, and is governed by the provisions of an Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust dated as of May 30, 2024. The Trust is not registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) and is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). The Trust currently offers a single series, the Franklin Ethereum ETF (the “Fund”), which is the sole series of the Trust. The Sponsor of the Trust and the Fund (the “Sponsor”) is Franklin Holdings, LLC. The Sponsor is not subject to regulation by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as a commodity pool operator with respect to the Fund, or a commodity trading advisor with respect to the Fund. The Fund issues shares (the “Shares”), which represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Fund. The Shares of the Fund are listed on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX Exchange” or the “Exchange”).

The Fund seeks to reflect generally the performance of the price of ether before payment of the Fund's expenses.expenses and liabilities. The Shares are intended to offer a convenient means of making an investment similar to an investment in ether relative to acquiring, holding and trading ether directly on a peer-to-peer or other basis or via a digital asset platform. The Shares have been designed to remove obstacles associated with the complexities and operational burdens involved in a direct investment in ether by providing an investment with a value that reflects the price of the ether owned by the Fund at such time, less the Fund's expenses. The Fund is not a proxy for a direct investment in ether. Rather, the Shares are intended to provide a cost-effective alternative means of obtaining investment exposure through the securities markets that is similar to an investment in ether. The Fund is a passive investment vehicle and is not a leveraged product. The Sponsor does not actively manage the ether held by the Fund.

The Fund issues and redeems Shares only to eligible financial institutions called Authorized Participants and only in one or more blocks of 50,000 Shares (“Creation Units”). Creation Units are redeemable only by Authorized Participants. Creation Units are issued and redeemed in exchange for cash. TheIndividual Shares will not be redeemed by the Fund but the Shares are listed and traded on the Exchange under the ticker symbol “EZET.EZET” . The market price of the Shares may be different than the Fund’s NAV per Share. The Fund issues and redeems Shares in Creation Units on a continuous basis at the applicable NAV per Share on the creationtransaction order date.

The Fund’s only ordinary recurring expense is the Sponsor’s fee. In exchange for the Sponsor’s fee, the Sponsor has agreed to assume the ordinary fees and expenses incurred by the Fund, including but not limited to the following: the fees charged by the Administrator, the Marketing Agent, the Custodians and the Trustee, Cboe BZX Exchange listing fees, typical maintenance and transaction fees of the DTC, SEC registration fees, printing and mailing costs, tax reporting fees, audit fees, license fees and expenses, and up to $500,000 per annum in ordinary legal fees and expenses. The Sponsor will also paypaid the costs of the Fund’s organization and the initial offering costs, and may not seek reimbursement of such costs.

The Sponsor’s fee is accrued daily at an annualized rate equal to 0.19% (i.e., 0.19%/365 days) of the net asset value of the Fund and is payable at least quarterly in arrears in U.S. dollars or in-kind or any combination thereof.dollars. The Sponsor may, at its sole discretion and from time to time, waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s fee for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to waive any portion of its fees and any such waiver shall create no obligation to waive any such fees during any period not covered by the waiver. The Fund will sell Ethereum as needed to pay the Sponsor’s fee. The Fund bears transaction costs, including any Ethereum network fees or other similar transaction fees, in connection with any sales of ether necessary to pay the Sponsor’s fee, as well as other Fund expenses (if any) that are not assumed by the Sponsor (expenses assumed by the Sponsor are specified above). Any etherEthereum network fees and similar transaction fees incurred in connection with the creation or redemption of Creation Units are borne by the Authorized Participant. ForThe aSponsor periodFees fromaccrued July 23, 2024 (the dayfor the Sharesfiscal year ended March 31, 2026 were initially listed on the Exchange) to January 31, 2025, the Sponsor agreed to waive the entire Sponsor’s Fee on the first $10.0 billion of the Fund’s assets.$108,260. In the future, if the Sponsor decides to waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee, Shareholders will be notified in a prospectus supplement, in the Fund’s periodic reports, and/or on the Fund’s website.

The Fund is an “emerging growth company” as that term is used in the SecuritiesJumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesJOBS Act”), and, as such, the Fund may electsubject to comply with certain reduced public company reporting requirements.requirements under U.S. federal securities laws.

The NAV of the Trust is used by the Trust in its day-to-day operations to measure the net value of the Trust’s assets. The NAV is calculated on each business day and is equal to the aggregate value of the Trust’s assets less its liabilities based on the Index price. In determining the NAV of the Trust on any business day, the Administrator will calculate the price of the ether held by the Trust as of 4:00 p.m.PM ET on such day. The Administrator will also calculate the “NAV per Share” of the Trust, which equals the NAV of the Trust divided by the number of outstanding Shares. For purposes of making these calculations, a business day means any day other than a day when the Exchange is closed for regular trading.

The Administrator will rely on the Index as the index price to be used when determining NAV. However, determining the value of the Trust’s ether using the Index is not in accordance with GAAP, and therefore is not used in the Trust’s financial statements. The Trust’s ether is carried, for financial statement purposes, at fair value, as required by GAAP. The Trust determines the fair value of ether based on the price provided by the ether market that the Trust considers its “principal market” as of 11:59:59 p.m., PM, ET on the valuation date. date (the “Principal Market Price”). The net asset value of the Trust determined on a GAAP basis is referred to as the “Principal Market NAV” and the net asset value of the Trust per Share determined on a GAAP basis is referred to as the “Principal Market NAV per Share.”

On May 21, 2024, Franklin Resources Inc. (the “Seed Capital Investor”), an affiliate of the Sponsor, subject to conditions, purchased 4,000 Shares at a per-Share price equal to $25.00 (the “Initial Seed Shares”). Delivery of the Initial Seed Shares was made on May 21, 2024. Total proceeds to the Fund from the sale of the Initial Seed Shares were $100,000. On June 27, 2024, the Initial Seed Shares were redeemed for $100,000 and the Seed Capital Investor purchased two creation units in a cash transaction comprised of a total of 100,000 Shares at a per-Share price based on 380 ether per Creation Unit (or 0.0076 ether per Share), for a total of 760 ether (the “Seed Creation Units”). The cash proceeds to the Fund from the sale of the Seed Creation Units were used by the Fund to purchase 760 ether at the price of $3,446.37 per ether on June 27, 2024 (exclusive of transaction and other costs incurred in connection with the conversion of the cash proceeds to ether, which were paid by the Seed Capital Investor). Thus, the ultimate total proceeds to the Fund from the sale of the Seed Creation Units were $2,619,241.20 (an amount representing 760 ether). Further, the transaction and other costs incurred in connection with the Seed Creation Units were paid by the Seed Capital Investor and not borne by the Fund. The Seed Capital Investor will actacted as a statutory underwriter with respect to the Seed Creation Units. Shares of the Fund were first listed and began trading on July 23, 2024.

Results of Operations for the period July 23, 2024 (Date of commencement of operations) to March 31, 2025* At March 31, 2025, 2026, the Custodian held 11,780.206220,095.4606 ether on behalf of the Fund, with a market value of $21,614,322$42,237,443 (cost: $37,851,948$69,199,790) based on the Principal Market Price at the March 31, 2026 fiscal year end.

For the periodyear from July 23, 2024 (Date of Commencement of operations) toended March 31, 2025, 1,750,0002026, 2,850,000 Shares were issued in exchange for 13,300.000021,636.6183 ether and 300,000 1,750,000 Shares were redeemed in exchange for 2,279.793813,282.9028 ether. The Fund’s NAV per Share began the period at $26.21$13.94 and ended the period at $13.94.$15.94. The 46.81% decrease14.32% increase in the Fund's NAV from $26.21 as of July 23, 2024 (Date of Commencement of operations) to $13.94 at March 31, 2025 to $15.94 at March 31, 2026 is primarily related to the 46.80%14.55% decreaseincrease in the price of ether. The Fund’s NAV increased slightly less than the price of ether on a percentage basis due to the Sponsor’s fee of $108,260 for the period.

The Fund’s only ordinary recurring expense is the Sponsor’s fee. In exchange for the Sponsor’s fee, the Sponsor has agreed to assume the ordinary fees and expenses incurred by the Fund, including but not limited to the following: the fees charged by the Administrator, the Marketing Agent, the Custodians and the Trustee, Cboe BZX Exchange listing fees, typical maintenance and transaction fees of the DTC, SEC registration fees, printing and mailing costs, tax reporting fees, audit fees, license fees and expenses, and up to $500,000 per annum in ordinary legal fees and expenses. The Sponsor will also paypaid the costs of the Fund’s organization and the initial offering costs, and may not seek reimbursement of such costs. The Sponsor is not required to pay any extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

The Sponsor’s fee is accrued daily at an annualized rate equal to 0.19% (i.e., 0.19%/365 days) of the net asset value of the Fund and is payable at least quarterly in arrears in U.S. dollars or in-kind or any combination thereof.dollars. The Sponsor may, at its sole discretion and from time to time, waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s fee for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to waive any portion of its fees and any such waiver shall create no obligation to waive any such fees during any period not covered by the waiver. The Fund will sell ether as needed to pay the Sponsor’s fee. For a period from July 23, 2024 (the day the Shares were initially listed on the Exchange) to January 31, 2025, the Sponsor agreed to waive the entire Sponsor’s Fee on the first $10.0 billion of the Fund’s assets. In the future, if the Sponsor decides to waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee, Shareholders will be notified in a prospectus supplement or on the Sponsor’s website for the Fund.

The Fund will sell ether on an as-needed basis to pay the Sponsor’s fee. The Fund bears transaction costs, including any Ethereum network fees or other similar transaction fees, in connection with any sales of ether necessary to pay the Sponsor’s fee, as well as other Fund expenses (if any) that are not assumed by the Sponsor (expenses assumed by the Sponsor are specified above). Any Ethereum network fees and similar transaction fees incurred in connection with the creation or redemption of Creation Units are borne by the Authorized Participant.

At March 31, 2026 and 2025, the Fund as well as the Trust dodid not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

The following chart shows movements in the price of Ether based on the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate -– New York Variant for the Ether – U.S. Dollar trading pair (the “CF Benchmarks Index”) in U.S. dollars per unit over the period from JulyApril 23,1, 20242025 to March 31, 2025.2026.

The average, high, low and end-of-period Ether prices based on the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant for the period are as below:

(1) The end of period EthereumEther price is the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant on the last business day of the period.

You should carefully consider the factors discussed in Part I, Item 1A. "Risk Factors" in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025,2026, which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results. Other than as set forth below, thereThere have been no material changes in our risk factors from those disclosed in our 20252026 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

This quarterlyinformation reportshould onbe read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes included in Item 1 of Part I of this Form 10-Q,10-Q. includingThis thisForm “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,”10-Q contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. All statements (other than statements of historical fact) included in this Form 10-Q that address activities, events or developments that may occur in the future,future the Trust’s and the Fund’s operations, the Sponsor’s plans and references to the Trust’s and the Fund’s future success and other similar matters are forward-looking statements. Words such as “could,” “would,” “may,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “predict,” and variations on such words or negatives thereof, and similar expressions that reflect our current views with respect to future events and Fund performance, are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are only predictions, subject to risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control, and actual results could differ materially from those discussed. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed therein. We express our estimates, expectations, beliefs, and projections in good faith and believe them to have a reasonable basis. However, we make no assurances that management’s estimates, expectations, beliefs, or projections will be achieved or accomplished. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions about many important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. We do not intend to update any forward-looking statements even if new information becomes available or other events occur in the future, except as required by the federal securities laws.

The Franklin Ethereum Trust (the “Trust”) was formed as a Delaware statutory trust on February 8, 2024, and is governed by the provisions of anSecond Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust dated as of MayAugust 30,7, 2024.2026. The Trust is not registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) and is not a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). The Trust currently offers a single series, the Franklin Ethereum ETF (the “Fund”), which is the sole series of the Trust. The Sponsor of the Trust and the Fund (the “Sponsor”) is Franklin Holdings, LLC. The Sponsor is not subject to regulation by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) as a commodity pool operator with respect to the Fund, or a commodity trading advisor with respect to the Fund. The Fund issues sharesShares (the “Shares”), which represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Fund. The Shares of the Fund are listed on the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX Exchange” or the “Exchange”). The Shares were first listed for trading and the Fund commenced operations on July 23, 2024.

The Fund issues and redeems Shares only to eligible financial institutions called Authorized Participants and only in one or more blocks of 50,000 Shares (“Creation Units”). Creation Units are redeemable only by Authorized Participants. As of the period covered by this report, Creation Units aremay be issued and redeemed in exchange for an amount of ether and/or cash. The Shares are listed and traded on the Exchange under the ticker symbol “EZET.” The market price of the Shares may be different than the Fund’s NAV per Share. The Fund issues and redeems Shares in Creation Units on a continuous basis at the applicable NAV per Share on the transaction order date.

The Fund’s only ordinary recurring expense is expected to be the Sponsor’s fee. In exchange for the Sponsor’s fee, the Sponsor has agreed to assume the ordinary fees and expenses incurred by the Fund, including but not limited to the following: the fees charged by the Administrator, the Marketing Agent, the Custodians and the Trustee, Cboe BZX Exchange listing fees, typical maintenance and transaction fees of the DTC, SEC registration fees, printing and mailing costs, tax reporting fees, audit fees, license fees and expenses, and up to $500,000 per annum in ordinary legal fees and expenses. The Sponsor paid the costs of the Fund’s organization and the initial offering costs, and may not seek reimbursement of such costs.

The Sponsor’s fee is accrued daily at an annualized rate equal to 0.19% (i.e., 0.19%/365 days) of the net asset value of the Fund and is payable at least quarterly in arrears in U.S. dollars. The Sponsor may, at its sole discretion and from time to time, waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s fee for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to waive any portion of its fees and any such waiver shall create no obligation to waive any such fees during any period not covered by the waiver. The Fund will sell ether as needed to pay the Sponsor’s fee. The Fund bears transaction costs, including any Ethereum network fees or other similar transaction fees, in connection with any sales of ether necessary to pay the Sponsor’s fee, as well as other Fund expenses (if any) that are not assumed by the Sponsor (expenses assumed by the Sponsor are specified above). Any Ethereum network fees and similar transaction fees incurred in connection with the creation or redemption of Creation Units are borne by the Authorized Participant. The Sponsor’s Fee accrued for the period ended June 30, 2026 were $19,638. In the future, if the Sponsor decides to waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee, Shareholders will be notified in a prospectus supplement, in the Fund’s periodic reports, and/or on the Fund’s website.

The Fund is an “emerging growth company” as that term is used in the SecuritiesJumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesJOBS Act”), and, as such, the Fund may electsubject to comply with certain reduced public company reporting requirements.requirements under U.S. federal securities laws.

The Administrator will rely on the Index as the index price to be used when determining NAV. However, determining the value of the Trust’s ether using the Index is not in accordance with GAAP, and therefore is not used in the Trust’s financial statements. The Trust’s ether is carried, for financial statement purposes, at fair value, as required by GAAP. The Trust determines the fair value of ether based on the price provided by the ether market that the Trust considers its “principal market” as of 11:59:59 p.m., ET on the valuation date.date (the “Principal Market Price”). The net asset value of the Trust determined on a GAAP basis is referred to as the “Principal Market NAV” and the net asset value of the Trust per Share determined on a GAAP basis is referred to as the “Principal Market NAV per Share.”

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

The Trust’s and the Fund’s financial statements and accompanying notes are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these financial statements relies on estimates and assumptions that impact the Fund’s as well asand the Trust’s financial position and results of operations. These estimates and assumptions affect the Fund’s as well asand the Trust’s application of accounting policies. A description of the valuation of Ether, a critical accounting policy that is important to understanding the results of operations and financial position of the Trust and the Fund is presented in the Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K in the section entitled “Calculation of Net Asset Value,NAV, Valuation of Ether and The CF BenchmarkBenchmarks Index.” In addition, please refer to Note 2 to the financial statements included in this report for further discussion of the Trust’s and the Fund’s accounting policies.

At DecemberJune 31,30, 2025,2026, the Custodian held 19,348.465020,464.3242 ether on behalf of the Fund, with a market value of $57,494,931$32,599,873 (cost: $67,384,986$69,224,878) based on the Principal Market Price at quarter end.

Results of Operations forFor the ninethree months ended DecemberJune 31,30, 20252026, For the nine months ended to December 31, 2025, 2,700,000150,000 Shares were issued in exchange for 20,498.87641,137.1708 ether and 1,700,000100,000 Shares were redeemed in exchange for 12,903.7817758.1693 ether. The Fund’s NAV per Share began the period at $13.94$15.94 and ended the period at $22.54.$12.07. The 61.69%24.28% increasedecrease in the Fund's NAV from $13.94$15.94 at March 31, 20252026 to $22.54$12.07 at DecemberJune 31,30, 20252026 is directly related to the 61.95%24.21% increasedecrease in the price of ether. The Fund’s NAV increaseddecreased slightly lessmore than the price of ether on a percentage basis due to the Sponsor’s fee of $85,512$19,638 for the period.quarter.

Net realized and change in unrealized gainloss on investment in ether for the ninethree months ended DecemberJune 31,30, 2025,2026, was approximately $9,607,950$10,608,420 which includes a net realized gainloss on investment infrom ether sold for redemptionsthe redemption of $3,260,379shares and sold to pay expenses of $945,762 and net change in unrealized appreciationdepreciation on investment in ether of approximately $6,347,571.$9,662,658. Net realized and change in unrealized gainloss on investment in ether for the period was driven by ether price appreciationdepreciation from $1,834.80$2,101.84 per ether as of March 31, 20252026 to $2,971.55$1,593.01 per ether as of DecemberJune 31,30, 2025.2026. Net increasedecrease in net assets resulting from operations was approximately $9,522,438$10,628,058 for the ninethree months ended DecemberJune 31,30, 2025,2026, which consisted of the net realized and change in unrealized gainloss on investment in ether of $9,607,950$10,608,420 offset byand the Sponsor Fee of $85,512.$19,638. Net assets increaseddecreased to approximately $57,484,440$32,594,461 on DecemberJune 31,30, 2025.2026. The increasedecrease in net assets primarily resulted from the aforementioned ether price movement, net capital share transactionsincrease of approximately $26,356,604,$991,854, and a net increasedecrease resulting from operations of $9,522,438.$10,628,058.

Results of Operations for the period July 23, 2024 (Date of commencement of operations) to December 31, 2024 For the periodquarter fromended JulyJune 23,30, 20242025, (Date of Commencement of operations) to December 31, 2024, 1,750,000450,000 Shares were issued in exchange for 13,300.00003,417.9518 ether and 200,000150,000 Shares were redeemed in exchange for 1,520.0001,145.1553 ether. The Fund’s NAV per Share began the period at $26.21$13.94 and ended the period at $25.34.$18.99. The 3.32%36.23% decreaseincrease in the Fund's NAV from $26.21$13.94 at JulyMarch 23,31, 2024 (Date of Commencement of operations)2025 to $25.34$18.99 at DecemberJune 31,30, 20242025 is directly related to the 3.32%36.27% decreaseincrease in the price of ether. The Fund’s NAV increased slightly less than the price of ether on a percentage basis due to the Sponsor’s fee of $13,393 for the quarter.

Net realized and change in unrealized gain on investment in ether for the periodquarter ended DecemberJune 31,30, 2024,2025 was approximately $1,529,902$7,200,320, which includes a net realized gainloss on investment in ether sold for redemptions of $20,638$1,744,386 and net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in ether of approximately $1,509,264.$8,944,706. Net realized and change in unrealized gain on investment in ether for the period was driven by ether price movementappreciation from $3,448.77$1,834.80 per ether as of JulyMarch 23,31, 2024 (Date of Commencement of operations)2025 to $3,333.60$2,500.31 per ether as of DecemberJune 31,30, 2024.2025. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was approximately $1,529,902$7,186,927 for the periodquarter ended DecemberJune 31,30, 2024,2025, which consisted of the net realized and change in unrealized gain on investment in ether of $1,529,902.$7,200,320 offset by the Sponsor’s fee of $13,393. Net assets increased to approximately $41,803,344$35,123,473 on DecemberJune 31,30, 2024.2025. The increase in net assets primarily resulted from a net increase resulting from operations of $7,186,927, which was primarily driven by the aforementioned ether price movementappreciation, and net capital share transactions of approximately $37,652,377.$6,331,148.

The Fund is not aware of any trends, demands, commitments, events, or uncertainties that are reasonably likely to result in material changes to its liquidity needs. The Fund’s only ordinary recurring expense is expected to be the Sponsor’s fee. In exchange for the Sponsor’s fee, the Sponsor has agreed to assume the ordinary fees and expenses incurred by the Fund, including but not limited to the following: the fees charged by the Administrator, the Marketing Agent, the Custodians and the Trustee, Cboe BZX Exchange listing fees, typical maintenance and transaction fees of the DTC, SEC registration fees, printing and mailing costs, tax reporting fees, audit fees, license fees and expenses, and up to $500,000 per annum in ordinary legal fees and expenses. The Sponsor paid the costs of the Fund’s organization and the initial offering costs, and may not seek reimbursement of such costs. The Sponsor is not required to pay any extraordinary or non-routine expenses.

The Sponsor’s fee is accrued daily at an annualized rate equal to 0.19% (i.e., 0.19%/365 days) of the net asset value of the Fund and is payable at least quarterly in arrears in U.S. dollars. The Sponsor may, at its sole discretion and from time to time, waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s fee for stated periods of time. The Sponsor is under no obligation to waive any portion of its fees and any such waiver shall create no obligation to waive any such fees during any period not covered by the waiver. The Fund will sell ether as needed to pay the Sponsor’s fee. From July 23, 2024 (the day the Shares were initially listed on the Exchange) to January 31, 2025, the Sponsor agreed to waive the entire Sponsor’s Fee on the first $10.0 billion of the Fund’s assets. In the future, if the Sponsor decides to waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee,fee, Shareholders will be notified in a prospectus supplement or on the Sponsor’s website for the Fund.

The Fund will sell ether on an as-needed basis to pay the Sponsor’s fee. The Fund bears transaction costs, including any Ethereum network fees or other similar transaction fees, in connection with any sales of ether necessary to pay the Sponsor’s fee, as well as other Fund expenses (if any) that are not assumed by the Sponsor (expenses assumed by the Sponsor are specified above). Any Ethereum network fees and similar transaction fees incurred in connection with the creation or redemption of Creation Units are borne by the Authorized Participant.

Off BalanceOff-Balance Sheet Arrangements

AtAs Decemberof 31,June 202530, 2026 and March 31, 2025,2026, the Fund as well as the Trust did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

The following chart shows movements in the price of Etherether based on the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant for the Ether – U.S. Dollar trading pair (the “CF Benchmarks Index”) in U.S. dollars per unit over the period from OctoberApril 1, 20252026 to DecemberJune 31,30, 2025.2026.