SEC Filing Document

Company: T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF
Ticker: 
CIK: 2089855
Filing Type: S-1/A
Document Type: S-1/A
Date Filed: 2026-05-15
Accession Number: 0001999371-26-010860
Exchange: 
SIC Code: 6221
SIC Description: Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers
URL: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2089855/000199937126010860/tknz-s1a_051526.htm

Chunk 33 of 66
Word Count: 1460
Character Count: 9503

Document Content:

their existing authorities to: o Immediately enable the trading of crypto assets at the Federal level by providing clarity to market participants on issues such as registration, custody, trading, and recordkeeping. o Allow innovative financial products to reach consumers without bureaucratic delays through the use of tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes. It is not possible to predict whether, or when, any of these developments will lead to Congress granting additional authorities to the SEC or other regulators, what the nature of such additional authorities might be, how additional legislation and/or regulatory oversight might impact the ability of crypto asset markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of crypto assets held by the Fund. The consequences of increased federal regulation of crypto assets and crypto asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Fund and the Shares.

FinCEN requires any administrator
or exchanger of convertible crypto assets to register with FinCEN as a money transmitter and comply with the anti-money laundering regulations
applicable to money transmitters. Entities which fail to comply with such regulations are subject to fines, may be required to cease operations,
and could have potential criminal liability. For example, in 2015, FinCEN assessed a $700,000 fine against a sponsor of a crypto asset
for violating several requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act by acting as an MSB and selling the crypto asset without registering with FinCEN,
and by failing to implement and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program. In 2017, FinCEN assessed a $110 million fine against
BTC-e, a now defunct crypto asset exchange, for similar violations. The requirement that exchangers that do business in the U.S. register
with FinCEN and comply with anti-money laundering regulations may increase the cost of buying and selling crypto assets and therefore
may adversely affect the price of the Eligible Assets and an investment in the Shares.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury has added digital currency addresses to the list of Specially Designated Nationals whose
assets are blocked, and with whom U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing. Such actions by OFAC, or by similar organizations
in other jurisdictions, may introduce uncertainty in the market as to whether crypto assets that have been associated with such addresses
in the past can be easily sold. Reduced fungibility in the crypto asset markets may reduce the liquidity of the Eligible Assets and therefore
adversely affect their price.

In February 2020, then-U.S. Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated that crypto assets were a “crucial area” on which the U.S. Department of the Treasury has
spent significant time. Secretary Mnuchin announced that the U.S. Department of the Treasury is preparing significant new regulations
governing crypto asset activities to address concerns regarding the potential use for facilitating money laundering and other illicit
activities. In December 2020, FinCEN, a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, proposed a rule that would require financial
institutions to submit reports, keep records, and verify the identity of customers for certain transactions to or from so-called “unhosted”
wallets, also commonly referred to as self-hosted wallets. In January 2021, U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Janet Yellen stated her belief
that regulators should “look closely at how to encourage the use of crypto assets for legitimate activities while curtailing their
use for malign and illegal activities.”

Under regulations from the New York
State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), businesses involved in crypto asset business activity for third parties in or involving
New York, excluding merchants and consumers, must apply for a license, commonly known as a BitLicense, from the NYDFS and must comply
with anti-money laundering, cyber security, consumer protection, and financial and reporting requirements, among others. As an alternative
to a BitLicense, a firm can apply for a charter to become a limited purpose trust company under New York law qualified to engage in certain
crypto asset business activities. Other states have considered or approved crypto asset business activity statutes or rules, passing,
for example, regulations or guidance indicating that certain crypto asset business activities constitute money transmission requiring
licensure.

The inconsistency in applying money
transmitting licensure requirements to certain businesses may make it more difficult for these businesses to provide services, which may
affect consumer adoption of crypto assets and its price. In an attempt to address these issues, the Uniform Law Commission passed a model
law in July 2017, the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Act, which has many similarities to the BitLicense and features
a multistate reciprocity licensure feature, wherein a business licensed in one state could apply for accelerated licensure procedures
in other states. It is still unclear, however, how many states, if any, will adopt some or all of the model legislation.

Law enforcement agencies have often
relied on the transparency of blockchains to facilitate investigations. However, certain privacy-enhancing features have been, or are
expected to be, introduced to a number of crypto asset networks. If the Eligible Asset Networks were to adopt any of these features, these
features may provide law enforcement agencies with less visibility into transaction-level data. Europol, the European Union’s law
enforcement agency, released a report in October 2017 noting the increased use of privacy-enhancing crypto assets like Zcash and Monero
in criminal activity on the internet. Although no regulatory action has been taken to treat privacy enhancing crypto assets differently,
this may change in the future.

As crypto assets have grown in both
popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including the FinCEN, SEC, CFTC, FINRA,
the CFPB, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS, and state financial
institution regulators) have been examining the crypto networks and the crypto asset users, with particular focus on the extent to which
crypto assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities or criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness
of exchanges or other service providers that hold tokens for users. The imposition of stricter governmental regulation of the crypto asset
market may adversely impact the activities of the Fund, for example, by reducing the liquidity of the Eligible Assets markets.

Legal status of crypto assets
is uncertain in various jurisdictions, which could impact the prices of crypto assets

The legal status of crypto assets
varies substantially across jurisdictions. In many countries, the Eligible Assets legal status is still undefined or changing. Some countries
have banned crypto assets or securities or derivatives in respect to them (including for certain categories of investor), banned the local
banks from working with crypto assets or restricted the use of crypto assets in other ways. Furthermore, in other countries the status
of the Eligible Assets remains undefined and there is uncertainty as to whether some crypto assets are a security, money, a commodity
or property. In some countries, such as the United States, different government agencies define crypto assets differently, leading to
regulatory conflict and uncertainty. This uncertainty is compounded by the rapid evolution of regulations. Countries may, in the future,
explicitly restrict, outlaw or curtail the acquisition, use, trade or redemption of the Eligible Assets. In such a scenario, there may
be adverse effects on the value of the Eligible Assets and the Fund’s Shares, including the termination of the Fund.

A determination that the Eligible
Assets or any other crypto asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary,
nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Fund

Depending on its characteristics,
a crypto asset may be considered a “security” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular
crypto asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict.

Whether a crypto asset is a security
under the federal securities laws depends on whether it is included in the lists of instruments making up the definition of “security”
in the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and the Investment Company Act. Crypto assets as such do not appear in any of these lists, although
each list includes the terms “investment contract” and “note,” and the SEC has typically analyzed whether a particular
crypto asset is a security by reference to whether it meets the tests developed by the federal courts interpreting these terms, known
as the Howey and Reves tests, respectively. Adding to the complexity, the SEC staff has indicated that the security status of a particular
crypto asset can change over time as the relevant facts evolve and that a crypto asset that is otherwise not a security but is offered
and sold as part of an investment contract may form part of a security.