Grayscale Ethereum Trust (ETH) (ETHE) Risk Analysis

Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered a "security" under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a "security" is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Public, though non-binding, statements by senior officials at the SEC have indicated that the SEC did not consider Bitcoin or Ethereum to be securities, and does not currently consider Bitcoin to be a security. The SEC staff has also provided informal assurances to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. On the other hand, the SEC has brought enforcement actions against the issuers and promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities. More recently, the SEC has also brought enforcement actions against digital asset exchanges for operating unregistered securities exchanges on the basis that certain of the digital assets traded on their platforms are securities. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance and Coinbase for alleged violations of a variety of securities laws. In its complaints, the SEC asserted that SOL, ADA, MATIC, FIL, ATOM, SAND, MANA, ALGO, AXS, COTI, CHZ, FLOW, ICP, NEAR, VGX, DASH and NEXO, are securities under the federal securities laws. Whether a digital asset is a security under the federal securities laws depends on whether it is included in the lists of instruments making up the definition of "security" in the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act. Digital assets as such do not appear in any of these lists, although each list includes the terms "investment contract" and "note," and the SEC has typically analyzed whether a particular digital asset is a security by reference to whether it meets the tests developed by the federal courts interpreting these terms, known as the Howey and Reves tests, respectively. For many digital assets, whether or not the Howey or Reves tests are met is difficult to resolve definitively, and substantial legal arguments can often be made both in favor of and against a particular digital asset qualifying as a security under one or both of the Howey and Reves tests. Adding to the complexity, the SEC staff has indicated that the security status of a particular digital asset can change over time as the relevant facts evolve. As part of determining whether ETH is a security for purposes of the federal securities laws, the Sponsor takes into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of "security" under the federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in the Howey and Reves cases, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security for purposes of the federal securities laws. Finally, the Sponsor discusses the security status of ETH with external counsel. The Sponsor has discussed, for example, the security status of ETH with external counsel both before and after the Merge and determined that the Merge has not caused ETH to have become a security for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: First, consistent with the holdings in recent Federal court cases involving Ripple and Terraform, the Sponsor believes that whether something is an investment contract under the Howey test is a transaction-specific assessment that does not attach to the underlying object of that transaction as the underlying object of a transaction is not itself "a contract, transaction or scheme." The Sponsor therefore believes that a digital asset such as ETH cannot itself be an investment contract security. That remains true after the Merge. Second, the Sponsor also believes that ETH is a consumable commodity that is not a security. ETH was used in making gas fee payments on the Ethereum Network prior to the Merge and continues to be extensively used in this capacity after the Merge. The Merge also introduced a new use for ETH as part of the new consensus mechanism, which provides further evidence that ETH is a consumable commodity and not a security. Third, the Sponsor believes that any expectations of profit a purchaser of ETH may possess from their purchase depends on the overall market for ETH, not any identifiable "other" or issuer as required in the Howey test. Specifically, the Sponsor believes that ETH's value derives from the supply and demand for useful applications built on the Ethereum Network. The Sponsor believes this to be the case before the Merge and continues to believe it to be the case after the Merge. Fourth, the Sponsor believes that even if a holder of ETH expects profits based upon the action of persons directly involved in updating the Ethereum Network's code, or in publishing new blocks of transactions on the Ethereum Network, the group of persons involved in such activities is sufficiently decentralized such that there is no "other" upon whom a purchaser could rely for Howey purposes. There were thousands of developers working on the Ethereum Network's code before the Merge, and there continues to be today. There were thousands of miners publishing blocks on the Ethereum Network before the Merge, and there are approximately one million validators performing that role after the Merge. The Sponsor therefore believes that the Ethereum Network remains "sufficiently decentralized" and that ETH is not a security, just as a former director of the Commission stated in June 2018. Fifth, similar to profits that could be sought from mining under proof of work, any profits realized from validating Ethereum transactions only accrue to those who affirmatively engage in validation efforts, rather than holders of ETH more generally. Any of these profits are also based on the validator's own efforts to engage in validation, and not the efforts of identifiable "others" more generally. Sixth, the Sponsor believes ETH is not a security because futures contracts with ETH as the underlying asset continue to be offered by trading platforms regulated only by the CFTC, even after the Merge. In addition, the Sponsor has considered generally whether the Merge may have caused ETH to be classified as a security under Reves or any other instrument making up the definition of "security" in the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and the Investment Company Act and concluded that it did not. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that ETH is not a security in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests. In light of these uncertainties and the fact-based nature of the analysis, the Sponsor acknowledges that ETH may currently be a security, based on the facts as they exist today, or may in the future be found by the SEC or a federal court to be a security under the federal securities laws notwithstanding the Sponsor's prior conclusion; and the Sponsor's prior conclusion, even if reasonable under the circumstances, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on the presence of a security. As is the case with ETH, analyses from counsel typically review the often-complex facts surrounding a particular digital asset's underlying technology, creation, use case and usage, distribution and secondary-market trading characteristics as well as contributions of the individuals or organizations who appear to be involved in these activities, among other relevant facts, usually drawing on publicly available information. This information, usually found on the Internet, often includes both information that originated with or is attributed to such individuals or organizations, as well as information from third party sources and databases that may or may not have a connection to such individuals or organizations, and the availability and nature of such information can change over time. The Sponsor and counsel often have no independent means of verifying the accuracy or completeness of such information, and therefore of necessity usually must assume that such information is materially accurate and complete for purposes of the Howey and Reves analyses. After having gathered this information, counsel typically analyzes it in light of the Howey and Reves tests, in order to inform a judgment as to whether or not a federal court would conclude that the digital asset in question is or is not a security for purposes of the federal securities laws. Often, certain factors appear to support a conclusion that the digital asset in question is a security, while other factors appear to support the opposite conclusion, and in such a case counsel endeavors to weigh the importance and relevance of the competing factors. This analytical process is further complicated by the fact that, at present, federal judicial case law applying the relevant tests to digital assets is scant, with no federal appellate court having considered the question on the merits, as well as the fact that because each digital asset presents its own unique set of relevant facts, it is not always possible to directly analogize the analysis of one digital asset to another. Because of this factual complexity and the current lack of a well-developed body of federal case law applying the relevant tests to a variety of different fact patterns, the Sponsor has not in the past received, and currently does not expect that it would be able to receive, "opinions" of counsel stating that a particular digital asset is or is not a security for federal securities law purposes. The Sponsor understands that as a matter of practice, counsel is generally able to render a legal "opinion" only when the relevant facts are substantially ascertainable and the applicable law is both well-developed and settled. As a result, given the relative novelty of digital assets, the challenges inherent in fact gathering for particular digital assets, and the fact that federal courts have only recently been tasked with adjudicating the applicability of federal securities law to digital assets, the Sponsor understands that at present counsel is generally not in a position to render a legal "opinion" on the securities-law status of ETH or any other particular digital asset. If the Sponsor determines that ETH is a security under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because a federal court upholds an allegation that ETH is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding ETH in a way that would violate the federal securities laws (and therefore would either dissolve the Trust or potentially seek to operate the Trust in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act). Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset is or is not a security often leave room for interpretation, for so long as the Sponsor believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that the Trust's ETH is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that ETH could at some future point be finally determined to be a security. Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that ETH is a security, or a court decision to that effect, would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of ETH, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset is determined to be a security, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants' ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars. Any assertion that a digital asset is a security by the SEC or another regulatory authority may have similar effects. For example, in 2020 the SEC filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through XRP sales that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. In the years prior to the SEC's action, XRP's market capitalization at times reached over $140 billion. However, in the weeks following the SEC's complaint, XRP's market capitalization fell to less than $10 billion, which was less than half of its market capitalization in the days prior to the complaint. Likewise, in the days following the announcement of the SEC's complaints against Binance and Coinbase, the price of various digital assets, including BTC and ETH, declined significantly and may continue to decline as these cases advance through the federal court system. Subsequently, in July 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that while XRP is not a security, certain sales of XRP to certain buyers amounted to "investment contracts" under the Howey test. The SEC's actions against Binance, Coinbase and XRP's issuer, as well as the judgments of federal courts, underscore the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets are securities, and demonstrate that such factors as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is and that it has actual usefulness in commercial transactions, ultimately may have no bearing on whether the SEC or a court will find it to be a security. In addition, if ETH is in fact a security, the Trust could be considered an unregistered "investment company" under SEC rules, which could necessitate the Trust's liquidation. In this case, the Trust and the Sponsor may be deemed to have participated in an illegal offering of securities and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be able to register the Trust under the Investment Company Act at such time or take such other actions as may be necessary to ensure the Trust's activities comply with applicable law, which could force the Sponsor to liquidate the Trust. Moreover, whether or not the Sponsor or the Trust were subject to additional regulatory requirements as a result of any determination that its assets include securities, the Sponsor may nevertheless decide to terminate the Trust, in order, if possible, to liquidate the Trust's assets while a liquid market still exists. For example, in response to the SEC's action against the issuer of XRP, certain significant market participants announced they would no longer support XRP and announced measures, including the delisting of XRP from major digital asset trading platforms, resulting in the Sponsor's conclusion that it was likely to be increasingly difficult for U.S. investors, including Grayscale XRP Trust (XRP), an affiliate of the Trust, to convert XRP into U.S. dollars. The Sponsor subsequently dissolved Grayscale XRP Trust (XRP) and liquidated its assets. If the SEC or a federal court were to determine that ETH is a security, it is likely that the value of the Shares of the Trust would decline significantly. Furthermore, if a federal court upholds an allegation that ETH is a security, the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.