While bitcoin, the first widely used digital asset, and many other digital assets were created and mainly serve as a form of money, digital assets can be used to do more complicated things. Some digital assets were built specifically with more complex use cases in mind. For example, the Ethereum network was designed primarily to facilitate smart contracts, with the digital asset ether serving as the transactional mechanism for many portions of such contracts. Smart contracts are programs that automatically execute on a blockchain, allowing for a myriad of interesting applications to be built. It is possible that market demand for digital assets with use cases beyond serving as a form of money could over time reduce the market demand for bitcoin, which would adversely impact the price of bitcoin and, as a result, an investment in the Shares. Additionally, certain digital assets use non-blockchain technologies, like Directed Acyclic Graph data structures, to maintain consensus. To the extent market participants come to prefer these other consensus mechanisms or digital assets that use non-blockchain technology, the value of bitcoin, and therefore an investment in the Shares, may be adversely affected.
Bitcoin faces significant scaling obstacles that can lead to high fees or slow transaction settlement times, and attempts to increase the volume of transactions may not be effective.
The Bitcoin network, like many digital asset networks, faces significant scaling challenges. As of July 2017, bitcoin could handle, on average, five to seven transactions per second. For several years, participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem debated potential approaches to increasing the average number of transactions per second that the Bitcoin network could handle. As of August 2017, the Bitcoin network was upgraded with a technical feature known as “segregated witness” that, among other things, could potentially approximately double the transactions per second that can be handled on-chain. More importantly, segregated witness also enables so-called second layer solutions, such as the Lightning Network or payment channels, that could potentially allow greater transaction throughput.
An increasing number of wallets and digital asset intermediaries, such as exchanges, have begun supporting segregated witness and the Lightning Network, or similar technology. However, the Lightning Network does not yet have material adoption as of January 2021. Additionally, the Lightning Network has not yet seen significant use, and there are open questions about Lightning Network services, such as its cost and who will serve as intermediaries, among other questions.
As the use of digital asset networks increases without a corresponding increase in throughput of the networks, average fees and settlement times can increase significantly. Bitcoin’s network has been, at times, at capacity, which has led to increased transaction fees. During the period from January 1, 2017 to January 31, 2021, average bitcoin transaction fees increased from $0.39 per transaction to $11.56 per transaction, with a high of $54.83 per transaction on December 12, 2017.
Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain use cases for bitcoin (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for and the price of bitcoin, which could adversely impact an investment in the Shares.
There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement of transactions in bitcoin will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact an investment in the Shares.
Miners could act in collusion to raise transaction fees, which may adversely affect the usage of the Bitcoin network.
Miners, functioning in their transaction confirmation capacity, collect fees for each transaction they confirm. Miners validate unconfirmed transactions by adding the previously unconfirmed transactions to new blocks in the blockchain. Miners are not forced to confirm any specific transaction, but they are economically incentivized to confirm valid transactions as a means of collecting fees. Miners have historically accepted relatively low transaction confirmation fees. If miners collude in an anticompetitive manner to reject low transaction fees, then bitcoin users could be forced to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Bitcoin network. Mining
-12-