Company: TOXR
Filing Date: 2025-12-10
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001213900-25-120172
Chunk: 73

Company: 21Shares XRP ETF
Filing Date: 2025-12-10
Form: 424B3
Chunk 73
---
 Network through influence over core developers or by engaging in supply-chain attacks. This malinfluence can include gaining direct control over a core developer or an influential programmer and/or by gaining access to accounts and tools used by such developers and programmers. For instance, in April 2025 an attacker gained improper access to the account of a widely trusted contributor to the XRP Ledger’s JavaScript Library – a database used by developers to build applications and websites that interact with the XRP Ledger. The attacker uploaded malicious versions of JavaScript code designed to steal private key information from users of applications interacting with the XRP Ledger. This malicious code was widely downloaded until Ripple Labs became aware of the attack and began taking remedial efforts to remove and replace the malicious code. Although the attack is not believed to have exploited the XRP Ledger’s core source code or impacted access to the network’s Github account, the scope of potential losses remains unknown. To the extent that users and validators accept amendments to the source code proposed by the controlled core developer, other core developers do not counter such amendments, and such amendments enable the malicious exploitation of the XRP Network, the risk that a malicious actor may be able to obtain control of the XRP Network in this manner exists, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares. If the malicious actor cannot control the validator nodes directly, they might attempt to compromise the validators that are already trusted by the network. This could involve hacking, bribery, deception or coercion.

Compared to other digital asset networks such as the Bitcoin network and Ethereum network, the XRP Ledger relies on a relatively small number of validators, and each validator maintains a UNL that is an even smaller subset of the validators. While this helps maintain a fast and efficient network, it could expose the XRP Ledger to additional vulnerabilities. For example, a malicious actor could attempt a “Sybil” attack whereby it would attempt to gain the trust of existing validators using a large number of fake identities. Such an attack would be difficult to execute because human intervention would be required for the malicious validators to become trusted, but the risk is made greater by the small number validators included on each validator’s UNL.

A malicious actor could also conduct an “eclipse attack.” In an eclipse attack, a malicious actor could isolate parts of the network so that the malicious actor’s nodes can influence the consensus in isolated sections of the network, eventually leading to a split or takeover.

To the extent that the XRP Network, including the core validators and the administrators of the network’s validator nodes, does not