SEC Filing Document

Company: Canary Staked TRX ETF
Ticker: 
CIK: 2064768
Filing Type: S-1
Document Type: S-1
Date Filed: 2025-04-18
Accession Number: 0001999371-25-004423
Exchange: 
SIC Code: 6221
SIC Description: Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers
URL: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2064768/000199937125004423/canary-s1_041825.htm

Chunk 14 of 59
Word Count: 1458
Character Count: 9355

Document Content:

where sustained, focused effort is required over time. If governance participants are unable to achieve sufficient consensus or if Super Representatives fail to implement or support critical upgrades, the Tron Network may face protocol stagnation or loss of competitiveness. This could reduce developer and user engagement, divert activity to competing blockchain ecosystems or reduce speculative demand, any of which could adversely affect the value of TRX. In extreme cases, a breakdown in governance consensus could result in a network fork or fragmentation of the community, with material consequences for the stability, usability and value of TRX. The Open-Source Structure Of The Tron Network Protocol Means That The Core Developers And Other Contributors Are Generally Not Directly Compensated For Their Contributions In Maintaining And Developing The Tron Network Protocol. A Failure To Properly Monitor And Upgrade The Tron Network Protocol Could Damage The Tron Network And An Investment In The Trust.

The
Tron Network operates based on an open-source structure of TRX services codebase, meaning that developers and other contributors are
generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols. As a result, the developers
and other contributors of a particular digital asset, including TRX, may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the
network, or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some developers may be funded by companies
whose interests are at odds with other participants in a particular digital asset network. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade
the protocol of the Tron Network could damage the network.

addition, a bad actor could also attempt to interfere with the operation of the Tron Network by attempting to exercise a malign influence
over a core developer. To the extent that material issues arise with the Tron Network protocol and the core developers and open-source
contributors are unable to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Tron Network and an investment in the Trust may be
adversely affected.

Digital
Assets May have concentrated ownership and large sales or distributions by holders of such digital assets, or any ability to participate
in or otherwise influence a digital asset’s underlying network, could have an adverse effect on the market price of such digital
asset.

In connection with
the launch of the Tron Network, the initial 100 billion TRX were allocated as follows: (i) approximately 15% was designated for public
purchasers through a token sale conducted in 2017; (ii) 34% was allocated to the TRON Foundation to support ecosystem development, marketing
and operational growth; (iii) 10% was reserved for early private sale participants; and (iv) 40% was allocated to the founding team and
early contributors, including founder Justin Sun and early advisors. As of April 16, 2025, 94.95 billion TRX have been released and are
in circulation, distributed across multiple wallets. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets
that collectively hold a significant amount of TRX, even if each individual wallet holds a relatively small amount. Additionally, some
of these wallets may be controlled by the same person or entity. As a result of this concentration of ownership, large sales or distributions
by such holders could have an adverse effect on the market price of TRX.

TRX
May Be Subject To Dilution

TRX does not have
a fixed supply cap, and additional TRX may be introduced into circulation over time through staking rewards and other network-level incentives.
While 100 billion TRX were pre-mined at the genesis of the Tron Network, new TRX continues to be issued as part of the delegated proof-of-stake
consensus mechanism, which compensates Super Representatives and encourages ongoing participation in network governance and validation.
As a result, the total number of TRX in circulation may increase over time depending on reward structures, governance decisions, and overall
network activity. The inflationary nature of TRX supply introduces ongoing dilution risk to existing holders. Although the issuance rate
may be adjusted by community governance to reflect changing market conditions, there is no assurance that the timing or volume of new
TRX entering circulation will align with user demand or liquidity conditions. Future changes to network parameters or governance proposals
could alter the pace of TRX issuance or introduce additional forms of token-based incentives, which may affect the market price, perceived
scarcity and overall investment profile of TRX.

Temporary Or Permanent “Fork” or a “Clone” Of The TRX Blockchain Could Adversely Affect The Value Of The Shares.

The
Tron Network operates using open-source protocols, meaning that any user can download the software, modify it and then propose that the
users and validators of TRX adopt the modification. When a modification is introduced and a substantial majority of users and validators’
consent to the modification, the change 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.