Franklin Crypto Trust

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the factors discussed in Risk Factors in our Prospectus, which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results. Other than as set forth below, there have been no material changes in our risk factors from those disclosed therein.

The rPart I, Item 1A. Risks described in our Prospectus filing are not the only risks facing the Trust and the Fund. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and/or operating results.

Prices of Digital Assets may be affected due to stablecoins (including Tether and USDC), the activities of stablecoin issuers and their regulatory treatment

While the Fund does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to risks that stablecoins pose for the bitcoin and ether markets and other digital asset markets. Stablecoins are digital assets designed to have a stable value over time as compared to typically volatile digital assets and are typically marketed as being pegged to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar, at a certain value. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable, their market value may fluctuate. This volatility has in the past impacted the price of bitcoin and ether. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the bitcoin and ether markets as well as broader digital assets ecosystem. Like CBDCs, stablecoins could compete with, or replace, bitcoin and other digital assets as a medium of exchange or store of value. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that, when the stablecoin is used to pay for bitcoin, could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for bitcoin, artificially inflating the price of bitcoin, and if accurate, there is no assurance similar dynamics would not apply to the market for ether. There have been reports that those associated with certain stablecoins may be involved in laundering money. In addition, a large amount of Tether is issued as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum network. If Tether were to no longer be issued or operating on the Ethereum network, there would be no need to use ether to pay the gas fees needed to record ERC-20 Tether transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, and a substantial source of demand for ether could be eliminated, which could cause the price of ether to decrease, affecting the value of the Shares.

USDC is a reserve-backed stablecoin issued by Circle Internet Financial that is commonly used as a method of payment in digital asset markets, including the bitcoin and ether markets. While USDC is designed to maintain a stable value at 1 U.S. dollar at all times, on March 10, 2023, the value of USDC fell below $1.00 for multiple days after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that US$3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered FDIC receivership earlier that day. Stablecoins are reliant on the U.S. banking system and U.S. treasuries, and the failure of either to function normally could impede the function of stablecoins, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Similar to Tether, a large amount of USDC is issued as ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum network. If USDC were to no longer be issued or operating on t Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC for the Ethereum network, there would be no need to use ether to pay the gas fees needed to record ERC-20 USDC transactions on the Ethereum blockchain, and a substantial source of demand for ether could be eliminated, which could cause the price of ether to decrease, affecting the value of the Shares.

Given the foundational role that stablecoins play in global digital asset markets, their fundamental liquidity can have a dramatic impact on the broader digital asset market, including the market for bitcoin and ether. A significant portion of the digital asset market continues to depend on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC. As such, any disruption in the operation or perceived stability of these stablecoins such as a disorderly de-pegging event or a loss of market confidence resulting in a run on reserves could lead to substantial market volatility across digital assets more broadly.

Additional risks such as operational failures (e.g., technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns regarding the adequacy or transparency of reserve assets backing stablecoins, the use of unbacked or undercollateralized stablecoins in potentially manipulative trading practices and regulatory scrutiny of stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, including exchanges that facilitate stablecoin transactions, may also adversely affect market confidence and liquidity. Further, these risks are underscored by recent legislative developments. On July 18fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (GENIUS Act) was enacted, establishing a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. The GENIUS Act will become effective on July 18, 2028. The GENIUS Act prohibits the issuance or use of payment stablecoins unless the issuer obtains a qualifying license and complies with a range of regulatory requirements, including reserve backing with liquid assets, redemption rights, governance standards, and operational transparency. The GENIUS Act also restricts the payment of interest on stablecoins and imposes oversight on both bank and nonbank issuers. The enactment of the GENIUS Act, or the removal or migration of prominent stablecoins from the Bitcoin or Ethereum networks, could reduce the willingness of market participants to engage in digital asset transactions that rely on stablecoins, diminish liquidity in the bitcoin or ether markets, and adversely affect the price of bitcoin or ether. Any such developments could, in turn, materially and adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Disruptions or other problems in the supply chain for bitcoin mining hardware and difficulties in obtaining new hardware could cause harm to the Bitcoin network

Manufacture, assembly and delivery of hardware and components for mining operations can be complex and protracted processes, in the course of which various problems could arise, including disruptions or delays in the supply chain, product quality control issues, as well as other external factors.

Mining operations can ordinarily only be profitable if the costs associated with bitcoin mining, including hardware costs, are lower than the price of bitcoin itself. In the course of the normal operation of bitcoin mining facilities, miners and other critical equipment and materials related to data center construction and maintenance, such as containers, switch gears, transformers and cables, will experience ordinary wear and tear and may also face more significant malfunctions. Declines in the condition of miners and other hardware will require bitcoin miners, over time, to repair or replace those miners.

Additionally, as the technology evolves, miners may be required to acquire newer models of mining hardware and machines to remain competitive in the market. Any upgrading process may require substantial capital investment, and miners may which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results. There have been no material changes in our risk face challenges in doing so on a timely and cost-effective basis. The business of bitcoin miners will be subject to limitations inherent within the supply chain of their mining hardware equipment and components, including competitive, governmental, and legal limitations, and other events. For example, many miners will significantly rely on foreign imports to obtain mining hardware equipment and materials. Any global trade disruption, introductions of tariffs, trade barriers and bilateral trade frictions, together with any potential downturns in the globtors from those disclosed in our 2025 Annual economy resulting therefrom, could adversely affect the necessary supply chains for mining hardware. Depending on the magnitude of such effects on the mining hardware supply chain, shipments of parts for mining hardware, or new mining hardware and equipment, may be delayedReport on Form 10-K.

There are a small number of major suppliers of bitcoin mining hardware globally, and a significant amount of bitcoin mining hardware manufacturing is located in China. Mining hardware manufacturers may fail to supply the mining hardware due to their inability to manufacture sufficient mining hardware, whether due to shortages of components or resources such as semiconductors, or changes of laws and trade restrictions (including ex risks described in our Annual Report/import restrictions, quotas or tariffs), or due to insolvency, or non-performance or default on their contracts. Trade policies such as export/import restrictions, quotas or tariffs may reduce t on Form 10-K are not the ability of bitcoin mining hardware suppliers to supply miners with bitcoin mining hardware or create a shortage or lack of components necessary for their manufacture or repair. If bitcoin miners are unable to source mining hardware from those suppliers (for example due to overwhelming global demand for bitcoin miners, or due to trade restrictions, or other causes) at commercially reasonable prices, or at all, and replacement or substitute sources of bitcoin mining hardware prove to be unavailable, there could be a negative impact on bitcoin mining globally. These could affect the Bitcoin network by making it more difficult for transactions to be confirmed, increase transaction costs, or affect the Bitcoin networks security, among other negative effects, any of which could negatively affect tonly risks facing the Trust and the value of bitcoin and consequently the Shares.

Further, the first-generation application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chips and other critical components for mining equipment may be subject to price fluctuations or shortages. For example, the ASIC chip is the key component of a mining machine as it determines the efficiency of the device. The producFund. Addition of ASIC chips typically requires highly sophisticated silicon wafers, which currently only a small number of fabrication facilities, or wafer foundries, in the world are capable of producing. There have been previous microchip shortages which led to price fluctuations and disruption in the supply of key bitcoin mining hardware components. ASIC chips have recently been subject to supply and demand fluctuations, significant price increases and shortages. Shortages of ASIC chips could create problems in the supply chain for bitcoin mining equipment, negatively affecting the Bitcoin network by making it more difficult for transactions to be confirmed or increasing transaction costs, or even affecting network security, which again could cause the value of bitcoin and the Shares to decline.

If regulatoral risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or public utilities take actions tthat restrict or otherwise impact mining activities, such actions could result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares

Concerns have been raised about the electricity required to secure and maintain digital asset networks. Although measuring the electricity consumed by the process of securing and maintaining digitawe currently deem to be immaterial asset networks is difficult because these operations are performed by various machines with varying levels of efficiency, the process consumes a significant amount of energy. Driven by concerns around energy consumption and the impact on public utility companies, various states and cities have implemented, or are considering implementing, moratoriums on mining activity in their jurisdictions.

The operations of digital asset networks can consume significant amounts of electricity, which may have a negative environmental impact and give rise to public opinion against allowing, or government regulations restricting, the use of electricity for mining operations, in the case of proof-of-work networks. Additionally, miners on proof-of-work networks may be forced to cease operations during an electricity shortage or power outage, or if electricity prices increase where the mining activities are performed.

Further, in addition to the direct energy costs of performing calculations on any given digital asset network, there are indirect costs that impact a networks total energy lso may materially adversely affect our business, financial consumption, including the costs of cooling the machines that perform these calculations.

Notwithstdition anding Ethereums proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, if regulators or public utilities take action that restricts or otherwise impacts mining activities generally, such actions could r/or operating result in decreased security of a digital asset network, including the Ethereum network, and consequently adversely impact the value of the Shares. This could adversely affect the price of ether, or the operation of the Ethereum network, and accordingly decrease the value of the Shares, by creating negative sentiment around digital assets generally. s.