SEC Filing Document

Company: Canary Staked TRX ETF
Ticker: 
CIK: 2064768
Filing Type: S-1/A
Document Type: S-1/A
Date Filed: 2026-05-15
Accession Number: 0001999371-26-010857
Exchange: 
SIC Code: 6221
SIC Description: Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers
URL: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2064768/000199937126010857/canary-s1a_051526.htm

Chunk 17 of 63
Word Count: 1374
Character Count: 8336

Document Content:

is implemented and the network remains uninterrupted. However, if less than a substantial majority of users and validators’ consent to the proposed modification, and the modification is not compatible with the software prior to its modification, the consequence would be what is known as a “hard fork” of the Tron Network, with one group running the pre-modified software and the other running the modified software. The effect of such a fork would be the existence of two versions of TRX running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. For example, in September 2022, the ethereum network transitioned to a proof-of-stake model, in an upgrade referred to as the “Merge.” Following the Merge, a hard fork of the ethereum network occurred, as certain Ethereum miners and network participants planned to maintain the proof-of-work consensus mechanism that was removed as part of the Merge. This version of the network was rebranded as “Ethereum Proof-of-Work.”

Forks
may also occur as a network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum “forked”
into Ethereum and a new digital asset, Ethereum Classic, as a result of the ethereum network community’s response to a significant
security breach. In June 2016, an anonymous hacker exploited a smart contract running on the ethereum network to syphon approximately
$60 million of ether held by The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization, into a segregated account. In response to the hack, most
participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a “fork” that effectively reversed the hack. However, a minority of
users continued to develop the original blockchain, referred to as “Ethereum Classic” with the digital asset on that blockchain
now referred to as ETC. ETC now trades on several Digital asset trading platforms. A fork may also occur as a result of an unintentional
or unanticipated software flaw in the various versions of otherwise compatible software that users run. Such a fork could lead to users
and validators abandoning the digital asset with the flawed software. It is possible, however, that a substantial number of users and
validators could adopt an incompatible version of the digital asset while resisting community-led efforts to merge the two chains. This
could result in a permanent fork, as in the case of Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.

Furthermore,
a hard fork can lead to new security concerns. For example, when the Ethereum and Ethereum Classic networks, two other digital asset networks,
split in July 2016, replay attacks, in which transactions from one network were rebroadcast to nefarious effect on the other network,
plagued Ethereum trading platforms through at least October 2016. An Ethereum trading platform announced in July 2016 that it had lost
40,000 Ethereum Classic, worth about $100,000 at that time, as a result of replay attacks. Similar replay attack concerns occurred in
connection with the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision networks split in November 2018. Another possible result of a hard
fork is an inherent decrease in the level of security due to significant amounts of validating power remaining on one network or migrating
instead to the new forked network. After a hard fork, it may become easier for an individual validator or validating pool’s validating
power to exceed 50% of the validating power of a digital asset network that retained or attracted less validating power, thereby making
digital asset networks that rely on proof-of-stake more susceptible to attack.

Protocols
may also be cloned. Unlike a fork, which modifies an existing blockchain, and results in two competing networks, each with the same genesis
block, a “clone” is a copy of a protocol’s codebase, but results in an entirely new blockchain and new genesis block.
Tokens are created solely from the new “clone” network and, in contrast to forks, holders of tokens of the existing network
that was cloned do not receive any tokens of the new network. A “clone” results in a competing network that has characteristics
substantially similar to the network it was based on, subject to any changes as determined by the developer(s) that initiated the clone.

hard fork may adversely affect the price of TRX at the time of announcement or adoption. For example, the announcement of a hard fork
could lead to increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset, in anticipation that ownership of the pre-fork digital asset would entitle
holders to a new digital asset following the fork. The increased demand for the pre-fork 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. Furthermore, while the Trust would be entitled to both versions
of the digital asset running in parallel, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, determine which version
of the digital asset is generally accepted as the Tron Network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s
purposes, and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork.

Either
of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares. As illustrative examples of a digital asset hard fork,
following the DAO hack in July 2016, holders of Ethereum voted on-chain to reverse the hack, effectively causing a hard fork. For
the days following the vote, the price of Ethereum rose from $11.65 on July 15, 2016 to $14.66 on July 21, 2016, the day after the
first Ethereum Classic block was mined. On November 6, 2016, Rhett Creighton, a Zcash developer, cloned the Zcash Network to launch
Zclassic, a substantially identical version of the Zcash Network that eliminated the Founders’ Reward. For the days following
the date the first Zclassic block was mined, the price of ZEC fell from $504.57 on November 5, 2016 to $236.01 on November 7, 2016
in the midst of a broader sell off of ZEC beginning immediately after the Zcash Network launch on October 28, 2016. A clone may also
adversely affect the price of TRX at the time of announcement or adoption. A future fork in or clone of the Tron Network could
adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

Shareholders
may not receive the benefits of any forks or “airdrops.”

refer to the right to receive any benefits arising from a fork, airdrop (defined below), or similar event as an “Incidental Right”
and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.” The only crypto asset to be held
by the Trust will be TRX. The Trust has adopted the following procedures to address situations involving any fork, airdrop or similar
event that results in the issuance of Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency that the Trust may receive. The Trust Agreement stipulates
that if a fork occurs, the Sponsor shall determine which asset constitutes TRX and which network constitutes the Tron Network, and the
Sponsor will as soon as possible cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. Because the Trust
will abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency, the Trust would not receive any direct or indirect consideration for the Incidental
Rights or IR Virtual Currency and thus the value of the Shares will not reflect the value of the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency.
Such Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency will not be taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. In the event the Trust seeks
to change this position, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by the Exchange seeking approval to amend its listing rules
to permit the Trust to distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency that is not TRX in-kind to the Sponsor, as agent for the
Shareholders, and the Sponsor would arrange to sell or otherwise dispose of the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency and for the proceeds
(if any) to be distributed to the Shareholders. There can be no assurance as to whether or when the Sponsor would make such a decision,
or when the Exchange will seek or obtain this approval, if at all.