The Trust is dependent on the Ether Custodian to operate. The Ether Custodian performs essential functions in terms of safekeeping the Fund’s ether in the Vault Balance, and its affiliate, Coinbase Inc. (“Coinbase”), facilitates the selling of ether by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and, to the extent applicable, other Trust expenses. If the Ether Custodian fails to perform the functions they perform for the Trust, the Trust may be unable to operate or create or redeem Creation Units, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares.
On March 22, 2023, Coinbase and the Ether Custodian’s parent company, Coinbase Global Inc. (together, the “Relevant Coinbase Entities”) received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC staff stating that the SEC staff made a “preliminary determination” to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Relevant Coinbase Entities alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. According to Coinbase Global’s public reporting company disclosure, based on discussions with the SEC staff, the Relevant Coinbase Entities believe these potential enforcement actions would relate to aspects of the Relevant Coinbase Entities’ Coinbase Prime service, spot market, staking service Coinbase Earn, and Coinbase Wallet and the potential civil action may seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. On June 6, 2023, the SEC filed a complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities in federal district court in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia: (i) that Coinbase has violated the Exchange Act by failing to register with the SEC as a national securities exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency, in connection with activities involving certain identified digital assets that the SEC’s complaint alleges are securities, (ii) that Coinbase has violated the Securities Act by failing to register with the SEC the offer and sale of its staking program, and (iii) that Coinbase Global is jointly and severally liable as a control person under the Exchange Act for Coinbase’s violations of the Exchange Act to the same extent as Coinbase. The SEC’s complaint against the Relevant Coinbase Entities does not allege that bitcoin is a security nor does it allege that Coinbase’s activities involving bitcoin caused the alleged registration violations, and the Ether Custodian was not named as a defendant. The SEC’s complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the Relevant Coinbase Entities to prevent them from violations of the Exchange Act or Securities Act, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate or necessary. Coinbase could be required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or curtail the services it offers, or its financial condition and ability to provide services to the Trust could be affected. If Coinbase were to be required or choose as a result of a regulatory action (including, for example, the litigation initiated by the SEC), to restrict or curtail the services it offers, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate or process creations or redemptions of Creation Baskets, which could force the Trust to liquidate or adversely affect the price of the Shares. While the Ether Custodian is not named in the complaint, if Coinbase Global, as the parent of the Ether Custodian, is required, as a result of a judicial determination, or could choose, to restrict or curtail the services its subsidiaries provide to the Trust, or its financial condition is negatively affected, it could negatively affect the Trust’s ability to operate.
If the Custody Agreement is terminated, the Sponsor may not be able to find a party willing to serve as the custodian of the Trust’s ether or as the Trust’s prime broker under the same terms as the current Custody Agreement or at all. To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as the custodian or prime broker, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s ether. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party but must enter into a modified Custodian Agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Sponsor, the value of the Shares could be adversely affected. If the Trust is unable to find a replacement prime broker, its operations could be adversely affected.
Loss of a critical banking relationship for, or the failure of a bank used by, Galaxy could adversely impact the Trust’s ability to create or redeem Creation Baskets, or could cause losses to the Trust.
Galaxy, as the Execution Agent, is responsible for selling ether on behalf of the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and, to the extent applicable, other Trust expenses. Galaxy may rely on bank accounts to provide its execution services and hold any cash related to a customer’s purchase or sale of ether. To the extent that Galaxy faces difficulty establishing or maintaining banking relationships, the loss of Galaxy’s banking partners or the imposition of operational restrictions by these banking partners and the inability for Galaxy to utilize other financial institutions may result in a disruption of creation and redemption activity of the Trust, or cause other operational disruptions or adverse effects for the Trust.
The Trust could also suffer losses in the event that a bank in which Galaxy holds customer cash fails, becomes insolvent, enters receivership, is taken over by regulators, enters financial distress, or otherwise suffers adverse effects to its financial condition or operational status. For example, Silvergate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and First Republic Bank recently experienced financial distress, including voluntary liquidation and receiverships.
Changing circumstances and market conditions, some of which may be beyond the Trust’s or the Sponsor’s control, could impair the Trust’s ability to access the Trust’s cash held with Galaxy or associated with the Trust’s orders to sell ether in connection with payment of the Sponsor’s Fee, and to the extent applicable, other Trust expenses. If Galaxy were to experience financial distress or its financial condition is otherwise affected by the failure of its banking partners, Galaxy’s ability to provide services to the Trust could be affected. Moreover, the future failure of a bank at which Galaxy maintains customer cash could result in losses to the Trust, to the extent the balances are not subject to deposit insurance.
Galaxy routes orders through Connected Trading Venues in connection with its role as Execution Agent. The loss or failure of any such Connected Trading Venues may adversely affect Galaxy’s business and cause losses for the Trust.
In connection with selling ether on behalf of the Trust, Galaxy routinely routes customer orders to third-party exchanges or other trading venues where Galaxy executes orders to buy and sell ether on behalf of clients (each such venue, a “Connected Trading Venue”). In connection with these activities, Galaxy may hold ether with such Connected Trading Venues for a short time in order to effect customer orders, including the Trust’s orders. If Galaxy were to experience a disruption in Galaxy’s access to these Connected Trading Venues, Galaxy’s trading services could be adversely affected to the extent that Galaxy is limited in its ability to execute order flow for its customers, including the Trust, potentially resulting in its failure to provide services to the Trust or perform its obligations as Execution Agent, and the Trust could suffer resulting losses or disruptions to its operations. While Galaxy has policies and procedures to oversee Connected Trading Venues, if any of these venues experience any technical, legal, regulatory or other adverse events, such as shutdowns, delays, system failures, suspension of withdrawals, illiquidity, insolvency, or loss of customer assets, Galaxy might not be able to fully recover the Trust’s ether.
A disruption of the internet may affect the use of ether and subsequently the value of the Shares.
Ether is dependent upon the internet. A significant disruption in internet connectivity could disrupt the Ethereum network’s operations until the disruption is resolved and have an adverse effect on the price of ether. In particular, some variants of digital assets have been subjected to a number of denial-of-service attacks, which have led to temporary delays in block creation and in the transfer of the digital assets. While in certain cases in response to an attack, an additional hard fork has been introduced to increase the cost of certain network functions, the relevant network has continued to be the subject of additional attacks. Moreover, it is possible that if ether increases in value, it may become a bigger target for hackers and subject to more frequent hacking and denial-of-service attacks.
-23-