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 24 of 63
Word Count: 1329
Character Count: 8744

Document Content:

vulnerable to attacks on transaction finality and consensus processes, which could adversely affect an investment in the trust or the ability of the trust to operate. ” • Validators have historically accepted relatively low transaction confirmation fees on most digital asset networks. If validators demand higher transaction fees for recording transactions in the TRX Blockchain or a software upgrade automatically charges fees for all transactions on the Tron Network, the cost of using TRX may increase and the marketplace may be reluctant to accept TRX as a means of payment. Alternatively, validators could collude in an anti-competitive manner to reject low transaction fees on the Tron Network and force users to pay higher fees, thus reducing the attractiveness of the Tron Network. Higher transaction confirmation fees resulting through collusion or otherwise may adversely affect the attractiveness of the Tron Network, the value of TRX and the value of the Shares.

•	To the extent that any validators cease to record transactions that do not include
the payment of a transaction fee in blocks or do not record a transaction because the transaction fee is too low, such transactions will
not be recorded on the TRX Blockchain until a block is validated by a validator who does not require the payment of transaction fees or
is willing to accept a lower fee. Any widespread delays or disruptions in the recording of transactions could result in a loss of confidence
in the Tron Network and could prevent the Trust from completing transactions associated with the day-to-day operations of the Trust, including
creations and redemptions of the Shares in exchange for TRX with Authorized Participants.

•	During the course of ordering transactions and validating blocks, validators may
be able to prioritize certain transactions in return for increased transaction fees, an incentive system known as “Maximal Extractable
Value” or MEV. For example, in blockchain networks that facilitate DeFi protocols in particular, such as the Tron Network, users
may attempt to gain an advantage over other users by increasing offered transaction fees. Certain software solutions, such as Flashbots,
have been developed which facilitate validators in capturing MEV produced by these increased fees. The MEV incentive system may lead to
an increase in transaction fees on the Tron Network, which may diminish its use. Users or other stakeholders on the Tron Network could
also view the existence of MEV as unfair manipulation of decentralized digital asset networks, and refrain from using DeFi protocols or
the Tron Network generally. In addition, it’s possible regulators or legislators could enact rules which restrict the use of MEV,
which could diminish the popularity of the Tron Network among users and validators. Any of these or other outcomes related to MEV may
adversely affect the value of TRX and the value of the Shares.

Due
to the unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of TRX trading platforms, they may experience fraud,
manipulation, security failures or operational problems, which may adversely affect the value of TRX and, consequently, the value
of the Shares.

Digital asset trading
platforms are relatively new and, in some cases, unregulated. Many operate outside the United States. Furthermore, while many prominent
digital asset trading platforms provide the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management teams,
corporate practices and regulatory compliance, many digital asset trading platforms do not provide this information. Digital asset trading
platforms may not be subject to, or may not comply with, regulation in a similar manner as other regulated trading platforms, such as
national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in digital asset trading
platforms, including prominent trading platforms that handle a significant volume of TRX trading.

Many digital asset
trading platforms are unlicensed, unregulated, operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities, and do not provide
the public with significant information regarding their ownership structure, management team, corporate practices, cybersecurity, and
regulatory compliance. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory
and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions, and may take the position that they are not subject to laws and regulations
that would apply to a national securities exchange or designated contract market in the United States, or may, as a practical matter,
be beyond the ambit of U.S. regulators. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these digital asset trading platforms is generally
significantly less regulated than trading in regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be
prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2019 there were reports claiming that 80.95% of bitcoin trading volume on
digital asset trading platforms was false or noneconomic in nature, with specific focus on unregulated trading platforms located outside
of the United States. Such reports alleged that certain overseas trading platforms have displayed suspicious trading activity suggestive
of a variety of manipulative or fraudulent practices, such as fake or artificial trading volume or trading volume based on non-economic
“wash trading” (where offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate
reported trading volumes), and attributed such manipulative or fraudulent behavior to motives like the incentive to attract listing fees
from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume trading platforms on which to list their coins. Although these reports concerned
bitcoin, it is possible that similar concerns are present for TRX markets as well.

Other academics
and market observers have put forth evidence to support claims that manipulative trading activity has occurred on certain digital asset
trading platforms. For example, in a 2017 paper titled “Price Manipulation in the Bitcoin Ecosystem” sponsored by the Interdisciplinary
Cyber Research Center at Tel Aviv University, a group of researchers used publicly available trading data, as well as leaked transaction
data from a 2014 Mt. Gox security breach, to identify and analyze the impact of “suspicious trading activity” on Mt. Gox between
February and November 2013, which, according to the authors, caused the price of bitcoin to increase from around $150 to more than $1,000
over a two-month period.

In August 2017,
it was reported that a trader or group of traders nicknamed “Spoofy” was placing large orders on Bitfinex without actually
executing them, presumably in order to influence other investors into buying or selling by creating a false appearance that greater demand
existed in the market. In December 2017, an anonymous blogger (publishing under the pseudonym Bitfinex’d) cited publicly available
trading data to support his or her claim that a trading bot nicknamed “Picasso” was pursuing a paint-the-tape-style manipulation
strategy by buying and selling bitcoin and bitcoin cash between affiliated accounts in order to create the appearance of substantial trading
activity and thereby influence the price of such assets. Although bitcoin and TRX are different assets, TRX prices may be subject to similar
activity. Even in the United States, there have been allegations of wash trading even on regulated venues. Any actual or perceived false
trading in the digital asset exchange market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the
value of digital assets and/or negatively affect the market perception of digital assets.

The TRX market globally
and in the United States is not subject to comparable regulatory guardrails as exist in regulated securities markets. Furthermore, many
TRX trading venues lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on
the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of TRX on trading
venues may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges. Tools to detect
and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash trading may not
be available to or employed by digital asset trading platforms, or may not exist at all.

TRX
trading platforms may be exposed to fraud and manipulation.