Company: TOXR
Filing Date: 2025-11-07
Form Type: S-1/A
Source: 0001213900-25-107665
Chunk: 76

Company: 21Shares XRP ETF
Filing Date: 2025-11-07
Form: S-1/A
Chunk 76
---
 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 XRP Ledger 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 XRP Ledger’s users, validators, or the XRP Ledger as a whole, or otherwise adversely affect, the speed, security, usability, or value of the XRP Ledger or XRP. 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, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, determine which network is generally accepted as the XRP Ledger and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on a variety of then relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of XRP, users, service providers, businesses, validators and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the XRP Network. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the network and the associated digital asset that would ultimately end up as the most valuable fork. Any of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares.

<div align='center'>33</div>

Forks
may also occur as a digital asset network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in July 2016,
Ethereum underwent a hard fork between the Layer 1 Ethereum network and a new digital asset running on a “forked” branch
of the network, Ethereum Classic, as a result of the Ethereum community’s response to a significant security breach. In June 2016,
an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the Ethereum blockchain to syphon approximately $60 million of ether held
by a distributed autonomous organization into a segregated account. In response to the hack, and after a contentious debate, most participants
in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a hard fork that effectively reversed the hack, and this network constitutes the Layer 1 Ethereum