SEC Filing Document

Company: Grayscale BNB ETF
Ticker: GBNB
CIK: 2106762
Filing Type: S-1/A
Document Type: S-1/A
Date Filed: 2026-05-15
Accession Number: 0001193125-26-227224
Exchange: 
SIC Code: 6221
SIC Description: Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers
URL: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2106762/000119312526227224/bnb_s-1_amendment_2.htm

Chunk 47 of 90
Word Count: 1500
Character Count: 9877

Document Content:

to the Trust’s beneficiaries (likely using a liquidating agent), (ii) sell that BNB for cash and distribute the proceeds to the Trust’s beneficiaries, (iii) retain the BNB in the Trust, (iv) pay a portion of the Staking Consideration to the Sponsor (the “Sponsor’s Staking Fee”) as consideration for its facilitation of the Staking Arrangements or (v) a combination of the foregoing, in the Sponsor’s sole discretion. Before engaging in Staking, the Sponsor expects to implement a staking policy with respect to the Trust, which describes the frequency of, and conditions under which the Trust would make such distributions, if any, to the Trust’s beneficiaries. The Sponsor would make such staking policy available to shareholders on the Sponsor’s website. The Trust (through the Custodian) would maintain control and remain the record and beneficial owner of the staked tokens at all times, and the tokens would remain associated with the Trust’s wallet.

To the extent that the Staking Condition is satisfied and Staking is implemented, the Sponsor anticipates that the Custodian and the Staking Provider would be entitled to receive a portion of the gross Staking Consideration generated under the Staking Arrangements, reflecting the Custodian’s fee and the Staking Provider’s share of such Staking Consideration, with the remainder received by the Trust. The allocation of gross Staking Consideration between the Custodian and the Staking Provider shall reflect an arm’s length allocation that is independent of the expenses of both the Staking Provider and Custodian, and may be stated as a percentage of the gross Staking Consideration. In addition, pursuant to the Trust Agreement and as consideration for the Sponsor’s facilitation of Staking, the Sponsor would be permitted to receive a fee equal to a portion of the Staking Consideration, which accrues daily in U.S. dollars in an amount calculated as a per annum percentage of any Staking Consideration received by the Trust, as may be directed by the Sponsor in its sole discretion. After deducting the Sponsor's Staking Fee, the Custodian's fee, the Staking Provider’s share of such Staking Consideration, and any other portions of the Staking Consideration to which the Trust is not entitled under the Staking Arrangements, the Trust would receive and retain the remainder of such gross Staking Consideration.

The Staking Arrangements are expected to generally be on market terms, consistent with those typically offered by leading digital asset firms that offer staking functionality. However, the Trust would negotiate certain provisions as necessary or helpful to preserve the Trust’s status as a grantor trust and the security of the Trust’s BNB, as well as to address governmental, policy or regulatory concerns. For example, unlike certain digital asset firms that offer staking functionality through which one’s BNB is pooled with that of others (including, potentially, the Staking Provider in its general staking offerings), the Staking Arrangements would not permit the Trust’s BNB to be pooled with that of other BNB holders, including the Staking Provider or others that stake to the Staking Provider, as

described above. In addition, the portion of staking rewards to be received by the Staking Provider is expected to be an agreed percentage of block rewards and transaction fees generated by the validating activities, unlike certain alternative staking arrangements under which a staking provider may be compensated as an agreed percentage of BNB staked.

The Trust would have no right to direct the Staking Provider in the conduct of validation activities, except to stake BNB pursuant to instructions delivered to the Custodian, and would not bear any expenses incurred by the Staking Provider in conducting those activities. In particular, the amount of any Staking Consideration that the Trust receives would not be determined with reference to any expenses incurred by the Custodian or the Staking Provider. The Staking Arrangements would not include any obligation of the Trust to continue staking its BNB, or for the Custodian or the Staking Provider to continue the Staking Arrangements, other than to the extent the Trust’s BNB cannot immediately be un-staked due to requirements of the BNB protocol. There may also be instances where the Staking Provider may pause or terminate its validation activities due to its own independent assessment of the vulnerabilities of the BNB Smart Chain which would result in the Trust’s BNB not being staked for a period of time. The Sponsor anticipates that the BNB protocol and the Staking Arrangements will permit withdrawal of staked BNB at regular intervals. The Sponsor believes that market practice for Provider-Facilitated Staking arrangements has largely become standardized, with little variation in terms, and therefore, the Sponsor anticipates that the Staking Arrangements would generally align with the current practice of Staking Providers’ arrangements with other similarly situated third parties, subject to the negotiation of certain bespoke terms outlined above. Accordingly, and because transitioning to a new Staking Provider would involve friction costs, the Sponsor does not expect the Trust to change Staking Providers frequently, if at all. In addition, while the Trust may enter into Staking Arrangements with multiple Staking Providers, the Sponsor anticipates that any such arrangements would be substantively identical in all material respects to the Staking Arrangements described in this prospectus, including, for the avoidance of doubt, the bespoke terms of the Staking Arrangements outlined above. Any material deviation from the Staking Arrangements as described in this prospectus would be disclosed in the Trust’s subsequent filings with the Commission.

Security and Controls

The Trust’s Custodian has multiple layers of security protocols designed to protect the Trust’s assets from unauthorized access or transfer, which would remain in place when the Trust’s BNB is staked.

The Trust’s BNB would be staked from the Trust’s wallets and would not be transferred to any other wallet to be staked. The BNB Smart Chain protocol limits the activities of the Staking Provider to executing only those activities specified by the protocol, such as staking, un-staking and performing validation activities and does not enable the Staking Provider to unilaterally transfer staked assets to any wallet not specified by the Sponsor. Accordingly, the Staking Provider would not have any powers to move the Trust’s staked BNB other than at the direction of the Sponsor. In particular, the Staking Provider would not be authorized to leverage or rehypothecate the Trust’s BNB tokens. The Staking Provider would also not be able to change the designated wallet addresses on the BNB Smart Chain to which staked BNB is to be withdrawn or to which Staking Consideration shall be sent.

In addition, the Staking Arrangements would not alter the Trust’s custody environment or security procedures. The Sponsor anticipates that the Staking Arrangements will be outlined in an addendum to the Custodian Agreement between the Trust and the Custodian, and the controls currently in place between the Sponsor and the Custodian would also govern the activities related to staking and un-staking BNB, which would be outlined in the Staking Arrangements. These controls and procedures include:

Private Key Management Shards: The Custodian manages BNB for the Trust using offline storage, or cold storage, which means that the keys to the Trust’s BNB are disconnected and/or deleted entirely from the internet. Transfers and other transactions from the Trust’s wallet require compliance with certain security procedures that will remain in place when the Trust’s BNB is staked, including but not limited to, multiple encrypted private key shards, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification. Multiple private key shards held by the Custodian must be combined to reconstitute the private key to sign any transaction and transfer the Trust’s assets. Private key shards are distributed geographically in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States. The Custodian’s system architecture requires the involvement of the Sponsor to reconstruct the private keys and access the Trust’s assets, and it is not possible for the Custodian’s employees to access the Trust’s assets without the Sponsor’s

involvement and approval. This architecture is part of the Custodian’s System and Organization Controls (“SOC”) Type I and Type II reports, which are authored by leading assurance providers to confirm to the Custodian’s clients that the Custodian is compliant with a variety of security and reporting standards, and which are delivered to the Sponsor for review on an annual basis.

General Controls on the Custodian’s Custody Environment: Data related to transaction activity executed on the Custodian’s platform is backed-up and saved to both an alternative location (besides the primary location) and to a “Disaster Recovery” Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) Account to enable recoverability in an event one of the regions becomes unavailable. Authentication requirements for the Custodian’s platform are restricted through two-factor authentication and encrypted network protocols, among others.

User Entity Controls: In addition to security controls in place at the Custodian, the Sponsor expects to implement additional controls and procedures, including, but not limited to, (i) reviewing the Custodian’s SOC report to ensure private key management and other general controls are consistently applied and operating without exceptions, (ii) periodically reviewing Sponsor team members’ access to the custodial wallet environment to ensure appropriateness, and (iii) reviewing the Custodian’s third party management control.