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 13 of 90
Word Count: 1418
Character Count: 8967

Document Content:

diverse set of contributors, but are also often developed by identifiable and high-profile contributors. The perception that certain high-profile contributors may no longer contribute to the applicable digital asset network or protocol may have an adverse effect on the market price of any related digital assets. For example, in June 2017, an unfounded rumor circulated that Ethereum protocol developer Vitalik Buterin had died. Following the rumor, the price of Ether decreased approximately 20% before recovering after Buterin himself dispelled the rumor. Some have speculated that the rumor led to the decrease in the price of Ether. In the event a high-profile contributor to the BNB Smart Chain is perceived as no longer contributing to the BNB Smart Chain due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of BNB, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

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.

As of the date of this filing, the largest 100 BNB wallets held approximately 82% of the BNB in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of BNB, even if they individually only hold a small amount, and it is possible that some of these wallets are 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 BNB.

For example, the development and promotion of BNB and the BNB Smart Chain have historically been associated with Binance and entities within the broader Binance ecosystem. Although the BNB Smart Chain operates as a decentralized network utilizing a proof-of-staked-authority consensus mechanism, certain founders, early contributors, Binance-affiliated entities, or other influential participants in the Binance ecosystem may continue to hold significant amounts of BNB or otherwise exert influence over the development, governance, branding or strategic direction of the BNB Smart Chain.

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of a sufficient amount of the validating power on the BNB Smart Chain, or otherwise obtains control over the BNB Smart Chain through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the BNB Smart Chain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

If a malicious actor or botnet (a collection of computers controlled by networked software coordinating the actions of the computers) obtains a sufficient amount of the validating power on the BNB Smart Chain, it may be able to alter the blockchain on which transactions in BNB rely by constructing fraudulent blocks or preventing certain transactions from completing in a timely manner, or at all. The malicious actor or botnet could also control, exclude or modify the ordering of transactions, or prevent blocks from finalizing onto the BNB Smart Chain. Although the malicious actor or botnet may not be able to generate new digital assets or transactions using such control it could “double-spend” its own digital assets (i.e., spend the same tokens in more than one transaction) and prevent the confirmation of other users’ transactions for so long as it maintained control. To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the validating power on the BNB Smart Chain or the BNB community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the blockchain may not be possible. Further, a malicious actor or botnet could create a flood of transactions in order to slow down the BNB Smart Chain.

For example, in August 2020, the Ethereum Classic Network, a proof-of-work network, was the target of two double-spend attacks by an unknown actor or actors that gained more than 50% of the processing power of the Ethereum Classic Network. The attack resulted in reorganizations of the Ethereum Classic Blockchain that allowed the attacker or attackers to reverse previously recorded transactions in excess of over $5.0 million and $1.0 million.

In addition, in May 2019, the Bitcoin Cash Network, a proof-of-work network, experienced a 51% attack when two large mining pools reversed a series of transactions in order to stop an unknown miner from taking advantage of a flaw in a recent Bitcoin Cash protocol upgrade. Although this particular attack was arguably benevolent, the fact that such coordinated activity was able to occur may negatively impact perceptions of the Bitcoin Cash network. Although the two attacks described above took place on proof-of work based networks, it is possible that a similar attack may occur on the BNB Smart Chain, which could negatively impact the value of BNB and the value of the Shares.

Although there are no known reports of malicious control of the BNB Smart Chain, if groups of coordinating or connected BNB holders that together have a sufficient amount of outstanding BNB were to stake that BNB and run validators, they could exert authority over the validation of BNB transactions. This risk is heightened if such amount of the validating power on the network falls within the jurisdiction of a single governmental authority. If network participants, including the core developers and the administrators of validating pools, do not act to ensure greater decentralization of BNB, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the validating power on the BNB Smart Chain will increase, which may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

A malicious actor may also obtain control over the BNB Smart Chain through its influence over core developers by gaining direct control over a core developer or an otherwise influential programmer. To the extent that the BNB ecosystem does not grow, the possibility that a malicious actor may be able to maliciously influence the BNB Smart Chain in this manner will remain heightened. Moreover, it is possible that a group of BNB holders that together control more than 50% of outstanding BNB are, in fact, part of the initial or current core developer group, or are otherwise influential members of the BNB community. To the extent that the initial or current core developer groups also control more than 50% of outstanding BNB, as some believe, the risk of and arising from this particular group of users obtaining control of the validating power on the BNB Smart Chain will be even greater, and should this materialize, it may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

If the transaction fee rewards for recording transactions on the BNB Smart Chain are not sufficiently high to incentivize validators, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate validating activities, validators may cease expanding validating power or demand higher reward rates, which could negatively impact the value of BNB and the value of the Shares.

If the transaction fee rewards for validating transactions on the BNB Smart Chain are not sufficiently high to incentivize validators, or if certain jurisdictions continue to limit or otherwise regulate validating activities, validators may cease expending validating power to validate blocks and confirmations of transactions on the BNB Blockchain could be slowed. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Over the past several years, digital asset validating operations have evolved from individual users validating with computer processors, graphics processing units and first-generation application specific integrated circuit machines to “professionalized” validating operations using proprietary hardware or sophisticated machines. If the profit margins of digital asset validating operations are not sufficiently high, digital asset validators are more likely to immediately sell digital assets earned by validating, resulting in an increase in liquid supply of that digital asset, which would generally tend to reduce that digital asset’s market price.

A reduction in digital assets staked by validators on the BNB Smart Chain could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor or botnet obtaining control and decrease the reward rate. See “—If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of a sufficient amount of the validating power on the BNB Smart Chain, or otherwise obtains control over the BNB Smart Chain through its influence over core developers or otherwise, such actor or botnet could manipulate the BNB Smart Chain to adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate”