As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026

Registration No. 333-291974

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Amendment No. 3

to

FORM S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

Grayscale Sui Trust (SUI)

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this Registration Statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, check the following box. ☒

If this form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act. □

The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.

table of contents

Neither the Trust nor the Sponsor has authorized anyone to provide you with any information other than that contained in this prospectus or any free writing prospectus prepared by or on behalf of the Trust. Neither the Trust nor the Sponsor takes any responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the reliability of, any information that others may give you. Neither the Trust nor the Sponsor is making an offer to sell any security or soliciting any offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted. You should not assume that the information appearing in this prospectus or any free writing prospectus is accurate as of any date other than the respective dates on the front of such documents. The Trust’s business, assets, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may have changed since those dates.

This prospectus does not constitute an offer to sell, or an invitation on behalf of the Trust or the Sponsor, to subscribe to or purchase any securities, and may not be used for or in connection with an offer or solicitation by anyone, in any jurisdiction in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorized or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation.

Authorized Participants may be required to deliver a prospectus when making transactions in the Shares. The information contained in the section captioned “Business—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market” is based on information obtained from sources that the Sponsor believes are reliable. This prospectus summarizes certain documents and other information in a manner the Sponsor believes to be accurate. In making an investment decision, you must rely on your own examination of the Trust, the Sui industry, the operation of the SUI market and the terms of the offering and the Shares, including the merits and risks involved. Although the Sponsor believes this information to be reliable, the accuracy and completeness of this information is not guaranteed and has not been independently verified.

See “Glossary of Defined Terms” for the definition of certain capitalized terms used in this prospectus.

Forward-Looking Statements

This prospectus contains “forward-looking statements” with respect to the Trust’s financial conditions, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business. Statements preceded by, followed by or that include words such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue,” the negative of these terms and other similar expressions are intended to identify some of the forward-looking statements. All statements (other than statements of historical fact) included in this prospectus that address activities, events or developments that will or may occur in the future, including such matters as changes in market prices and conditions, the Trust’s operations, the Sponsor’s plans and references to the Trust’s future success and other similar matters are forward-looking statements. These statements are only predictions. Actual events or results may differ materially from such statements. These statements are based upon certain assumptions and analyses the Sponsor made based on its perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, as well as other factors appropriate in the circumstances. You should specifically consider the numerous risks described in “Risk Factors” in this prospectus. Whether or not actual results and developments will conform to the Sponsor’s expectations and predictions, however, is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including:

Consequently, all forward-looking statements made in this prospectus are qualified by these cautionary statements, and there can be no assurance that the actual results or developments the Sponsor anticipates will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will result in the expected consequences to, or have the expected effects on, the Trust’s operations or the value of the Shares. Should one or more of these risks discussed in “Risk Factors” in this prospectus, or other uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those described in forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are made based on the Sponsor’s beliefs, estimates and opinions on the date the statements are made and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor is under a duty or undertakes an obligation to update forward-looking statements if these beliefs, estimates and opinions or other circumstances should change, other than as required by applicable laws.

Summary Risk Factors

Before you invest in the Shares, you should carefully consider all the information in this prospectus, including matters set forth under the heading “Risk Factors.” Some of the more significant challenges and risks relating to an investment in the Shares include those associated with the following:

Emerging Growth Company Status

The Trust is an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”). For as long as the Trust is an emerging growth company, unlike other public companies that are not emerging growth companies under the JOBS Act, it will not be required to:

The Trust will cease to be an emerging growth company upon the earliest of:

In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. The Trust intends to take advantage of these reporting exemptions until it is no longer an emerging growth company. The Trust’s election to use the phase-in periods permitted by this election may make it difficult to compare its financial statements to those of non-emerging growth companies and other emerging growth companies that have opted out of the longer phase-in periods under Section 107 of the JOBS Act and who will comply with new or revised financial accounting standards. If the Trust were to subsequently elect instead to comply with these public company effective dates, such election would be irrevocable pursuant to Section 107 of the JOBS Act.

Corporate Information

The offices of the Trust and the Sponsor are located at 290 Harbor Drive, 4th Floor, Stamford, Connecticut 06902 and the Trust’s telephone number is (212) 668-1427. The Trustee has a trust office at 2711 Centerville Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. The Prime Broker’s and the Custodian’s office is located at 548 Market Street, #23008, San Francisco, CA 94104. The Transfer Agent’s office is located at 240 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10286. Our Internet site is etfs.grayscale.com/gsui. Our website and the information contained therein or connected thereto is not incorporated into this prospectus or the registration statement of which it forms a part.

The Offering

Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this prospectus before deciding to invest in Shares of the Trust. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations would likely suffer. In such case, the trading price of the Shares could decline due to any of these risks, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets

The trading prices of many digital assets, including SUI, have experienced extreme volatility in recent periods and may continue to do so. Extreme volatility in the future, including declines in the trading prices of SUI, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

The trading prices of many digital assets, including SUI, have experienced extreme volatility throughout their existence, including in recent periods and may continue to do so. For instance, following significant increases throughout the majority of 2020, digital asset prices, including SUI, experienced significant volatility throughout 2021 and 2022. This volatility became extreme in November 2022 when FTX Trading Ltd. (“FTX”) halted customer withdrawals. Additionally, on October 10, 2025, it was reported that a sharp decline in digital asset market prices triggered the liquidation of approximately $20 billion in leveraged positions across the digital asset industry. Any similar halting of withdrawals or liquidations across leveraged positions in the digital asset industry in the future could further impact trading prices. See “—Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets—Recent developments in the digital asset economy have led to extreme volatility and disruption in digital asset markets, a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem, significant negative publicity surrounding digital assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity.” Digital asset prices, including SUI, have continued to fluctuate widely through the date of this prospectus.

Extreme volatility in the future, including declines in the trading prices of SUI, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value. Furthermore, negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the digital asset economy may reduce confidence in the digital asset economy and may result in greater volatility in the price of SUI and other digital assets, including a depreciation in value. The Trust is not actively managed and will not take any actions to take advantage, or mitigate the impacts, of volatility in the price of SUI. For additional information that quantifies the volatility of SUI prices and the value of the Shares, see “Business—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—Historical NAV and SUI Prices.”

Furthermore, changes in U.S. political leadership and economic policies may create uncertainty that materially affects the price of SUI and the Trust’s Shares. For example, on March 6, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a United States Digital Asset Stockpile. Pursuant to this Executive Order, the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve will be capitalized with Bitcoin owned by the Department of Treasury that was forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings, and the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce are authorized to develop budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional bitcoin, provided that those strategies impose no incremental costs on American taxpayers. Conversely, the Digital Asset Stockpile will consist of all digital assets other than Bitcoin owned by the Department of Treasury that were forfeited in criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings, but the U.S. government will not acquire additional assets for the U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile beyond those obtained through such proceedings. The anticipation of a U.S. government-funded strategic cryptocurrency reserve had motivated large-scale purchases of certain digital assets in the expectation of the U.S. government acquiring certain digital assets to fund such reserve, and the market price of certain digital assets decreased significantly as a result of the ultimate content of the Executive Order. Any similar action or omission by the U.S. federal administration or other government authorities with respect to SUI or other digital assets may negatively and significantly impact the price of SUI and the Trust’s Shares.

Digital assets such as SUI were only introduced within the past two decades, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies and to the fundamental investment characteristics of digital assets.

Digital assets such as SUI were only introduced within the past two decades, and the medium-to-long term value of the Shares is subject to a number of factors relating to the capabilities and development of blockchain technologies, such as the recency of their development, their dependence on the internet and other technologies, their dependence on the role played by users, developers and validators and the potential for malicious activity. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Moreover, because digital assets, including SUI, have existed for a short period of time and are continuing to be developed, there may be additional risks to digital asset networks and related protocols that are impossible to predict as of the date of this prospectus.

Digital assets represent a new and rapidly evolving industry, and the value of the Shares depends on the acceptance of SUI.

The first digital asset, Bitcoin, was launched in 2009. SUI launched in 2023 and its development is ongoing. In general, digital asset networks, including the Sui Network and related protocols represent a new and rapidly evolving industry that is subject to a variety of factors that are difficult to evaluate. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

The Trust is not actively managed and will not have any formal strategy relating to the development of the Sui Network.

The Sui protocol was only recently conceived, and the Sui Network or its underlying technologies may not function as intended, which could have an adverse impact on the value of SUI and an investment in the Shares.

Components of the Sui protocol were first conceived in 2017 by Evan Cheng, Adeniyi Abiodun, Sam Blackshear, George Danezis, and Kostas Chalkias, continuing research performed while employed by Meta on the Diem (previously called Libra) project. To achieve consensus among validators, the network historically used a dual-layer design consisting of “Narwhal,” a data-availability layer, and “Bullshark,” a consensus protocol. However, in July 2024, the Sui Network introduced the “Mysticeti” consensus mechanism to replace Bullshark, improving transaction latency and throughput while continuing to use Narwhal for data dissemination. This configuration enables the Sui Network to verify and execute many transactions in parallel, rather than sequentially like in prominent blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum. The Sui protocol, Narwhal and Mysticeti are new technologies that are not widely used and may not function as intended. For example, they may require more specialized equipment to participate in the network and fail to attract a significant number of users. In addition, there may be flaws in the cryptography underlying Narwhal and Mysticeti, including flaws that affect functionality of the Sui Network or make the network vulnerable to attack. The development of the Sui Network is ongoing and any further disruption could have a material adverse effect on the value of SUI and an investment in the Shares.

For example, on November 21, 2024, the Sui Network experienced a significant disruption, later attributed to a type of denial of service attack, and was offline for over 2 hours. The development of the Sui Network is ongoing and any further disruption could have a material adverse effect on the value of SUI and an investment in the Shares.

Smart contracts are a new technology and ongoing development may magnify initial problems, cause volatility on the networks that use smart contracts and reduce interest in them, which could have an adverse impact on the value of SUI.

Smart contracts are programs that run on a blockchain that execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Since smart contracts typically cannot be stopped or reversed, vulnerabilities in their programming can have damaging effects. For example, in June 2016, a vulnerability in the smart contracts underlying The DAO, a distributed autonomous organization for venture capital funding, allowed an attack by a hacker to syphon approximately $60 million worth of Ether from The DAO’s accounts into a segregated account. In the aftermath of the theft, certain developers and core contributors pursued a “hard fork” of the Ethereum Network in order to erase any record of the theft. Despite these efforts, the price of Ether dropped approximately 35% in the aftermath of the attack and subsequent hard fork. In addition, in July 2017, a vulnerability in a smart contract for a multi-signature wallet software developed by Parity led to a $30 million theft of Ether, and in November 2017, a new vulnerability in Parity’s wallet software led to roughly $160 million worth of Ether being indefinitely frozen in an account. In another example, in February 2022, a vulnerability in a smart contract for Wormhole, a bridge between the Ethereum and Solana networks led to a $320 million theft of Ether. While persons associated with Solana Labs and/or the Solana Foundation are understood to have played a key role in bringing the network back online, the broader community also played a key role, as Solana validators coordinated to upgrade and restart the network. Other smart contracts, such as bridges between blockchain networks and DeFi protocols have also been manipulated, exploited or used in ways that were not intended or envisioned by their creators such that attackers syphoned over $3.8 billion worth of digital assets from smart contracts in 2022. Initial problems and continued problems with the development, design and deployment of smart contracts may have an adverse effect on the value of SUI, which could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

Changes in the governance of a digital asset network or protocol may not receive sufficient support from users and validators, which may negatively affect that digital asset network’s or protocol’s ability to grow and respond to challenges.

The governance of some digital asset networks and protocols, such as the Sui, Bitcoin and Ethereum Networks, is generally by voluntary consensus and open competition. For such networks and protocols, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on that network’s or protocol’s governance, which may stymie such network’s or protocol’s utility, adaptability and ability to grow and face challenges. The foregoing notwithstanding, the underlying software for some digital networks and protocols, such as the Sui Network, is informally or formally managed or developed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s or protocol’s source code. Core developers’ roles may evolve over time, generally based on self-determined participation.

If a significant majority of users and validators were to adopt amendments to the Sui Network based on the proposals of such core developers, the Sui Network would be subject to new source code that may adversely affect the value of SUI.

As a result of the foregoing, it may be difficult to find solutions or marshal sufficient effort to overcome any future problems, especially long-term problems, on digital asset networks.

Digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges and efforts to increase the volume and speed of transactions may not be successful.

Many digital asset networks face significant scaling challenges due to the fact that public, permissionless blockchains generally face a tradeoff between security and scalability. One means through which digital asset networks that utilize public, permissionless blockchains achieve security is decentralization, meaning that no intermediary is responsible for securing and maintaining these systems. For example, a greater degree of decentralization of a public, permissionless blockchain generally means a given digital asset network is less susceptible to manipulation or capture. In practice, this typically means that every single node on a given digital asset network is responsible for securing the system by processing every transaction and maintaining a copy of the entire state of the network. As a result, a digital asset network that utilizes a public, permissionless blockchain may be limited in the number of transactions it can process by the computing capabilities of each single fully participating node. Many developers are actively researching and testing scalability solutions for public blockchains that do not necessarily result in lower levels of security or decentralization, such as off-chain payment channels and Layer 2 networks. Off-chain payment channels would allow parties to transact without requiring the full processing power of a blockchain. Layer 2 networks can increase the scalability of a blockchain, by allowing users to transact on a second blockchain deployed on top of a “Layer 1” network.

The Sui Network can reportedly handle hundreds of thousands of transactions per second, though as of December 31, 2025, the network reportedly processed approximately 500 transactions per second at its peak. In an effort to increase the volume of transactions that can be processed on a given digital asset network, many digital assets are being upgraded with various features to increase the speed and throughput of digital asset transactions.

As corresponding increases in throughput lag behind growth in the use of digital asset networks, average fees and settlement times may increase considerably. Since inception, SUI transaction fees are typically below 10 SUI per transaction though have been recorded higher than 600 SUI per transaction during periods of high congestion. Increased fees and decreased settlement speeds could preclude certain uses for SUI (e.g., micropayments), and could reduce demand for, and the price of, SUI, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

There is no guarantee that any of the mechanisms in place or being explored for increasing the scale of settlement or throughput of Sui Network transactions will be effective, or how long these mechanisms will take to become effective, which could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Digital asset networks are developed by a diverse set of contributors and the perception that certain high-profile contributors will no longer contribute to the network could have an adverse effect on the market price of the related digital asset.

Digital asset networks and related protocols are often developed by a 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 Sui Network is perceived as no longer contributing to the Sui Network due to death, retirement, withdrawal, incapacity, or otherwise, whether or not such perception is valid, it could negatively affect the price of Sui, 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 prospectus, the largest 100 SUI wallets held approximately 16% of the SUI in circulation. Moreover, it is possible that other persons or entities control multiple wallets that collectively hold a significant amount of SUI, 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. In particular, in connection with the launch of the Sui Network, a significant portion of the total initial SUI supply was allocated to early contributors, Mysten treasury, and the community reserve, subject to various release schedules and terms of use. 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 SUI.

For example, Sui was initially conceived in 2021 by Evan Cheng, Adeniyi Abiodun, Sam Blackshear, George Danezis, and Kostas Chalkias to continue research initially performed while the group was employed by Meta Platforms, Inc., in which they collaborated on a digital asset project called Diem (formerly known as Libra). Mysten Labs Inc. (“Mysten”), a for-profit software company which contributes to the development of the Sui Network, formed as an outgrowth of the Diem project. The Sui Foundation is an independent nonprofit entity that supports research and development of open-source technology related to Sui.

Moreover, it is possible that a group of SUI holders that together control more than a substantial amount of outstanding SUI are in fact part of the initial or current core developer group, or are otherwise influential members of the Sui community. To the extent that the initial or current core developer groups also control higher than a threshold of outstanding SUI necessary for an attack, as some believe, the risk of this particular group of users causing the Sui Network to adopt updates to the core protocol that this particular group wants to be implemented will be even greater, and should this materialize, it may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Validators may suffer losses due to Staking, or Staking may prove unattractive to validators, which could adversely affect the Sui Network.

Staking on the Sui Network requires SUI to be locked by the underlying blockchain network in “objects,” or data units on the Sui Network that hold assets and are managed by the protocol rather than the user. If the Sui Network source code or protocol were to fail to behave as expected, suffer cybersecurity attacks or hacks, experience security issues, or encounter other problems, such transferred (i.e., staked) SUI may be irretrievably lost. In addition, the Sui Network’s underlying protocol dictates requirements for participation in validation activity, and may impose penalties, if the relevant activities are not performed correctly. In addition, the Sui Network dictate requirements for participation in validation activity, and may impose penalties, if the relevant activities are not performed correctly. The Sui Network’s penalties (i.e., “slashing”) may be imposed if a validator commits malicious acts related to the validation of blocks with invalid transactions. Although the Sui Network does not implement slashing of staked principal, the protocol may impose penalties—such as loss of rewards or removal from the validator set—if a validator commits malicious acts or fails to perform required validation activities.

SUI is inaccessible while it is staked and as part of the “activating” and “de-activating” or “cooling down” processes of staking. “Activation” is the funding of a validator to be included in the active set, thereby allowing the validator to participate in the Sui Network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. “De-activating” is the request to exit from the active set and no longer participate in the Sui Network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. As part of these “activating” and “de-activating” processes of staking on the Sui Network, any staked SUI will be inaccessible for a period of time, denominated in “epochs.” On the Sui Network, epochs are targeted to last approximately 24 hours, though actual epoch durations may vary slightly due to validator coordination and other timing effects inherent in the network’s consensus protocol. De-activation typically completes when the current epoch ends, which may be up to one full epoch after the request is submitted. Once the de-activation period ends, the stake becomes fully inactive and can be withdrawn. As a result, the elapsed time between a de-activation request and withdrawal availability may differ depending on (i) when the request is submitted and (ii) the slight variation in epoch duration.

The Sui Network requires the payment of gas fees in SUI, and such fees can become significant as the amount and complexity of the transaction grows, depending on the degree of network congestion and the price of SUI. Any cybersecurity attacks, security issues, hacks, penalties, slashing events, or other problems could damage validators’ willingness to participate in validation, discourage existing and future validators from serving as such, and adversely impact the Sui Network’s adoption or the price of SUI. Any disruption of validation on the Sui Network could interfere with network operations and cause the Sui Network to be less attractive to users and application developers than competing blockchain networks, which could cause the price of SUI to decrease.

Subject to the Staking Condition being satisfied and subject to compliance with certain related requirements, the Sponsor has sole discretion over whether the Trust will engage in Staking, and there can be no assurance that the Sponsor will cause the Trust to engage in Staking. If the Sponsor causes the Trust to engage in Staking, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to engage in staking with respect to all of the Trust's SUI at all times, except (i) as necessary to pay the Sponsor's Fee and the Sponsor's Staking Fee, (ii) as necessary to pay any additional Trust expenses, (iii) as necessary to satisfy existing and reasonably foreseen potential redemption requests (assuming the Trust is then permitted to operate an ongoing redemption program) as determined by the Sponsor, (iv) as necessary to reduce the SUI obtained by the Trust as Native Staking Consideration to cash for distribution at regular intervals, (v) as necessary to reduce the SUI obtained by the Trust as Native Staking Consideration to cash in connection with the Trust's liquidation, (vi) as necessary to take protective actions in respect of vulnerabilities in the source code or cryptography underlying the Sui Network and/or its proof-of-stake protocol, its staking smart contracts or its validator client software, (vii) if the Custodian discontinues its arrangements with the Trust and such discontinuance affects the Trust's SUI, for so long as is reasonably necessary to re-establish those arrangements or to establish similar arrangements with other parties, (viii) if the Custodian discontinues its arrangements with the Staking Provider and such discontinuance affects the Trust's SUI, for so long as is reasonably necessary to re-establish those arrangements or to establish similar arrangements with other parties, (ix) in the event of a change in applicable law or regulation, (x) as necessary to maintain a Liquidity Sleeve (as defined herein), (xi) as necessary pursuant to a “contingent liquidity arrangement” within the meaning of Section 6.02(12) of IRS Revenue Procedure 2025-31 or (xii) in accordance with any other exception that is expressly contemplated by an opinion, ruling or tax guidance that satisfies the Staking Condition. All SUI received by the Trust in connection with the creation of new Shares, or as Native Staking Consideration, would also be staked upon receipt by the Trust, unless one or more of the exceptions described in clauses (i)-(xii) above applies. Moreover, any staked SUI which must be un-staked in order to fulfill a distribution in connection with a redemption (to the extent such distribution cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust's SUI that has not been staked, or through another mechanism to manage liquidity in connection with Redemption Orders contemplated by an opinion of a Tax Advisor, a Tax Ruling or Tax Guidance that satisfies the Staking Condition) will be un-staked only after the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction through the Custodian, and such transaction is processed by the Sui Network. During the portion of any Uplisted Period during which the Staking Condition has been satisfied with respect to a particular form of Staking, the Trust Agreement imposes further requirements relating to recently released IRS guidance.

If the Sponsor, in its sole discretion, causes the Trust to engage in Staking, the Sponsor generally will stake as much of the Trust’s SUI as is practicable (i.e., up to 100%) at all times, with the remainder of the Trust’s SUI remaining unstaked in order to address the various exceptions and other considerations described herein, including the satisfaction of the Staking Condition. The approximate percentage of the Trust’s SUI that is staked each day will be reported the following day at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on etfs.grayscale.com/gsui.

If the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Sui Network 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 high transaction fees, which could negatively impact the value of SUI and the value of the Shares.

If the digital asset awards for validating transactions or the transaction fees for recording transactions on the Sui Network 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 transactions on the Sui Network could be slowed. For example, the realization of one or more of the following risks could materially adversely affect the value of the Shares:

Proof-of-stake blockchains are a relatively recent innovation, and have not been subject to as widespread use or adoption over as long of a period of time as traditional proof-of-work blockchains.

Certain digital assets, such as bitcoin, use a “proof-of-work” consensus algorithm. The genesis block on the Bitcoin blockchain was mined in 2009, and Bitcoin’s blockchain has been in operation since then. Many newer blockchains enabling smart contract functionality, including the current Ethereum Network following the completion of the Merge in 2022, use a newer consensus algorithm known as “proof-of-stake.” While their proponents believe that they may have certain advantages, the “proof-of-stake” consensus mechanisms and governance systems underlying many newer blockchain protocols, including the Sui Network, and their associated digital assets – including the SUI held by the Trust – have not been tested at scale over as long of a period of time or subject to as widespread use or adoption as, for example, Bitcoin’s proof-of-work consensus mechanism has. This could lead to these blockchains, and their associated digital assets, having undetected vulnerabilities, structural design flaws, suboptimal incentive structures for network participants (e.g., validators), technical disruptions, or a wide variety of other problems, any of which could cause these blockchains not to function as intended, lead to outright failure to function entirely causing a total outage or disruption of network activity, or to suffer other operational problems or reputational damage, leading to a loss of users or adoption or a loss in value of the associated digital assets, including the Trust’s assets. Over the long term, there can be no assurance that the proof-of-stake blockchain on which the Trust’s assets rely will achieve widespread scale or adoption or perform successfully; any failure to do so could negatively impact the value of the Trust’s assets.

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

The Sui Network is currently vulnerable to several types of attacks, including:

For example, in August 2020, the Ethereum Classic 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 experienced a >50% 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 Sui Network, which could negatively impact the value of SUI and the value of the Shares.

Although there are no known reports of malicious control of the Sui Network, if groups of coordinating or connected SUI holders that together have a more than 50% of outstanding SUI, were to stake that SUI and run validators, they could exert authority over the validation of SUI 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 SUI, the feasibility of a malicious actor obtaining control of the validating power on the Sui Network will increase, which may adversely affect the value of SUI and the value of the Shares.

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

If validators exit the Sui Network, it could increase the likelihood of a malicious actor obtaining control.

Validators exiting the network could make the Sui Network more vulnerable to a malicious actor obtaining control of a large percentage of staked SUI, which might enable them to manipulate the Sui Blockchain by censoring or manipulating specific transactions, as discussed previously. If the Sui Blockchain suffers such an attack, the price of SUI could be negatively affected, and a loss of confidence in the Sui Network could result. Any reduction in confidence in the transaction confirmation process or staking power of the Sui Network may adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

A temporary or permanent “fork” or a “clone” could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Sui 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 SUI 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 Sui 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 SUI 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 digital asset network community’s response to a significant security breach. For example, in July 2016, Ethereum “forked” into Ethereum and a new digital asset network, 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 exploit, most participants in the Ethereum community elected to adopt a “fork” that effectively reversed the exploit. 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.

Digital asset networks and related protocols may also be cloned. Unlike a fork of a digital asset network, which modifies an existing blockchain, and results in two competing digital asset 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.

A hard fork may adversely affect the price of SUI at the time of announcement or adoption. For example, the announcement of a hard fork could lead to increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset, in anticipation that ownership of the pre-fork digital asset would entitle holders to a new digital asset following the fork. The increased demand for the pre-fork digital asset may cause the price of the digital asset to rise. After the hard fork, it is possible the aggregate price of the two versions of the digital asset running in parallel would be less than the price of the digital asset immediately prior to the fork. Furthermore, while the Trust would be entitled to both versions of the digital asset running in parallel, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, determine which version of the digital asset is generally accepted as the Sui Network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork. Either of these events could therefore adversely impact the value of the Shares. As an illustrative example of a digital asset hard fork, following the DAO hack in July 2016, holders of Ether voted on-chain to reverse the hack, effectively causing a hard fork. For

the days following the vote, the price of Ether rose from $11.65 on July 15, 2016 to $14.66 on July 21, 2016, the day after the first Ethereum Classic block was mined. A clone may also adversely affect the price of SUI at the time of announcement or adoption. For example, on November 6, 2016, Rhett Creighton, a Zcash developer, cloned the Zcash network to launch Zclassic, a substantially identical version of the Zcash network that eliminated the Founders’ Reward. For the days following the date the first Zclassic block was mined, the price of ZEC fell from $504.57 on November 5, 2016 to $236.01 on November 7, 2016 in the midst of a broader sell off of ZEC beginning immediately after the Zcash network launch on October 28, 2016. A clone may also adversely affect the price of SUI at the time of announcement or adoption.

A future fork in or clone of the Sui Network could adversely affect the value of the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

In the event of a hard fork of the Sui Network, the Sponsor will, if permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine which network should be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and in doing so may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

In the event of a hard fork of the Sui Network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine, in good faith, which digital asset network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Sui Network, is generally accepted as the Sui Network and should therefore be considered the appropriate digital asset network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on a variety of then relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of SUI, users, services, businesses, validators and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, validating power on, and community engagement with, the Sui Network. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset network or digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with shareholders, security vendors and the Index Provider on what is generally accepted as SUI and should therefore be considered “SUI” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

In the event of a hard fork of the Sui Network, the Custodian’s operations may be interrupted or subject to additional security risks that could disrupt the Trust’s ability to process creations and redemptions of Shares or otherwise threaten the security of the Trust’s SUI holdings.

In the event of a hard fork of the Sui Network, the Custodian may temporarily halt the ability of customers (including the Trust) to deposit, withdraw or transfer SUI on the Custodian’s platform. Such a delay may be intended to permit the Custodian to assess the resulting versions of the Sui Network, to determine how best to securely “split” the SUI from the forked asset, and to prevent malicious users from conducting “replay attacks” (i.e., broadcasting transactions on both versions of the forked networks to put Custodian assets at risk). As a result, the Trust is likely to suspend creations and redemptions during a period in which the Custodian’s operations are halted.

In addition, any losses experienced by the Custodian due to a hard fork, including due to replay attacks or technological errors in assessing the fork, could have a materially adverse impact on an investment in the Shares.

Any name change and any associated rebranding initiative by the core developers of SUI may not be favorably received by the digital asset community, which could negatively impact the value of SUI and the value of the Shares.

From time to time, digital assets may undergo name changes and associated rebranding initiatives. For example, Bitcoin Cash may sometimes be referred to as Bitcoin ABC in an effort to differentiate itself from any Bitcoin Cash hard forks, such as Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision, and in the third quarter of 2018, the team behind ZEN rebranded and changed the name of ZenCash to “Horizen.” We cannot predict the impact of any name change and any associated rebranding initiative on SUI. After a name change and an associated rebranding initiative, a digital asset may not be able to achieve or maintain brand name recognition or status that is comparable to the recognition and status previously enjoyed by such digital asset. The failure of any name change and any associated rebranding initiative by a digital asset may result in such digital asset not realizing some or all of the anticipated benefits contemplated by the name change and associated rebranding initiative, and could negatively impact the value of SUI and the value of the Shares.

If the Sui Network is used to facilitate illicit activities, businesses that facilitate transactions in SUI could be at increased risk of criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having services cut off, which could negatively affect the price of SUI and the value of the Shares.

Digital asset networks have in the past been, and may continue to be, used to facilitate illicit activities. If the Sui Network is used to facilitate illicit activities, businesses that facilitate transactions in SUI may be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits, or of having banking or other services cut off, if there is a concern that certain smart contracts on the Sui Network could interfere with the performance of anti-money laundering duties and economic sanctions checks. There is also a risk that Digital Asset Trading Platforms may remove SUI from their platforms as a result of these concerns. Other service providers of such businesses may also cut off services if there is a concern that the Sui Network is being used to facilitate crime. Any of the aforementioned occurrences

could increase regulatory scrutiny of the Sui Network and/ or adversely affect the price of SUI, the attractiveness of the Sui Network and an investment in the Shares of the Trust.

When the Trust and the Sponsor, acting on behalf of the Trust, sell or deliver, as applicable, SUI or, subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency, they generally do not transact directly with counterparties other than the Authorized Participant, a Liquidity Provider or other similarly eligible financial institutions that are subject to federal and state licensing requirements and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations. When an Authorized Participant or a Liquidity Provider sources SUI in connection with the creation of the Shares or facilitates transactions in SUI at the direction of the Trust or the Sponsor, it directly faces its counterparty and, in all instances, the Authorized Participant or Liquidity Provider, as applicable, follow policies and procedures designed to ensure that it knows the identity of its counterparty. The Authorized Participant is a registered broker-dealer and therefore subject to AML and countering the financing of terrorism obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act as administered by FinCEN and further overseen by the SEC and FINRA. In addition, one or more Liquidity Providers may be a virtual currency entity licensed by the NYDFS, which additionally may subject it to AML obligations.

In accordance with its regulatory obligations, the Authorized Participant, or the Liquidity Provider, conducts customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence on its counterparties, which enables it to determine each counterparty’s AML and other risks and assign an appropriate risk rating.

As part of its counterparty onboarding process, each of the Authorized Participant and the Liquidity Provider uses third-party services to screen prospective counterparties against various watch lists, including the Specially Designated Nationals List of the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) and countries and territories identified as non-cooperative by the Financial Action Task Force. If the Sponsor, the Trust, the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider were nevertheless to transact with such a sanctioned entity, the Sponsor, the Trust, the Authorized Participant and the Liquidity Provider would be at increased risk of potential criminal or civil lawsuits.

Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets

Recent developments in the digital asset economy have led to extreme volatility and disruption in digital asset markets, a loss of confidence in participants of the digital asset ecosystem, significant negative publicity surrounding digital assets broadly and market-wide declines in liquidity.

In the past and through the date of this prospectus, digital asset prices have experienced significant fluctuations, leading to volatility and disruption in the digital asset markets and financial difficulties for several prominent industry participants, including Digital Asset Trading Platforms, hedge funds and lending platforms. For example, in the first half of 2022, digital asset lenders Celsius Network LLC and Voyager Digital Ltd. and digital asset hedge fund Three Arrows Capital each entered into insolvency proceedings. This resulted in a loss of confidence in participants in the digital asset ecosystem, negative publicity surrounding digital assets more broadly and market-wide declines in digital asset trading prices and liquidity.

Thereafter, in November 2022, FTX, the third largest Digital Asset Trading Platform by volume at the time, halted customer withdrawals amid rumors of the company’s liquidity issues and likely insolvency. Shortly thereafter, FTX’s CEO resigned and FTX and several affiliates of FTX filed for bankruptcy. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently brought criminal charges, including charges of fraud, violations of federal securities laws, money laundering, and campaign finance offenses, against FTX’s former CEO and others. In November 2023, FTX’s former CEO was convicted of fraud and money laundering. Similar charges related to violations of anti-money laundering laws were brought in November 2023 against Binance and its former CEO. In addition, several other entities in the digital asset industry filed for bankruptcy following FTX’s bankruptcy filing, such as BlockFi Inc. and Genesis Global Capital, LLC (“Genesis Capital”), a subsidiary of Genesis Global Holdco, LLC (“Genesis Holdco”). The SEC also brought charges against Genesis Capital and Gemini Trust Company, LLC (“Gemini”) in January 2023 for their alleged unregistered offer and sale of securities to retail investors. In October 2023, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) brought charges against Gemini, Genesis Capital, Genesis Asia Pacific PTE. LTD. (“Genesis Asia Pacific”), Genesis Holdco, (together with Genesis Capital and Genesis Asia Pacific, the “Genesis Entities”), Genesis Capital’s former CEO, DCG, and DCG’s CEO alleging violations of the New York Penal Law, the New York General Business Law and the New York Executive Law. In February 2024, the NYAG amended its complaint to expand the charges against Gemini, the Genesis Entities, Genesis Capital’s former CEO, DCG, and DCG’s CEO to include harm to additional investors. Also in February 2024, the Genesis Entities entered into a settlement agreement with the NYAG to resolve the NYAG’s allegations against the Genesis Entities, which settlement was subsequently approved by the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York.

Furthermore, Genesis Holdco, together with certain of its subsidiaries, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in January 2023. While Genesis Holdco is not a service provider to the Trust, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of DCG, and is an affiliate of the Trust and the Sponsor.

These events have also led to significant negative publicity around digital asset market participants including DCG, Genesis and DCG’s other affiliated entities. This publicity could negatively impact the reputation of the Sponsor and have an adverse effect on the trading price and/or the value of the Shares. Moreover, sales of a significant number of Shares of the Trust as a result of these events could have a negative impact on the trading price of the Shares.

These events led to a substantial increase in regulatory and enforcement scrutiny of the industry as a whole and of Digital Asset Trading Platforms in particular, including from the Department of Justice, the SEC, the CFTC, the White House and Congress. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance (the “Binance Complaint”) and Coinbase (the “Coinbase Complaint”), two of the largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, alleging that they solicited U.S. investors to buy, sell, and trade “crypto asset securities” through their unregistered trading platforms and operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. Binance subsequently announced that it would be suspending USD deposits and withdrawals on Binance.US and that it plans to delist its USD trading pairs. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought similar charges against Kraken (the “Kraken Complaint”), alleging that it operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. The Binance Complaint, the Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint have led, and may in the future lead, to further volatility in digital asset prices. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants as well.

In January 2025, the SEC launched a Crypto Task Force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for digital assets led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Subsequently, Commissioner Peirce announced a list of specific priorities to further that initiative, which included pursuing final rules related to a digital asset’s security status, a revised path to registered offerings and listings for digital asset-based investment vehicles, and clarity regarding digital asset custody, lending and staking.

Digital asset markets have also been negatively impacted by the failure of entities perceived to be integral to the digital asset ecosystem. For example, in March 2023, state banking regulators placed Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank into FDIC receiverships. Also, in March 2023, Silvergate Bank announced plans to wind down and liquidate its operations. Because these banks were perceived to be the banks most open to providing services for the digital asset ecosystem in the United States, their failures may impact the willingness of banks (based on regulatory pressure or otherwise) to provide banking services to digital asset market participants. In addition, because these banks were perceived to be the banks most open to providing services for the digital asset ecosystem, their failure has caused a number of companies that provide digital asset-related services to be unable to find banks that are willing to provide them with such banking services. The inability to access banking services could negatively impact digital asset market participants and therefore the value of digital assets, including SUI, and thus the Shares. In addition, although these events occurred prior to the creation of the Trust and therefore did not have an impact directly on the Trust or the Sponsor when these bank failures occurred, it is possible that a future closing of a bank with which the Trust or the Sponsor has a financial relationship could subject the Trust or the Sponsor to adverse conditions and pose challenges in finding an alternative suitable bank to provide the Trust or the Sponsor with bank accounts and banking services.

Events such as these that impact the wider digital asset ecosystem are continuing to develop and change at a rapid pace and it is not possible to predict at this time all of the risks that they may pose to the Sponsor, the Trust, their affiliates and/or the Trust’s third-party service providers, or on the digital asset industry as a whole.

Continued disruption and instability in the digital asset markets as these events develop, including declines in the trading prices and liquidity of SUI, or the failure of service providers to the Trust, could have a material adverse effect on the value of the Shares and the Shares could lose all or substantially all of their value.

The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of SUI, the value of which may be highly volatile and subject to fluctuations due to a number of factors.

The value of the Shares relates directly to the value of the SUI held by the Trust and fluctuations in the price of SUI could adversely affect the value of the Shares. The market price of SUI may be highly volatile, and subject to a number of factors, including:

In addition, there is no assurance that SUI will maintain its value in the long or intermediate term. In the event that the price of SUI declines, the Sponsor expects the value of the Shares to decline proportionately. The value of SUI as represented by the Index Price or by the Trust’s principal market may also be subject to momentum pricing due to speculation regarding future appreciation in value, leading to greater volatility that could adversely affect the value of the Shares. Momentum pricing typically is associated with growth stocks and other assets whose valuation, as determined by the investing public, accounts for future appreciation in value, if any. The Sponsor believes that momentum pricing of SUI has resulted, and may continue to result, in speculation regarding future appreciation in the value of SUI, inflating and making the Index Price more volatile. As a result, SUI may be more likely to fluctuate in value due to changing investor confidence, which could impact future appreciation or depreciation in the Index Price and could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Due to the largely unregulated nature and lack of transparency surrounding the operations of Digital Asset Trading Platforms, they may experience fraud, market manipulation, business failures, security failures or operational problems, which may adversely affect the value of SUI and, consequently, the value of the Shares.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms are relatively new and, in many ways, are not subject to, or may not comply with, regulation in relevant jurisdictions in a manner similar to other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. While many prominent Digital Asset Trading Platforms provide the public with significant information regarding their on-chain activities, ownership structure, management teams, corporate practices, cybersecurity practices and regulatory compliance, many other Digital Asset Trading Platforms do not provide this information. Furthermore, while Digital Asset Trading Platforms are and may continue to be subject to federal and state licensing requirements in the United States, Digital Asset Trading Platforms do not currently appear to be subject to regulation in a similar manner as other regulated trading platforms, such as national securities exchanges or designated contract markets. As a result, the marketplace may lose confidence in Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including prominent trading platforms that handle a significant volume of SUI trading.

Many Digital Asset Trading Platforms, both in the United States and abroad, are unlicensed, not subject to, or not in compliance with, regulation in relevant jurisdictions, or operate without extensive supervision by governmental authorities. In particular, those located outside the United States may be subject to significantly less stringent regulatory and compliance requirements in their local jurisdictions and may take the position that they are not subject to laws and regulations that would apply to a national securities exchange or designated contract market in the United States, or may, as a practical matter, be beyond the ambit of U.S. regulators. As a result, trading activity on or reported by these Digital Asset Trading Platforms is generally significantly less regulated than trading activity on or reported by regulated U.S. securities and commodities markets, and may reflect behavior that would be prohibited in regulated U.S. trading venues. For example, in 2022 one report claimed that trading volumes on Digital Asset Trading Platforms were inflated by over 70% due to false or non-economic trades, with specific focus on unlicensed trading platforms located outside of the United States. Such reports may indicate that the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market is significantly smaller than expected and that the U.S. makes up a significantly larger percentage of the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market than is commonly understood, or that a much larger portion of digital asset market activity takes place on decentralized finance platforms than is commonly understood. Nonetheless, any actual or perceived false trading in the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of SUI and/or negatively affect the market perception of SUI, which could in turn adversely impact the value of the Shares.

The SEC has also identified possible sources of fraud and manipulation in the Digital Asset Markets generally, including, among others (1) “wash-trading”; (2) persons with a dominant position in a digital asset manipulating pricing in such digital asset; (3) hacking of the underlying digital asset network and trading platforms; (4) malicious control of the underlying digital asset network; (5) trading based on material, non-public information (for example, plans of market participants to significantly increase or decrease their holdings in a digital asset, new sources of demand for a digital asset) or based on the dissemination of false and misleading information; (6) manipulative activity involving purported “stablecoins,” including Tether; and (7) fraud and manipulation at Digital Asset Markets. The use or presence of such acts and practices in the Digital Asset Markets could, for example, falsely inflate the

volume of SUI present in the Digital Asset Markets or cause distortions in the price of SUI, among other things that could adversely affect the Trust or cause losses to shareholders. Moreover, tools to detect and deter fraudulent or manipulative trading activities, such as market manipulation, front-running of trades, and wash-trading, may not be available to or employed by Digital Asset Markets, or may not exist at all. Many Digital Asset Markets also lack certain safeguards put in place by exchanges for more traditional assets to enhance the stability of trading on the exchanges and prevent “flash crashes,” such as limit-down circuit breakers. As a result, the prices of SUI on Digital Asset Markets may be subject to larger and/or more frequent sudden declines than assets traded on more traditional exchanges.

In addition, over the past several years, some Digital Asset Trading Platforms have been closed, been subject to criminal and civil litigation and have entered into bankruptcy proceedings due to fraud and manipulative activity, business failure and/or security breaches. In many of these instances, the customers of such Digital Asset Trading Platforms were not compensated or made whole for the partial or complete losses of their account balances in such Digital Asset Trading Platforms. In some instances, customers are made whole only in dollar terms as of the Digital Asset Trading Platform’s date of failure, rather than on a digital asset basis, meaning customers may still lose out on any price increase in digital assets.

While smaller Digital Asset Trading Platforms are less likely to have the infrastructure and capitalization that make larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms more stable, larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms are more likely to be appealing targets for hackers and malware. For example, in February 2025, hackers reportedly compromised a transaction from Bybit’s multisignature cold wallets, enabling the hackers to steal over $1.5 billion of ETH from Bybit. Shortcomings or ultimate failures of larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms are more likely to have contagion effects on the digital asset ecosystem, and therefore may also be more likely to be targets of regulatory enforcement action. For example, in November 2022, FTX, another of the world’s largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms, filed for bankruptcy protection and subsequently halted customer withdrawals as well as trading on its FTX.US platform. Fraud, security failures and operational problems all played a role in FTX’s issues and downfall. Moreover, Digital Asset Trading Platforms have been a subject of enhanced regulatory and enforcement scrutiny, and Digital Asset Markets have experienced continued instability, following the failure of FTX. In particular, in June 2023, the SEC brought the Binance Complaint and Coinbase Complaint, alleging that Binance and Coinbase operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In addition, in November 2023, the SEC brought the Kraken Complaint, alleging that Kraken operated as an unregistered securities exchange, brokerage and clearing agency. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants as well.

Negative perception, a lack of stability and standardized regulation in the Digital Asset Markets and/or the closure or temporary shutdown of Digital Asset Trading Platforms due to fraud, business failure, security breaches or government mandated regulation, and associated losses by customers, may reduce confidence in the Sui Network and result in greater volatility in the prices of SUI. Furthermore, the closure or temporary shutdown of a Digital Asset Trading Platform used in calculating the Index Price may result in a loss of confidence in the Trust’s ability to determine its NAV on a daily basis. These potential consequences of such a Digital Asset Trading Platform’s failure could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be exposed to front-running.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be susceptible to “front-running,” which refers to the process when someone uses technology or market advantage to get prior knowledge of upcoming transactions. Front-running is a frequent activity on centralized as well as decentralized trading platforms. By using bots functioning on a millisecond-scale timeframe, bad actors are able to take advantage of the forthcoming price movement and make economic gains at the cost of those who had introduced these transactions. The objective of a front runner is to buy tokens at a low price and later sell them at a higher price while simultaneously exiting the position. To the extent that front-running occurs, it may result in investor frustrations and concerns as to the price integrity of Digital Asset Trading Platforms and digital assets more generally.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be exposed to wash-trading.

Digital Asset Trading Platforms may be susceptible to wash-trading. Wash-trading occurs when offsetting trades are entered into for other than bona fide reasons, such as the desire to inflate reported trading volumes. Wash-trading may be motivated by non-economic reasons, such as a desire for increased visibility on popular websites that monitor markets for digital assets so as to improve a trading platform’s attractiveness to investors who look for maximum liquidity, or it may be motivated by the ability to attract listing fees from token issuers who seek the most liquid and high-volume trading platforms on which to list their tokens. Results of wash-trading may include unexpected obstacles to trade and erroneous investment decisions based on false information.

Even in the United States, there have been allegations of wash-trading even on regulated venues. Any actual or perceived false trading on Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and any other fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices, could adversely affect the value of SUI and/or negatively affect the market perception of SUI.

To the extent that wash-trading either occurs or appears to occur in Digital Asset Trading Platforms, investors may develop negative perceptions about SUI and the digital assets industry more broadly, which could adversely impact the price of SUI and, therefore, the price of the Shares. Wash-trading also may place more legitimate Digital Asset Trading Platforms at a relative competitive disadvantage.

The lack of active trading markets for the Shares may result in losses on investors’ investments at the time of disposition of Shares.

Although the Shares are qualified for public trading on OTCQB and are expected to be publicly listed and traded on the NYSE Arca, there can be no guarantee that an active trading market for the Trust will continue to develop or be maintained. If shareholders need to sell their Shares at a time when no active market for them exists, the price shareholders receive for their Shares, assuming they are able to sell them, likely will be lower than the price that shareholders would receive if an active market did exist and, accordingly, a shareholder may suffer losses.

Possible illiquid markets may exacerbate losses or increase the variability between the Trust’s NAV and its market price.

SUI is a novel asset with a limited trading history. Therefore, the markets for SUI may be less liquid and more volatile than other markets for more established products, such as futures contracts for traditional physical commodities. It may be difficult to execute a SUI trade at a specific price when there is a relatively small volume of buy and sell orders in the SUI market. A market disruption can also make it more difficult to liquidate a position or find a suitable counterparty at a reasonable cost.

Market illiquidity may cause losses for the Trust. The large size of the positions that the Trust may acquire could increase the risk of illiquidity, by both making the positions more difficult to liquidate and increasing the losses incurred while trying to do so, should the Trust need to liquidate its SUI. Any type of disruption or illiquidity will potentially be exacerbated due to the fact that the Trust will only invest in SUI, which is highly concentrated.

As of the date of this prospectus, the total market value of the SUI circulating supply is approximately $3.7 billion, comprised of approximately 3.8 billion SUI. On average over the last 30 days, over any given 24-hour period, the reported global SUI trading volume was approximately $218.1 million.

The Index has a limited history and a failure of the Index Price could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Index has a limited history and the Index Price is a composite reference rate calculated using trading price data from various Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider. The Index was launched on January 11, 2025. From the commencement of the Trust’s operations until December 19, 2025, the Index was the CoinDesk SUI Reference Rate Price. The Sponsor determined that the Index is appropriate for the Trust because the Index Price is able to reflect accurate point-in-time pricing throughout the trading session. The Sponsor determined that the liquidity of the SUI Digital Asset Market could support such pricing, and the Index change aligns with market practice of calculating NAV of ETPs at 4:00 PM using the real-time price. The Digital Asset Trading Platforms chosen by the Index Provider have also changed over time. The Index Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Index in the future at its discretion. For more information on the inclusion criteria for Digital Asset Trading Platforms in the Index, see “Business—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—The Index and the Index Price.”

Although the Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of SUI, third parties may be able to purchase and sell SUI on public or private markets not included among the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms of the Index, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of SUI on the various Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms. For example, based on data provided by the Index Provider, on any given day during the twelve months ended December 31, 2025, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time spot price of any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index and the Index Price was 2.49% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.98%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.01%. All Digital Asset Trading Platforms that were included in the Index throughout the period were considered in this analysis. To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of SUI, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Index Price used to calculate the value of the Trust’s SUI may be volatile, and purchasing and selling activity in the Digital Asset Markets associated with Basket creations and redemptions may affect the Index Price and Share trading prices, adversely affecting the value of the Shares.

The price of SUI on public Digital Asset Trading Platforms has a very limited history, and during this history, SUI prices on the Digital Asset Markets more generally, and on Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually, have been volatile and subject to influence by many factors, including operational interruptions. While the Index is designed to limit exposure to the interruption of individual

Digital Asset Trading Platforms, the Index Price, and the price of SUI generally, remain subject to volatility experienced by Digital Asset Trading Platforms, and such volatility could adversely affect the value of the Shares. For example, since the commencement of the Trust’s operations, the Index Price ranged from $0.53 to $5.23, with the straight average being $2.79 through December 31, 2025. In addition, during the twelve months ended December 31, 2025, the Index Price ranged from $1.33 to $5.23. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms individually or as a group. The price of SUI more generally has experienced volatility similar to the Index Price during these periods. See “Business—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—Historical NAV and SUI Prices.”

Furthermore, because the number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms is limited, the Index will necessarily be comprised of a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms. If a Digital Asset Trading Platform were subjected to regulatory, volatility or other pricing issues, the Index Provider would have limited ability to remove such Digital Asset Trading Platform from the Index, which could skew the price of SUI as represented by the Index. Trading on a limited number of Digital Asset Trading Platforms may result in less favorable prices and decreased liquidity of SUI and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

Purchasing activity associated with acquiring SUI required for the creation of Baskets may increase the market price of SUI on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in higher prices for the Shares. Alternatively, selling activity associated with sales of SUI withdrawn from the Trust in connection with the redemption of Baskets may decrease the market price of SUI on the Digital Asset Markets, which will result in lower prices for the Shares. Increases or decreases in the market price of SUI may also occur as a result of the purchasing or selling activity of other market participants. Other market participants may attempt to benefit from an increase or decrease in the market price of SUI that may result from increased purchasing or selling activity of SUI connected with the creation or redemption of Baskets. Consequently, the market price of SUI may decline immediately after Baskets are created. Decreases in the market price of SUI may also occur as a result of sales in Secondary Markets by other market participants. If the Index Price declines, the value of the Shares will generally also decline.

Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of SUI and adversely affect the value of the Shares.

As of December 31, 2025, SUI was the twenty-third largest digital asset by market capitalization, as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com. As of December 31, 2025, the digital assets tracked by CoinMarketCap.com had a total market capitalization of approximately $2.7 trillion (including the approximately $5.2 billion market cap of SUI), as calculated using market prices and total available supply of each digital asset, excluding stablecoins and tokens pegged to other assets. SUI faces competition from a wide range of digital assets, including Bitcoin and Ether. Many consortiums and financial institutions are also researching and investing resources into private or permissioned blockchain platforms rather than open platforms like the Sui Network. In addition, SUI is supported by fewer trading platforms than more established digital assets, such as Bitcoin and Ether, which could impact its liquidity. In addition, the Sui Network is in direct competition with other smart contract platforms, such as the Ethereum, Polkadot, Avalanche and Cardano networks. Competition from the emergence or growth of alternative digital assets or other smart contract platforms could have a negative impact on the demand for, and price of, SUI, and thereby adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Investors may also invest in SUI through means other than the Shares, including through direct investments in SUI and other financial vehicles, including securities backed by or linked to SUI and digital asset financial vehicles similar to the Trust. In particular, the Trust and the Sponsor face competition with respect to the creation of competing exchange-traded spot SUI products, among other digital asset vehicles, several of which have applications pending before the SEC or that have already received SEC approval. The SEC and CFTC have also issued a joint staff statement providing the respective staffs’ view, that current law does not prohibit SEC-or CFTC-registered exchanges from facilitating trading of certain spot crypto asset products, which may expose the Trust to additional types of competition. Whether the Trust is successful in maintaining its scale and achieving its intended competitive position may be impacted by a range of factors, including the Trust’s timing in entering the market relative to competing spot SUI exchange-traded products, its fee structure relative to those competing products and potentially new platforms for investing in SUI. The Trust’s competitors may offer a more liquid secondary market for their shares, and/or may charge a substantially lower fee than the Sponsor’s Fee or expense ratio now or in the future. If the Trust fails to continue to maintain or grow sufficient scale due to competition, the Sponsor may have difficulty raising sufficient revenue to cover the costs associated with maintaining the Trust and such shortfalls could impact the Sponsor’s ability to properly invest in robust ongoing operations and controls of the Trust to minimize the risk of operating events, errors, or other forms of losses to the shareholders. Furthermore, the Trust may fail to continue to attract adequate liquidity in the secondary market due to such competition, resulting in a small number of Authorized Participants willing to make a market in the Shares, which in turn could result in the Shares trading at a significant premium or discount for extended periods. Likewise, market and financial conditions, and other conditions beyond the Sponsor’s control, may make it more attractive to gain exposure to SUI through other vehicles, rather than the Trust.

In addition, to the extent digital asset financial vehicles other than the Trust tracking the price of SUI are formed and represent a significant proportion of the demand for SUI, large purchases or redemptions of the securities of these digital asset financial vehicles, or private funds holding SUI, could negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the

Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to maintain its scale and achieve its intended competitive positioning relative to competitors, which could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Congestion or delay on the Sui Network may delay purchases or sales of SUI by the Trust.

Increased transaction volume could result in delays in the recording of transactions due to network congestion. Moreover, unforeseen system failures, disruptions in operations, or poor connectivity may also result in delays in the recording of transactions on the Sui Network. The Sui Network has experienced multiple such disruptions since launch. For example, in November 2024, the Sui Network experienced a temporary outage after a software issue caused certain validators to crash, halting transaction processing until the issue was resolved. In addition, in January 2026, the Sui Network experienced a consensus-related disruption that stalled transaction processing and affected validator operations and dApp connectivity.

Any such delays could affect an Authorized Participant’s ability to buy or sell SUI at an advantageous price resulting in decreased confidence in the Sui Network. Over the longer term, delays in confirming transactions could reduce the attractiveness to merchants and other commercial parties as a means of payment. As a result, the Sui Network and the value of the Trust would be adversely affected.

The SEC has approved generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares and may approve other applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list competing digital assets as exchange-traded products, which could reduce demand for, and the price of, SUI and adversely impact the value of the Shares.

To date, the SEC has approved applications under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act to list spot digital asset exchange-traded products which hold Bitcoin and Ether as well as generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares holding digital assets. To the extent competing digital asset exchange-traded products, other than those which hold SUI, come to represent a significant proportion of the demand for digital assets generally, demand for, and the price of, SUI could be reduced. Such reduced demand could in turn negatively affect the Index Price, the NAV, the NAV per Share, the value of the Shares, the Principal Market NAV and the Principal Market NAV per Share. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to maintain its scale and achieve its intended competitive positioning relative to competitors, which could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Competition from central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) and emerging payments initiatives involving financial institutions could adversely affect the price of SUI and other digital assets.

Central banks in various countries have introduced digital forms of legal tender (“CBDCs”). China’s CBDC project, known as Digital Currency Electronic Payment, has reportedly been tested in a live pilot program conducted in multiple cities in China. Central banks representing at least 130 countries have published retail or wholesale CBDC work ranging from research to pilot projects. Whether or not they incorporate blockchain or similar technology, CBDCs, as legal tender in the issuing jurisdiction, could have an advantage in competing with, or replace, SUI and other cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange or store of value. Central banks and other governmental entities have also announced cooperative initiatives and consortia with private sector entities, with the goal of leveraging blockchain and other technology to reduce friction in cross-border and interbank payments and settlement, and commercial banks and other financial institutions have also recently announced a number of initiatives of their own to incorporate new technologies, including blockchain and similar technologies, into their payments and settlement activities, which could compete with, or reduce the demand for, SUI. As a result of any of the foregoing factors, the price of SUI could decrease, which could adversely affect an investment in the Trust.

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

While the Trust does not invest in stablecoins, it may nonetheless be exposed to these and other risks that stablecoins pose for the market for SUI and other digital assets. 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 the value of a referenced asset, normally a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. Although the prices of stablecoins are intended to be stable compared to their referenced asset, in many cases their prices fluctuate, sometimes significantly. This volatility has in the past impacted the prices of certain digital assets, and has at times caused certain stablecoins to lose their “peg” to the underlying fiat currency. Stablecoins are a relatively new phenomenon, and it is impossible to know all of the risks that they could pose to participants in the digital asset markets. In addition, some have argued that some stablecoins, particularly Tether, are improperly issued without sufficient backing in a way that could cause artificial rather than genuine demand for digital assets, raising their prices. Regulators have also charged stablecoin issuers with violations of law or otherwise required certain stablecoin issuers to cease certain operations. For example, on February 17, 2021 the New York Attorney General entered into an agreement with Tether’s operators, requiring them to cease any further trading activity with New York persons and pay $18.5 million in penalties for false and misleading statements made regarding the assets backing Tether. On October 15, 2021, the CFTC announced a settlement with Tether’s operators in which they agreed to pay $42.5 million in fines to settle charges that, among others, Tether’s claims that it maintained sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every Tether stablecoin in circulation with the “equivalent amount of corresponding fiat currency” held by Tether were untrue.

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 SUI market. The issuer of USDC uses the Circle Reserve Fund to hold cash, U.S. Treasury bills, notes and other obligations issued or guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements secured by such obligations or cash, which serve as reserves backing USDC stablecoins. 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 (and remained below for multiple days) after Circle Internet Financial disclosed that $3.3 billion of the USDC reserves were held at Silicon Valley Bank, which had entered FDIC receivership earlier that day. Popular 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 or lead to outsized redemption requests, and therefore could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Given the 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 SUI. Because a large portion of the digital asset market still depends on stablecoins such as Tether and USDC, there is a risk that a disorderly de-pegging or a run on Tether or USDC could lead to dramatic market volatility in, and/or materially and adversely affect the prices of, digital assets more broadly.

Volatility in stablecoins, operational issues with stablecoins (for example, technical issues that prevent settlement), concerns about the sufficiency of any reserves that support stablecoins, or regulatory concerns about stablecoin issuers or intermediaries, such as Bitcoin spot markets, that support stablecoins, could impact individuals’ willingness to trade on trading venues that rely on stablecoins and could impact the price of SUI, and in turn, an investment in the Shares.

Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares

The Trust relies on third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to the affairs of the Trust and the replacement of such service providers could pose a challenge to the safekeeping of the Trust’s SUI and to the operations of the Trust.

The Trust relies on the Custodian and the Prime Broker (together, the “Custodial Entities”), the Authorized Participants and other third-party service providers to perform certain functions essential to managing the affairs of the Trust. In addition, Liquidity Providers are relied upon to facilitate the purchase and sale of SUI in connection with creations and redemptions of Shares in cash (“Cash Orders”), and the Transfer Agent and Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (in such capacity, the “Liquidity Engager”) are relied upon to facilitate such Cash Orders. Any disruptions to a service provider’s business operations, resulting from business failures, financial instability, security failures, government mandated regulation or operational problems, could have an adverse impact on the Trust’s ability to access critical services and be disruptive to the operations of the Trust and require the Sponsor or the Liquidity Engager, as the case may be, to replace such service provider. Moreover, the Sponsor could decide to replace a service provider to the Trust, or the Liquidity Engager may decide to replace a Liquidity Provider, for other reasons.

If the Sponsor decides, or is required, to replace Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC as the custodian of the Trust’s SUI or Coinbase, Inc. as the prime broker controlling and securing the Trust’s Settlement Balance, transfer of the respective maintenance responsibilities of the Vault Balance or the Settlement Balance to another party or parties will likely be complex and could subject the Trust’s SUI to the risk of loss during the transfer, which could have a negative impact on the performance of the Shares or result in loss of the Trust’s assets.

Moreover, the legal rights of customers with respect to digital assets held on their behalf by a third-party custodian, such as the Custodial Entities, in insolvency proceedings are currently uncertain. The Prime Broker Agreement contains an agreement by the parties to treat the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Vault Balance and Settlement Balance as financial assets under Article 8 in addition to stating that the Custodian will serve as fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf with respect to the Trust’s SUI held in the Vault Balance, and that any SUI credited to the Settlement Balance will be treated as custodial assets.

The Custodial Entities’ parent, Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Coinbase Global”), has also stated in public securities filings that in light of the inclusion of provisions relating to Article 8 in its custody and prime broker client agreements, it believes that a court would not treat custodied digital assets as part of its general estate in the event the Custodial Entities were to experience insolvency. However, due to the novelty of digital asset custodial arrangements courts have not yet considered this type of treatment for custodied digital assets and it is not possible to predict with certainty how they would rule in such a scenario. Moreover, the Custodian and the Prime Broker are potentially subject to different insolvency regimes and there is no assurance that the digital assets credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance would be treated similarly to those credited to the Trust’s Vault Balance in an insolvency, notwithstanding the rights and obligations conferred under the Prime Broker Agreement or Coinbase Global’s views regarding the treatment of such assets under Article 8. In the event that the Custodian or the Prime Broker and/or Coinbase Global became subject to insolvency proceedings and a court were to rule that the custodied digital assets were part of the Custodian’s the Prime Broker’s and/or Coinbase Global’s general estate and not the property of the Trust, then the Trust would be treated as a general unsecured creditor in such insolvency proceedings and the Trust would be subject to the loss of all or a significant portion of its assets.

In addition, the Custodian is a fiduciary under § 100 of the New York Banking Law and a qualified custodian for purposes of Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6) under the Investment Advisers Act and is licensed to custody the Trust’s SUI in trust on the Trust’s behalf. However, the SEC previously released proposed amendments in February 2023 to Rule 206(4)-2 that, if enacted as proposed, would amend the definition of a “qualified custodian” under Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6). Executive officers of the Custodian’s parent company have made public statements indicating that the Custodian would remain a qualified custodian under the proposed SEC rule, if enacted as proposed. In June 2025, however, the SEC formally withdrew that proposed rulemaking and stated that it does not intend to issue final rules based on the proposal. However, there can be no assurance that the Custodian would continue to qualify as a “qualified custodian” under a future rule that may be proposed or adopted by the SEC.

To the extent that Sponsor is not able to find a suitable party willing to serve as custodian, the Sponsor may be required to terminate the Trust and liquidate the Trust’s SUI. In addition, to the extent that the Sponsor finds a suitable party and must enter into a modified or separate custody agreement that is less favorable for the Trust or Sponsor and/or transfer the Trust’s assets in a relatively short time period, the safekeeping of the Trust’s SUI may be adversely affected, which may in turn adversely affect value of the Shares. Likewise, if the Sponsor is required to replace any other service provider, they may not be able to find a party willing to serve in such capacity in a timely manner or at all. If the Sponsor decides, or is required, to replace an Authorized Participant and/or if the Liquidity Engager decides, or is required, to replace a Liquidity Provider, this could negatively impact the Trust’s ability to create new Shares, which would impact the Shares’ liquidity and could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares.

The amount of the Trust’s assets represented by each Share will decline over time as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee and Additional Trust Expenses, and as a result, the value of the Shares may decrease over time.

The Sponsor’s Fee accrues daily in U.S. dollars at an annual rate based on the NAV Fee Basis Amount, which is based on the NAV of the Trust, and is paid to the Sponsor in SUI. See “Business—Expenses; Sales of SUI—Disposition of SUI” and “Business—Expenses; Sales of SUI—Hypothetical Expense Example.” As a result, the amount of Trust’s assets represented by each Share declines as the Trust pays the Sponsor’s Fee (or sells SUI in order to raise cash to pay any Additional Trust Expenses), which may cause the Shares to decrease in value over time or dampen any increase in value.

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the value of SUI.

The value of the Shares may be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the price of SUI and the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index that may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares. These factors include the following factors:

Any of these factors could affect the value of the Shares, either directly or indirectly through their effect on the Trust’s assets.

Shareholders do not have the protections associated with ownership of shares in an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act or the protections afforded by the CEA.

The Investment Company Act is designed to protect investors by preventing insiders from managing investment companies to their benefit and to the detriment of public investors, such as: the issuance of securities having inequitable or discriminatory provisions; the management of investment companies by irresponsible persons; the use of unsound or misleading methods of computing earnings and asset value; changes in the character of investment companies without the consent of investors; and investment companies from engaging in excessive leveraging. To accomplish these ends, the Investment Company Act requires the safekeeping and proper valuation of fund assets, restricts greatly transactions with affiliates, limits leveraging, and imposes governance requirements as a check on fund management.

The Trust is not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act, and the Sponsor believes that the Trust is not required to register under such act. Consequently, shareholders do not have the regulatory protections provided to investors in investment companies.

The Trust will not hold or trade in commodity interests regulated by the CEA, as administered by the CFTC. Furthermore, the Sponsor believes that the Trust is not a commodity pool for purposes of the CEA, and that neither the Sponsor nor the Trustee is subject to regulation by the CFTC as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading adviser in connection with the operation of the Trust. Consequently, shareholders will not have the regulatory protections provided to investors in CEA-regulated instruments or commodity pools.

As the Sponsor and its management have limited history of operating investment vehicles like the Trust, their experience may be inadequate or unsuitable to manage the Trust.

The past performances of the Sponsor’s management in other investment vehicles, including their experiences in the digital asset and venture capital industries, are no indication of their ability to manage an investment vehicle such as the Trust. If the experience of the Sponsor and its management is inadequate or unsuitable to manage an investment vehicle such as the Trust, the operations of the Trust may be adversely affected.

Furthermore, the Sponsor is currently engaged in the management of other investment vehicles which could divert their attention and resources. If the Sponsor were to experience difficulties in the management of such other investment vehicles that damaged the Sponsor or its reputation, it could have an adverse impact on the Sponsor’s ability to continue to serve as Sponsor for the Trust.

Security threats to the Trust’s Vault Balance or Settlement Balance could result in the halting of Trust operations, including the creation and redemption of Baskets, and a loss of Trust assets or damage to the reputation of the Trust, each of which could result in a reduction in the value of the Shares.

Security breaches, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have been a prevalent concern in relation to digital assets. The Sponsor believes that the Trust’s SUI held in the Vault Balance, as well as the Trust’s SUI held temporarily in the Settlement Balance, will be an appealing target to hackers or malware distributors seeking to destroy, damage or steal the Trust’s SUI and will only become more appealing as the Trust’s assets grow. To the extent that the Trust, the Sponsor or the Custodial Entities are unable to identify and mitigate or stop new security threats or otherwise adapt to technological changes in the digital asset industry, the Trust’s SUI may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack.

The Sponsor believes that the security procedures in place for the Trust, including, but not limited to, offline storage, or cold storage, for a substantial portion of the Trust’s SUI, multiple encrypted private key “shards”, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification, are reasonably designed to safeguard the Trust’s SUI. Nevertheless, the security procedures cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect or act of God that may be borne by the Trust. Additionally, because a portion of the Trust’s SUI from time to time will be held in hot storage, such SUI will be more vulnerable to a potential hack or other cyberattack that could lead to a loss of Trust assets.

The security procedures and operational infrastructure may be breached due to the actions of outside parties, error or malfeasance of an employee of the Sponsor, a Custodial Entity, or otherwise, and, as a result, an unauthorized party may obtain access to an Account, the relevant private keys (and therefore SUI) or other data of the Trust. Additionally, outside parties may attempt to fraudulently induce employees of the Sponsor or a Custodial Entity to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to the Trust’s infrastructure. As the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently, or may be designed to remain dormant until a predetermined event and often are not recognized until launched against a target, the Sponsor and the Custodial Entities may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. Moreover, the Custodial Entities will not be liable for any claims or losses arising out of or relating to the acts and/or omissions of any unauthorized third parties, except to the extent such losses are caused by a Custodial Entity’s negligence, fraud or willful misconduct.

An actual or perceived breach of the accounts associated with the Trust’s Vault Balance and Settlement Balance (the “Accounts”) could harm the Trust’s operations, result in loss of the Trust’s assets, damage the Trust’s reputation and negatively affect the market perception of the effectiveness of the Trust, all of which could in turn reduce demand for the Shares, resulting in a reduction in the value of the Shares. The Trust may also cease operations, the occurrence of which could similarly result in a reduction in the value of the Shares.

SUI transactions are irrevocable and stolen or incorrectly transferred SUI may be irretrievable. As a result, any incorrectly executed SUI transactions could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

SUI transactions are typically not reversible without the consent and active participation of the recipient of the transaction. Once a transaction has been verified and recorded in a block that is added to the Blockchain, an incorrect transfer or theft of SUI generally will not be reversible and the Trust may not be capable of seeking compensation for any such transfer or theft. Although the Trust’s transfers of SUI will regularly be made to or from the Vault Balance, it is possible that, through computer or human error, or through theft or criminal action, the Trust’s SUI could be transferred from the Trust’s Vault Balance in incorrect amounts or to unauthorized third parties, or to uncontrolled accounts.

Such events have occurred in connection with digital assets in the past. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek a corrective transaction with such third party or is incapable of identifying the third party which has received the Trust’s SUI through error or theft, the Trust will be unable to revert or otherwise recover incorrectly transferred SUI. The Trust will also be unable to convert or recover its SUI transferred to uncontrolled accounts. To the extent that the Trust is unable to seek redress for such error or theft, such loss could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The lack of full insurance and shareholders’ limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Transfer Agent and Custodial Entities expose the Trust and its shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trust’s SUI for which no person or entity is liable.

The Trust is not a banking institution or otherwise a member of the FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, deposits held with or assets held by the Trust are not subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors with FDIC or SIPC member institutions. In addition, neither the Trust nor the Sponsor insure the Trust’s SUI.

While the Custodian is required under the Prime Broker Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that is commercially reasonable for the custodial services it provides, and the Custodial Entities have advised the Sponsor that they maintain insurance at commercially reasonable amounts for the digital assets custodied on behalf of clients, including the Trust’s SUI, resulting from theft, shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian or the Prime Broker will maintain adequate insurance or that such coverage will cover losses with respect to the Trust’s SUI. Moreover, while the Custodian maintains certain capital reserve requirements depending on the assets under custody and to the extent required by applicable law, and such capital reserves may provide additional means to cover client asset losses, the Sponsor does not know the amount of such capital reserves, and neither the Trust nor the Sponsor have access to such information. The Trust cannot be assured that the Custodial Entities will maintain capital reserves sufficient to cover losses with respect to the Trust’s digital assets. In addition, such insurance and capital reserves maintained by the Custodial Entities are shared among all of its customers and are therefore not specific to the Trust. Furthermore, Coinbase has represented in securities filings that the total value of crypto assets in its possession and control is significantly greater than the total value of insurance coverage that would compensate Coinbase in the event of theft or other loss of funds.

Furthermore, the Custodial Entities’ aggregate maximum liability with respect to breach of their obligations under the Prime Broker Agreement will not exceed the greater of: (i) the value of the SUI or cash involved in the event, including but not limited to transaction(s) or deliveries(s), giving rise to such liability at the time of the event giving rise to such liability; (ii) the aggregate amount of fees paid by the Trust to the Custodial Entities in respect of the Custodial and Prime Broker Services in the 12-month period prior to the event giving rise to such liability; or (iii) five million U.S. dollars. The Custodian’s total liability under the Prime Broker Agreement will not exceed the greater of: (i) the aggregate amount of fees paid by the Trust to the Custodian in respect of the

custodial services in the 12-month period prior to the event giving rise to such liability; or (ii) the value of the SUI on deposit in the Vault Balance at the time of the events giving rise to the liability occurred, the value of which will be determined in accordance with the Prime Broker Agreement.

In addition, the Custodian’s maximum liability in respect of each cold storage address that holds SUI is limited to the “Cold Storage Threshold” of $100 million. The Sponsor monitors the value of SUI deposited in cold storage addresses for whether the Cold Storage Threshold has been met by determining the U.S. dollar value of SUI deposited in each cold storage address on business days. Although the Cold Storage Threshold has never been met for a given cold storage address, to the extent it is met the Trust would not have a claim against the Custodian with respect to the digital assets held in such address to the extent the value exceeds the Cold Storage Threshold. The Custodial Entities and the Trust are not liable to each other for any special, incidental, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages, whether or not the other party had been advised of such losses or knew or should have known of the possibility of such damages.

The shareholders’ recourse against the Sponsor and the Trust’s other service providers for the services they provide to the Trust, including those relating to the provision of instructions relating to the movement of SUI, is limited. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trust’s SUI that is not covered by insurance and for which no person is liable in damages. As a result, the recourse of the Trust or the shareholders, under New York law, is limited.

The Trust may be required, or the Sponsor may deem it appropriate, to terminate and liquidate at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust is required to dissolve under certain circumstances. In addition, the Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, dissolve the Trust for a number of reasons, including if the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that it is desirable or advisable for any reason to discontinue the affairs of the Trust. For example, the Sponsor expects that it may be advisable to discontinue the affairs of the Trust if a federal court upholds an allegation that SUI is a security under the federal securities laws, among other reasons. See “Business—Description of the Trust Agreement—Termination of the Trust.”

If the Trust is required to terminate and liquidate, or the Sponsor determines in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement that it is appropriate to terminate and liquidate the Trust, such termination and liquidation could occur at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders, such as when the Actual Exchange Rate of SUI is lower than the Index Price was at the time when shareholders purchased their Shares. In such a case, when the Trust’s SUI are sold as part of its liquidation, the resulting proceeds distributed to shareholders will be less than if the Actual Exchange Rate were higher at the time of sale. See “Business—Description of the Trust Agreement—Termination of the Trust” for more information about the termination of the Trust, including when the termination of the Trust may be triggered by events outside the direct control of the Sponsor, the Trustee or the shareholders.

The Trust Agreement includes provisions that limit shareholders’ voting rights and restrict shareholders’ right to bring a derivative action.

Under the Trust Agreement, shareholders have limited voting rights and the Trust will not have regular shareholder meetings. Shareholders take no part in the management or control of the Trust. Accordingly, shareholders do not have the right to authorize actions, appoint service providers or take other actions as may be taken by shareholders of other trusts or companies where shares carry such rights. The shareholders’ limited voting rights give almost all control under the Trust Agreement to the Sponsor and the Trustee. The Sponsor may take actions in the operation of the Trust that may be adverse to the interests of shareholders and may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, shareholders’ statutory right under Delaware law to bring a derivative action (i.e., to initiate a lawsuit in the name of the Trust in order to assert a claim belonging to the Trust against a fiduciary of the Trust or against a third party when the Trust’s management has refused to do so) is restricted. Under Delaware law, a shareholder may bring a derivative action if the shareholder is a shareholder at the time the action is brought and either (i) was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue or (ii) acquired the status of shareholder by operation of law or the Trust’s governing instrument from a person who was a shareholder at the time of the transaction at issue. Additionally, Section 3816(e) of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act specifically provides that a “beneficial owner’s right to bring a derivative action may be subject to such additional standards and restrictions, if any, as are set forth in the governing instrument of the statutory trust, including, without limitation, the requirement that beneficial owners owning a specified beneficial interest in the statutory trust join in the bringing of the derivative action.” In addition to the requirements of applicable law and in accordance with Section 3816(e), the Trust Agreement provides that no shareholder will have the right, power or authority to bring or maintain a derivative action, suit or other proceeding on behalf of the Trust unless two or more shareholders who (i) are not “Affiliates” (as defined in the Trust Agreement and below) of one another and (ii) collectively hold at least 10.0% of the outstanding Shares join in the bringing or maintaining of such action, suit or other proceeding. This provision applies to any derivative actions brought in the name of the Trust other than claims under the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Due to this additional requirement, a shareholder attempting to bring or maintain a derivative action in the name of the Trust will be required to locate other shareholders with which it is not affiliated and that have sufficient Shares to meet the 10.0% threshold based on the number of Shares outstanding on the date the claim is brought and thereafter throughout the duration of the action, suit or proceeding. This may be difficult and may result in increased costs to a shareholder attempting to seek redress in the name of the Trust in court. Moreover, if shareholders bringing a derivative action, suit or proceeding pursuant to this provision of the Trust Agreement do not hold 10.0% of the outstanding Shares on the date such an action, suit or proceeding is brought, or such shareholders are unable to maintain Share ownership meeting the 10.0% threshold throughout the duration of the action, suit or proceeding, such shareholders’ derivative action may be subject to dismissal. As a result, the Trust Agreement limits the likelihood that a shareholder will be able to successfully assert a derivative action in the name of the Trust, even if such shareholder believes that he or she has a valid derivative action, suit or other proceeding to bring on behalf of the Trust. See “Business—Description of the Trust Agreement—The Sponsor— Fiduciary and Regulatory Duties of the Sponsor” for more detail.

The Sponsor is solely responsible for determining the value of the NAV and NAV per Share and any errors, discontinuance or changes in such valuation calculations may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

The Sponsor will determine the Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share on a daily basis as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. The Sponsor’s determination is made utilizing data from the operations of the Trust and the Index Price, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such day. If the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate SUI price, then the Sponsor will employ an alternative method to determine the Index Price under the cascading set of rules set forth in “Business—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—The Index and the Index Price—Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable.” In the context of applying such rules, the Sponsor may determine in good faith that the alternative method applied does not reflect an accurate SUI price and apply the next alternative method under the cascading set of rules. If the Sponsor determines after employing all of the alternative methods that the Index Price does not reflect an accurate SUI price, the Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Index Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment in these scenarios and such decisions will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion. The Sponsor may calculate the Index Price in a manner that ultimately inaccurately reflects the price of SUI. To the extent that the NAV, NAV per Share or the Index Price are incorrectly calculated, the Sponsor may not be liable for any error and such misreporting of valuation data could adversely affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust. Moreover, the terms of the Trust Agreement do not prohibit the Sponsor from changing the Index Price used to calculate the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust. Any such change in the Index Price could affect the value of the Shares and investors could suffer a substantial loss on their investment in the Trust.

Extraordinary expenses resulting from unanticipated events may become payable by the Trust, adversely affecting the value of the Shares.

In consideration for the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor has contractually assumed all ordinary-course operational and periodic expenses of the Trust. See “Business—Expenses; Sales of SUI.” Extraordinary expenses incurred by the Trust, such as taxes and governmental charges; expenses and costs of any extraordinary services performed by the Sponsor (or any other service provider) on behalf of the Trust to protect the Trust or the interests of shareholders; or extraordinary legal fees and expenses are not assumed by the Sponsor and are borne by the Trust. The Sponsor will cause the Trust to either (i) sell SUI held by the Trust or (ii) deliver SUI in-kind to the Sponsor to pay Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor on an as-needed basis. Accordingly, the Trust may be required to sell or otherwise dispose of SUI at a time when the trading prices for those assets are depressed.

The sale or other disposition of assets of the Trust in order to pay extraordinary expenses could have a negative impact on the value of the Shares for several reasons. These include the following factors:

The Trust’s delivery or sale of SUI to pay expenses or other operations of the Trust could result in shareholders’ incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust.

Assuming that the Trust is treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery of SUI by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or other expenses and each sale of SUI by the Trust to pay Additional Trust Expenses will be a taxable event to beneficial owners of Shares. Thus, the Trust’s payment of expenses could result in beneficial owners of Shares incurring tax liability without an associated distribution from the Trust. Any such tax liability could adversely affect an investment in the Shares. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

The value of the Shares will be adversely affected if the Trust is required to indemnify the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent or the Custodian under the Trust Documents.

Under the Trust Documents, each of the Sponsor, the Trustee, the Transfer Agent and the Custodian has a right to be indemnified by the Trust for certain liabilities or expenses that it incurs without gross negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct on its part. Therefore, the Sponsor, Trustee, Transfer Agent or the Custodian may require that the assets of the Trust be sold in order to cover losses or liability suffered by it. Any sale of that kind would reduce the NAV of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Intellectual property rights claims may adversely affect the Trust and the value of the Shares.

The Sponsor is not aware of any intellectual property rights claims that may prevent the Trust from operating and holding SUI. However, third parties may assert intellectual property rights claims relating to the operation of the Trust and the mechanics instituted for the investment in, holding of and transfer of SUI. Regardless of the merit of an intellectual property or other legal action, any legal expenses to defend or payments to settle such claims would be extraordinary expenses that would be borne by the Trust through the sale or transfer of its SUI. Additionally, a meritorious intellectual property rights claim could prevent the Trust from operating and force the Sponsor to terminate the Trust and liquidate its SUI. As a result, an intellectual property rights claim against the Trust could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Pandemics, epidemics and other natural and man-made disasters could negatively impact the value of the Trust’s holdings and/or significantly disrupt its affairs.

Pandemics, epidemics and other natural and man-made disasters could negatively impact demand for digital assets, including SUI, and disrupt the operations of many businesses, including the businesses of the Trust’s service providers. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic had serious adverse effects on the economies and financial markets of many countries, resulting in increased volatility and uncertainty in economies and financial markets of many countries and in the Digital Asset Markets. Moreover, governmental authorities and regulators throughout the world have in the past responded to major economic disruptions, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a variety of fiscal and monetary policy changes, such as quantitative easing, new monetary programs and lower interest rates. An unexpected or quick reversal of any such policies, or the ineffectiveness of such policies, could increase volatility in economies and financial market generally, and could specifically increase volatility in the Digital Asset Markets, which could adversely affect the value of SUI and the value of the Shares.

In addition, pandemics, epidemics and other natural and man-made disasters could disrupt the operations of many businesses. For example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments imposed travel restrictions and prolonged, closed international borders and enhanced health screenings at ports of entry and elsewhere, which disrupted businesses around the world. While the Sponsor and the Trust were not materially impacted by these events, any disruptions to the Sponsor’s, the Trust’s or the Trust’s service providers’ business operations resulting from business restrictions, quarantines or restrictions on the ability of personnel to perform their jobs as a result of any future pandemic, epidemic or other disaster could have an adverse impact on the Trust’s ability to access critical services and could be disruptive to the affairs of the Trust.

The limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions of Shares could have adverse consequences for the Trust.

Authorized Participants must be registered broker-dealers. Registered broker-dealers are subject to various requirements of the federal securities laws and rules, including financial responsibility rules such as the customer protection rule, the net capital rule and recordkeeping requirements. Although the SEC recently approved orders to permit in-kind creations and redemptions by authorized participants for certain spot digital asset ETP shares, there has yet to be definitive regulatory guidance on the specific details of how registered broker-dealers can comply with SEC rules with regard to transacting in or holding spot SUI. In particular, registered broker-dealers participating in the in-kind creation or redemption of Shares for SUI will need to ensure that they can demonstrate compliance with applicable financial responsibility rules.

While compliance with such requirements would be the broker-dealer’s responsibility, a national securities exchange is required to enforce compliance by its member broker-dealers with applicable federal securities law and rules. Only certain Authorized Participants, at present, have the ability to also, through their affiliates, support in-kind creation and redemption activity pursuant to the terms of their participant agreements with the Trust. As of the date of this prospectus, Jane Street Capital, LLC and Virtu Americas LLC have executed an agreement providing them with the ability to conduct creations and redemptions in-kind for SUI in addition to

conducting creations and redemptions for cash. The Sponsor may engage additional Authorized Participants who are unaffiliated with the Trust in the future, and such Authorized Participants may be able to conduct creations and redemptions in-kind, in cash, or both.

Even with the approval of in-kind creations and redemptions, the Trust’s limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions could result in the exchange-traded product arbitrage mechanism failing to function as efficiently as it otherwise would, leading to the potential for the Shares to trade at premiums or discounts to the NAV per Share, and such premiums or discounts could be substantial. Furthermore, if Cash Orders are unavailable, either due to the Sponsor’s decision to reject or suspend such orders or otherwise, Authorized Participants may be limited in their ability to redeem or create Shares, in which case the arbitrage mechanism may not function as efficiently. This could result in impaired liquidity for the Shares, wider bid/ask spreads in secondary trading of the Shares and greater costs to investors and other market participants. In addition, the Trust’s limited ability to facilitate in-kind creations and redemptions, and resulting relative reliance on cash creations and redemptions, could cause the Sponsor to halt or suspend the creation of redemption of Shares during times of market volatility or turmoil, among other consequences.

Further, there can be no assurance that additional broker-dealers would be willing to serve as Authorized Participants with respect to the in-kind creation and redemption of Shares. Any of these factors could adversely affect the performance of the Trust and the value of the Shares.

Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any forks or airdrops.

The Sui 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 SUI 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 Sui 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 SUI running in parallel, yet lacking interchangeability. In addition to forks, a digital asset may become subject to a similar occurrence known as an “airdrop.” In an airdrop, the promoters of a new digital asset announce to holders of another digital asset that such holders will be entitled to claim a certain amount of the new digital asset, generally for free, based on the fact that they hold such other digital asset. We refer to the right to receive any benefits arising from a fork, airdrop or similar event as an “Incidental Right” and any such virtual currency acquired through an Incidental Right as “IR Virtual Currency.”

With respect to any fork, airdrop or similar event, the Sponsor will cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon the Incidental Rights and any IR Virtual Currency associated with such event. As such, shareholders will not receive the benefits of any forks, and the Trust is not able to participate in any airdrop.

In the event the Sponsor seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by NYSE Arca seeking approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency in-kind to an agent of the shareholders for resale by such agent. However, there can be no assurance as to whether or when the Sponsor would make such a decision, or when NYSE Arca will seek or obtain this approval, if at all.

Even if such regulatory approval is sought and obtained, shareholders may not receive the benefits of any forks, the Trust may not choose, or be able, to participate in an airdrop, and the timing of receiving any benefits from a fork, airdrop or similar event is uncertain. Any inability to recognize the economic benefit of a hard fork or airdrop could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Coinbase Global serves as the SUI custodian and prime execution agent for several competing exchange-traded SUI products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and ultimately the value of the Shares.

The Prime Broker and Custodian are both affiliates of Coinbase Global. As of the date hereof, Coinbase Global is the largest publicly traded digital asset company in the world by market capitalization and is also the largest digital asset custodian in the world by assets under custody. By virtue of its leading market position and capabilities, and the relatively limited number of institutionally-capable providers of digital asset brokerage and custody services, Coinbase Global serves as the SUI custodian and prime execution agent for several competing exchange-traded SUI products. Therefore, Coinbase Global plays a critical role in supporting the U.S. spot SUI exchange-traded product ecosystem, and its size and market share create the risk that Coinbase Global may fail to properly resource its operations to adequately support all such products that use its services, which could harm the Trust, the shareholders and the value of the Shares. If Coinbase Global were to favor the interests of certain products over others, it could result in inadequate attention or comparatively unfavorable commercial terms to less favored products, which could adversely affect the Trust’s operations and ultimately the value of the Shares.

Certain of the Authorized Participants engaged by the Trust may serve in a similar capacity for competing exchange-traded SUI products if approved, which could adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism, the Trust’s operations, the performance of the Trust and ultimately the value of the Shares.

Certain of the Authorized Participants engaged by the Trust may serve in a similar capacity for competing exchange-traded SUI products, if approved. As a result, the Authorized Participants may be unable to adequately support all of the exchange-traded SUI products that use their respective services. This risk may also be exacerbated as a consequence of the price and volatility of SUI, as well as the amount of SUI that is required to create or redeem Shares of the Trust. Moreover, the Authorized Participants may choose to facilitate creations and redemptions for competing products rather than for the Trust, including as a result of, among other things, how effectively the arbitrage mechanism of the Trust functions, the liquidity for the Shares, the bid/ask spreads in secondary trading of the Shares and the costs associated with creating and redeeming Shares of the Trust, in each case relative to competing products. In addition, given the relatively limited number of market participants that could serve as Authorized Participants of the Trust, the Trust may not be able to engage other providers to serve as Authorized Participants. If any or all of the Authorized Participants were to cease to act in their capacity as Authorized Participants of the Trust, or if any of the Authorized Participants were to favor creating and redeeming shares of competing products over those of the Trust, the Trust may receive inadequate attention or be subject to comparatively unfavorable commercial terms, which could adversely affect the arbitrage mechanism, the Trust’s operations, the performance of the Trust and ultimately the value of the Shares. See also “—Risks Related to the Offering—Competition from the emergence or growth of other digital assets could have a negative impact on the price of SUI and adversely affect the value of the Shares.”

Shareholders that are not Authorized Participants may only purchase or sell their Shares in secondary trading markets, and the conditions associated with trading in secondary markets may adversely affect investors’ investment in the Shares.

Only Authorized Participants may purchase or redeem Baskets. All other investors that desire to purchase or sell Shares must do so through NYSE Arca or in other markets, if any, in which the Shares may be traded. Shares may trade at a premium or discount to the NAV per Share.

The Sponsor may implement restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that may not necessarily align with shareholder interests.

There can be no assurance that the Sponsor will implement restatements, amendments or supplements that align with the interests of shareholders. To the extent shareholders do not agree with future amendments to the Trust Agreement, shareholders will not have any ability to consent or object to such amendments, and the shareholders’ sole recourse will be to divest or, through an Authorized Participant, redeem their Shares prior to the effective date of such amendments.

The Sponsor may implement restatements, amendments or supplements to the Trust Agreement that may increase risk to the Trust’s intended tax treatment.

It is possible that, in the future, the Sponsor will implement restatements, amendments, or supplements to the Trust Agreement that could adversely affect the intended tax treatment of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, including on the receipt of an opinion of counsel to the effect that doing so should not cause the Trust to fail to qualify as a grantor trust for those purposes. There can be no assurance that the IRS or any court will agree with any such position, or that the Trust will not cease to qualify as a grantor trust as a result of any such restatement, amendment or supplement.

A single shareholder may acquire control over a majority of the Shares representing ownership in the Trust, which could limit the ability of other shareholders to exercise voting influence or otherwise adversely impact the value of the Shares.

The Sponsor and the Sui Foundation are currently in discussions regarding a potential investment in the Trust, pursuant to which the Sui Foundation would acquire Shares of the Trust in a private offering for an aggregate purchase price of 20,000,000 SUI tokens, which are expected to constitute a majority of the Shares representing ownership in the Trust. See “Business—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—Sui Foundation Potential Investment.”

If such investment is consummated, a single shareholder would have control over the limited voting rights granted to the shareholders and would have the ability to control the outcome of virtually all matters presented to our shareholders for their approval. Such shareholder’s interests may conflict with the interests of the Trust’s other shareholders. As long as a single shareholder continues to own a significant or majority percentage of our Shares, this concentrated ownership or influence could impede the development of an active trading market in our Shares or adversely affect an investment in the Shares. Additionally, sales of substantial amounts of Shares by such shareholder, or the perception that these sales may occur, could cause the price of the Shares to experience significant volatility and/or decline, including at a resulting discount to the Trust’s NAV per Share, which would adversely impact the value of the Shares.

Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares

The SEC has previously taken the view that SUI is a “security,” and a final determination that SUI or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of SUI and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.

Depending on its characteristics, a digital asset may be considered a “security” under the federal securities laws. The test for determining whether a particular digital asset is a “security” is complex and difficult to apply, and the outcome is difficult to predict. Public, though non-binding, statements by senior officials at the SEC have indicated that the SEC did not consider Bitcoin or Ether to be securities, and does not currently consider Bitcoin to be a security. In addition, the SEC, by action through delegated authority approving the exchange rule filings to list shares of trusts holding Ether as commodity-based ETPs, appears to have implicitly taken the view that Ether is not a security. The SEC staff has also provided informal assurances via no-action letter to a handful of promoters that their digital assets are not securities. On the other hand, the SEC under former SEC Chair Gensler’s leadership brought enforcement actions against the issuers and promoters of several other digital assets on the basis that the digital assets in question are securities. More recently, the SEC under former SEC Chair Gensler’s leadership brought enforcement actions against Digital Asset Trading Platforms for allegedly operating unregistered securities exchanges on the basis that certain of the digital assets traded on their platforms are securities.

Whether a digital asset is a security, or offers and sales of a digital asset are securities transactions, under the federal securities laws depends on whether it is included in the lists of instruments making up the definition of “security” in such laws. Digital 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 digital asset is a security or the offer and sale of a digital asset is a securities transaction by reference to whether it meets the tests developed by the federal courts interpreting these terms, known as the Howey and Reves tests, respectively. For many digital assets, whether or not the Howey or Reves tests are met is difficult to resolve definitively, and substantial legal arguments can often be made both in favor of and against a particular digital asset qualifying as a security or a particular offer and sale of a digital asset qualifying as a securities transaction under one or both of the Howey and Reves tests. Adding to the complexity, the SEC staff has indicated that the security status of a particular digital asset can change over time as the relevant facts evolve, though recent arguments advanced in ongoing litigation may suggest that the SEC no longer believes the status of a digital asset can change over time.

As part of determining whether SUI is a security or a transaction in SUI by the Sponsor is a securities transaction, for purposes of the federal securities laws, the Sponsor takes into account a number of factors, including the various definitions of “security” under the federal securities laws and federal court decisions interpreting elements of these definitions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in the Howey and Reves cases and their progeny, as well as reports, orders, press releases, public statements and speeches by the SEC, its commissioners and its staff providing guidance on when a digital asset may be a security or when an offer and sale of a digital asset may be a securities transaction for purposes of the federal securities laws. Finally, the Sponsor discusses the security status of SUI and the Sponsor’s transactions in SUI with external counsel, and has received a memorandum regarding the status of SUI under the federal securities laws from external counsel. Through this process the Sponsor believes that it is applying the proper legal standards in determining that SUI is not a security in light of the uncertainties inherent in the Howey and Reves tests. However, such policies and procedures are risk-based judgments made by the Sponsor and not a legal standard or determination binding on any regulatory body or court. The Sponsor has been contacted by staff from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement with respect to securities law compliance matters involving SUI and has responded to the SEC staff. The Sponsor subsequently received a termination notice from the SEC staff with respect to this inquiry.

In light of the uncertainties and the fact-based nature of the analysis, the Sponsor acknowledges that the SEC, at least under former Chair Gensler’s leadership, has taken the position that SUI is a security and the Sponsor’s conclusion, even if reasonable under the circumstances, would not preclude legal or regulatory action based on the presence of a security.

As is the case with SUI, analyses from counsel typically review the often-complex facts surrounding a particular digital asset’s underlying technology, creation, use case and usage development, distribution and secondary-market trading characteristics as well as contributions of and marketing or promotional efforts by the individuals or organizations who appear to be involved in these activities, among other relevant facts, usually drawing on publicly available information. This information, usually found on the internet, often includes both information that originated with or is attributed to such individuals or organizations, as well as information from third-party sources and databases that may or may not have a connection to such individuals or organizations, and the availability and nature of such information can change over time. The Sponsor and counsel often have no independent means of verifying the accuracy or completeness of such information, and therefore of necessity usually must assume that such information is materially accurate and complete for purposes of the Howey and Reves analyses. After having gathered this information, counsel typically analyzes it in light of the Howey and Reves tests, in order to inform a judgment as to whether or not a federal court would conclude that the digital asset, or transactions in the digital asset, in question is or is not a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, for purposes of the federal securities laws. Often, certain factors appear to support a conclusion that the digital asset in question, or transactions in

the digital asset, is a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, while other factors appear to support the opposite conclusion, and in such a case counsel endeavors to weigh the importance and relevance of the competing factors.

This analytical process is further complicated by the fact that, at present, federal judicial case law applying the relevant tests to digital assets is limited and in some situations inconsistent, with no federal appellate court having considered the question on the merits, as well as the fact that because each digital asset presents its own unique set of relevant facts, it is not always possible to directly analogize the analysis of one digital asset to another. Because of this factual complexity and the current lack of a well-developed body of federal case law applying the relevant tests to a variety of different fact patterns, the Sponsor has not in the past received, and currently does not expect that it would be able to receive, “opinions” of counsel stating that a particular digital asset , or transactions in the digital asset, is or is not a security, or are or are not securities transactions, respectively, for federal securities law purposes. The Sponsor understands that as a matter of practice, counsel is generally able to render a legal “opinion” only when the relevant facts are substantially ascertainable and the applicable law is both well-developed and settled. As a result, given the relative novelty of digital assets, the challenges inherent in fact-gathering for particular digital assets, and the fact that federal courts have only recently been tasked with adjudicating the applicability of federal securities law to digital assets, the Sponsor understands that at present counsel is generally not in a position to render a legal “opinion” on the securities law status of SUI or any other particular digital asset.

If the Sponsor determines that SUI or transactions in SUI are a security or securities transactions, respectively, under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because a federal court upholds an allegation that SUI is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding SUI in a way that would violate the federal securities laws (and therefore would either dissolve the Trust or potentially seek to operate the Trust in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act). Because the legal tests for determining whether a digital asset or transactions in the digital asset, are or are not a security or securities transactions, respectively, often leave room for interpretation, for so long as the Sponsor believes there to be good faith grounds to conclude that the Trust’s SUI is not a security, the Sponsor does not intend to dissolve the Trust on the basis that SUI could at some future point be finally determined to be a security.

Any enforcement action by the SEC or a state securities regulator asserting that SUI or transactions in SUI are a security, or securities transactions, respectively, or a court decision to that effect, would be expected to have an immediate material adverse impact on the trading value of SUI, as well as the Shares. This is because the business models behind most digital assets are incompatible with regulations applying to transactions in securities. If a digital asset or transactions in that digital asset are determined to be a security or securities transactions, respectively, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for the digital asset to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which in addition to materially and adversely affecting the trading value of the digital asset is likely to significantly impact its liquidity and market participants’ ability to convert the digital asset into U.S. dollars. Any assertion that a digital asset or transactions in that digital asset are a security or securities transactions, respectively, by the SEC or another regulatory authority may have similar effects.

For example, in 2020, the SEC filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that they raised more than $1.3 billion through XRP sales that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. In the years prior to the SEC’s action, XRP’s market capitalization at times reached over $140 billion. However, in the weeks following the SEC’s complaint, XRP’s market capitalization fell to less than $10 billion, which was less than half of its market capitalization in the days prior to the complaint.

Subsequently, in July 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that while XRP is not a “security”, certain sales of XRP to certain buyers (but not other types of sales to other buyers) amounted to “investment contracts” under the Howey test. The District Court entered a final judgment in the case on August 7, 2024.

Likewise, in the days following the announcement of SEC enforcement actions against certain digital asset issuers and trading platforms, the prices of various digital assets declined significantly and may continue to decline if or as such cases advance through the federal court system. Furthermore, the decisions in cases involving digital assets have resulted in seemingly inconsistent views of different district court judges, including one that explicitly disagreed with the analysis underlying the decision regarding XRP, which underscore the continuing uncertainty around which digital assets or transactions in digital assets are securities and what the correct analysis is to determine each digital asset’s status. For example, the conflicting district court opinions and analyses demonstrate that factors such as how long a digital asset has been in existence, how widely held it is, how large its market capitalization is, the manner in which it is offered, sold or promoted and whether it has actual use in commercial transactions, ultimately may have limited to no bearing on whether the SEC, a state securities regulator or any particular court will find it to be a security.

In addition, if SUI is determined to be a security by a federal court or transactions in SUI are determined to be securities transactions by a federal court, the Trust could be considered an unregistered “investment company” under the Investment Company Act, which could necessitate the Trust’s liquidation. In this case, the Trust and the Sponsor may be deemed to have participated in an illegal offering of investment company securities and there is no guarantee that the Sponsor will be able to register the Trust under the

Investment Company Act at such time or take such other actions as may be necessary to ensure the Trust’s activities comply with applicable law, which could force the Sponsor to liquidate the Trust.

Moreover, whether or not the Sponsor or the Trust were subject to additional regulatory requirements as a result of any determination that the Trust’s assets include securities or the Trust’s transactions in digital assets constitute securities transactions, the Sponsor may nevertheless decide to terminate the Trust, in order, if possible, to liquidate the Trust’s assets while a liquid market still exists. For example, in response to the SEC’s action against the issuer of the digital asset XRP, certain significant market participants announced they would no longer support XRP and announced measures, including the delisting of XRP from major Digital Asset Trading Platforms, resulting in the Sponsor’s conclusion that it was likely to be increasingly difficult for U.S. investors, including Grayscale XRP Trust (XRP), an affiliate of the Trust, to convert XRP into U.S. dollars. The Sponsor subsequently dissolved Grayscale XRP Trust (XRP) and liquidated its assets. The Sponsor has since established a new investment vehicle that holds XRP, Grayscale XRP Trust. If the SEC or a federal court were to determine that SUI is a security or transactions in SUI are securities transactions, it is likely that the value of the Shares of the Trust would decline significantly. Furthermore, if a federal court upholds an allegation that SUI is a security or transactions in SUI are securities transactions, the Trust itself may be terminated and, if practical, its assets liquidated.

Regulatory changes or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of SUI, validating activity or the operation of the Sui Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares.

As digital assets have grown in both popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, OFAC, SEC, CFTC, FINRA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and state financial institution and securities regulators) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the Digital Asset Markets, with particular focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities, evade sanctions or fund criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness of trading platforms and other service providers that hold or custody digital assets for users. Many of these state and federal agencies have issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. Ongoing and future regulatory actions with respect to digital assets generally or SUI in particular may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate.

On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” aimed at supporting “the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technology, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.” The Executive Order also established an interagency working group that is tasked with “proposing a Federal regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets” in the United States. Pursuant to this Executive Order, the working group released a report in July 2025 outlining the administration's recommendations to Congress and various agencies reflecting the administration’s “pro-innovation mindset toward digital assets and blockchain technologies.” In particular, the report recommends that Congress enact legislation regarding self custody of digital assets, clarifying the applicability of Bank Secrecy Act obligations with respect to digital asset service providers, granting the CFTC authority to regulate spot markets in non-security digital assets, prohibiting the adoption of a CBDC, and clarifying tax laws as relevant to digital assets. In addition, the report recommends that agencies reevaluate existing guidance on digital asset activities, use existing authorities to enable the trading of digital assets at the federal level, embrace DeFi, launch or relaunch crypto innovation efforts, and promote U.S. private sector leadership in the responsible development of cross-border payments and financial markets technologies, among others.

There have also been several bills introduced in Congress that propose to establish additional regulation and oversight of the digital asset markets. For example, the CLARITY Act was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2025, which would, if enacted, regulate digital asset markets and digital asset trading platforms in the United States. In addition, also in July 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (the “GENIUS Act”) became the first federal law specifically regulating the issuance, custody and other stablecoin-related matters in the United States. It is difficult to predict whether, or when, the CLARITY Act or another Bill that would regulate digital asset markets and digital asset trading platforms may become law or what any such Bill may entail.

It is difficult 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 Digital Asset Markets to function or how any new regulations or changes to existing regulations might impact the value of digital assets generally and SUI held by the Trust specifically. The consequences of increased federal regulation of digital assets and digital asset activities could have a material adverse effect on the Trust and the Shares.

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 digital asset networks. If the Sui Network 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 digital assets like Zcash and Monero in criminal activity on the internet. In August 2022, OFAC banned all U.S. citizens from using Tornado Cash, a digital asset protocol designed to obfuscate blockchain transactions, by adding certain Ethereum wallet addresses associated with the protocol to its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. A large portion of Ethereum validators globally, as well as notable industry participants such as Centre, the issuer of the USDC stablecoin, have reportedly complied with the sanctions and blacklisted the sanctioned addresses from interacting with their networks. In October 2023, FinCEN issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that identified convertible virtual currency (CVC) mixing as a class of transactions of primary money laundering concern and proposed requiring covered financial institutions to implement certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements on transactions that covered financial institutions know, suspect, or have reason to suspect involve CVC mixing within or involving jurisdictions outside the United States. In April 2024, the DOJ arrested and charged the developers of the Samourai Wallet mixing service with conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. In May 2024, a co-founder of Tornado Cash was sentenced to more than five years imprisonment in the Netherlands for developing Tornado Cash on the basis that he had helped launder more than $2 billion worth of digital assets through Tornado Cash. In August 2025, a co-founder of Tornado Cash was convicted of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, but a mistrial was declared with respect to charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions. Future additional regulatory action with respect to privacy-enhancing digital assets is possible.

SUI’s initial manner of sale closely resembles that of certain digital assets found to be securities, and a determination that SUI is a “security” may adversely affect the value of SUI and an investment in the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.

Through enforcement actions and other statements, the SEC and its staff have taken the position that a digital asset’s initial manner of sale may be a key factor in determining whether that digital asset was a security, at least at the time of the digital asset’s delivery as part of that sale. This has meant that many blockchain startups that have offered digital assets to the public in the form of initial coin offerings, also known as ICOs, have been found to have engaged in illegal unregistered distributions of securities. One variant of an ICO involves a digital asset being sold through a Simple Agreement for Future Tokens, or a SAFT. Under a SAFT, a purchaser agrees to contribute funds to enable the development of a digital asset network in exchange for an agreement by the developer to deliver digital assets in the future, once the network becomes operational. The legal theory behind the SAFT is that, while the SAFT itself may be an “investment contract” and thus a “security” under the federal securities laws (and is therefore typically offered in reliance on an exemption from registration), the tokens themselves should not be securities at the time of their delivery because at that time the network will be operational and the tokens will have real consumptive uses, rather than representing an investment to fund the initial development work.

The SEC has cast doubt on the legal argument underpinning the SAFT structure, and has litigated in federal court at least two significant enforcement actions involving digital assets sold under SAFTs, arguing in each case that the digital assets sold under the SAFTs, and not just the SAFTs themselves, were securities. In March 2020, the SEC obtained a preliminary injunction barring Telegram Group, Inc. from conducting an unregistered distribution of digital assets known as Grams, on the grounds that Grams were securities under the federal securities laws, notwithstanding the fact that they had been sold under a SAFT. Telegram Group ultimately agreed to return $1.2 billion to investors and to pay a $18.5 million civil penalty. Similarly, in September 2020 the SEC won a motion for summary judgment against Kik Interactive, Inc., persuading the court that Kik Interactive’s sale of digital assets, called Kin, through a SAFT structure should be integrated with Kik Interactive’s separate public sale of Kin (which the court held to be illegal), as the sales were conducted using the same marketing efforts, involved the same asset, and were conducted very close in time to one another. Kik Interactive ultimately agreed to pay a $5 million civil penalty. The SEC in December 2020 filed a complaint against the issuer of XRP, Ripple Labs, Inc., and two of its executives, alleging that Ripple Labs and its executives raised over $1.3 billion through XRP sales that should have been registered under the federal securities laws, but were not. Multiple digital assets the SEC alleged to be securities in the Coinbase, Binance and Kraken Complaints were first sold to the public in similar circumstances or ICOs. Subsequently, in July 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that while XRP is not a security, certain sales of XRP to certain buyers amounted to “investment contracts” under the Howey test. For a discussion of the evolution of the SEC’s complaint against Ripple Labs, see “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares—The SEC has previously taken the view that SUI is a “security,” and a final determination that SUI or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of SUI and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.”

If SUI is determined to be a “security” or transactions in SUI are determined to be securities transactions under federal or state securities laws by the SEC or a state regulatory agency, or in a proceeding in a court of law or otherwise, it will have material adverse consequences for SUI and an investment in the Shares. If SUI or transactions in SUI are determined to be a security or a securities transaction, it is likely to become difficult or impossible for SUI to be traded, cleared or custodied in the United States through the same channels used by non-security digital assets, which could in turn materially and adversely affect the trading value, liquidity, market participants’ ability to convert SUI into U.S. dollars and general acceptance of SUI and cause users to migrate to other digital

assets. As such, any determination that SUI or transactions in that digital asset are a security under federal or state securities laws may adversely affect the value of SUI and, as a result, an investment in the Shares.

Changes in SEC policy could adversely impact the value of the Shares.

The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or the digital assets held by the Trust is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares. If the SEC were to approve any ETF other than ours in the future, such an ETF may be perceived to be a superior investment product offering exposure to digital assets compared to the Trust because the value of the shares issued by such an ETF may more closely track the ETF’s net asset value than do Shares of the Trust, and investors may therefore favor investments in such ETFs over investments in the Trust. Any weakening in demand for the Shares compared to digital asset ETF shares could cause the value of the Shares to decline.

Regulatory changes or other events in foreign jurisdictions may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of one or more digital assets, validating activity or the operation of their networks or the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares.

Various foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect the digital asset network, the Digital Asset Markets, and their users, particularly Digital Asset Trading Platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example, if foreign jurisdictions in addition to China were to ban or otherwise restrict validating activity, including by regulating or limiting manufacturers’ ability to produce or sell semiconductors or hard drives in connection with validating, it would have a material adverse effect on digital asset networks (including the Sui Network), the Digital Asset Market, and as a result, impact the value of the Shares.

A number of foreign jurisdictions have recently taken regulatory action aimed at digital asset activities. China has made transacting in cryptocurrencies illegal for Chinese citizens in mainland China, and additional restrictions may follow. Both China and South Korea have banned initial coin offerings entirely and regulators in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong, have opined that initial coin offerings may constitute securities offerings subject to local securities regulations. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority published final rules in October 2020 banning the sale of derivatives and exchange-traded notes that reference certain types of digital assets, contending that they are “ill-suited” to retail investors citing extreme volatility, valuation challenges and association with financial crime. A new law, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (“FSMA”), received royal assent in June 2023. The FSMA brings digital asset activities within the scope of existing laws governing financial institutions, markets and assets. In addition, the Parliament of the European Union approved the text of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (“MiCA”) in April 2023, establishing a regulatory framework for digital asset services across the European Union. Certain parts of MiCA became effective as of June 2024 and the remainder became effective as of December 2024. MiCA is intended to serve as a comprehensive regulation of digital asset markets and imposes various obligations on digital asset issuers and service providers. The main aims of MiCA are industry regulation, consumer protection, prevention of market abuse and upholding the integrity of digital asset markets. See “Business—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—Government Oversight.”

Foreign laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of one or more digital assets by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the digital asset economy in the European Union, China, Japan, Russia and the United States and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of SUI. Moreover, other events, such as the interruption in telecommunications or internet services, cyber-related terrorist acts, civil disturbances, war or other catastrophes, could also negatively affect the digital asset economy in one or more jurisdictions. For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 led to volatility in digital asset prices, with an initial steep decline followed by a sharp rebound in prices. The effect of any future regulatory change or other events on the Trust or SUI is impossible to predict, and such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.

If regulators subject an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to regulation as a money service business or money transmitter, this could result in extraordinary expenses to the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor and also result in decreased liquidity for the Shares.

To the extent that the activities of any Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor cause it to be deemed a “money services business” under the regulations promulgated by FinCEN, such Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may be required to comply with FinCEN regulations, including those that would mandate the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to implement anti-money laundering programs, make certain reports to FinCEN and maintain certain records. Similarly, the activities of an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor may require it to be licensed as a money transmitter or as a digital asset business, such as under the NYDFS’ BitLicense regulations or California’s Digital Financial Assets Law, once effective.

Such additional regulatory obligations may cause the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor to incur extraordinary expenses. If the Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor decided to seek the required licenses, there is no guarantee that they

will timely receive them. An Authorized Participant may instead decide to terminate its role as Authorized Participant of the Trust, or the Sponsor may decide to discontinue and wind up the Trust. An Authorized Participant’s decision to cease acting as such may decrease the liquidity of the Shares, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares, and termination of the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances may be at a time that is disadvantageous to the shareholders.

Additionally, to the extent an Authorized Participant, the Trust or the Sponsor is found to have operated without appropriate state or federal licenses, or registration, it may be subject to investigation, administrative or court proceedings, and civil or criminal monetary fines and penalties, all of which would harm the reputation of the Trust or the Sponsor, decrease the liquidity, and have a material adverse effect on the price of, the Shares.

Statutory or regulatory changes or interpretations could obligate the Trust or the Sponsor to register and comply with new regulations, resulting in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust.

Current and future legislation, CFTC and SEC rulemaking and other regulatory developments may impact the manner in which SUI is treated. In particular, SUI may be classified by the CFTC as a “commodity interest” under the CEA or may be classified by the SEC as a “security” under U.S. federal securities laws. It is possible that a new Administration and Congress in the United States creates a new classification for digital assets. For example, the current draft of the Clarity Act would add “digital commodities” to the list of assets that are commodity interests under the CEA. The Sponsor and the Trust cannot be certain as to how future regulatory developments will impact the treatment of SUI under the law. In the face of such developments, the required registrations and compliance steps may result in extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to the Trust. If the Sponsor decides to terminate the Trust in response to the changed regulatory circumstances, the Trust may be dissolved or liquidated at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

To the extent that SUI is deemed to fall within the definition of a “commodity interest” under the CEA, due to the passage of the Clarity Act or otherwise, the Trust and the Sponsor may be subject to additional regulation under the CEA and CFTC regulations. The Sponsor may be required to register as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading adviser with the CFTC and become a member of the National Futures Association and may be subject to additional regulatory requirements with respect to the Trust, including disclosure and reporting requirements. These additional requirements may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or nonrecurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s SUI at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

To the extent that SUI is determined to be a security under U.S. federal securities laws, the Trust and the Sponsor may be subject to additional requirements under the Investment Company Act and the Sponsor may be required to register as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act. Such additional registration may result in extraordinary, recurring and/or non-recurring expenses of the Trust, thereby materially and adversely impacting the Shares. If the Sponsor determines not to comply with such additional regulatory and registration requirements, the Sponsor will terminate the Trust. Any such termination could result in the liquidation of the Trust’s SUI at a time that is disadvantageous to shareholders.

The treatment of the Trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes is uncertain.

The Sponsor intends to take the position that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Assuming that the Trust is a grantor trust, the Trust will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax. Rather, if the Trust is a grantor trust, each beneficial owner of Shares will be treated as directly owning its pro rata share of the Trust’s assets and a pro rata portion of the Trust’s income, gains, losses and deductions will “flow through” to each beneficial owner of Shares.

If the Staking Condition is satisfied and the Trust engages in Staking activity, the Sponsor intends to continue to take the position that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes and that any Staking activity undertaken by the Trust in compliance with the opinion, ruling or other guidance relied upon to satisfy the Staking Condition will not prevent the Trust from continuing to qualify as a grantor trust for such purposes. The IRS recently issued a revenue procedure providing a staking safe harbor for certain grantor trust vehicles whose beneficial interests are listed and traded on a national securities exchange (the “2025 Revenue Procedure”). However, certain aspects of the 2025 Revenue Procedure are unclear, and therefore the Trust may not currently satisfy all conditions of the safe harbor. Accordingly, due to the uncertainty regarding the ability of a grantor trust to engage in Staking activities, there can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or any court would agree with this position (or with any opinion of counsel delivered to the Sponsor in support thereof). Accordingly, if the Trust satisfies the Staking Condition and engages in Staking activity, the Trust might cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

The Trust has taken certain positions with respect to the tax consequences of Incidental Rights and its receipt of IR Virtual Currency. If the IRS were to disagree with, and successfully challenge, any of these positions the Trust might not qualify as a grantor trust. In addition, the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices (as defined herein) provide that the Trust will irrevocably

abandon, effective immediately prior to each Creation Time or Redemption Time, all Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time and with respect to which it has not taken any Affirmative Action at or prior to such time. The Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust to irrevocably abandon any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future. There can be no complete assurance that these abandonments will be treated as effective for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If the Trust were treated as owning any asset other than SUI as of any date on which it creates or redeems Shares, it might cease to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

In addition, at this time the Trust is permitted to create or redeem Shares pursuant to In-Kind Orders and Cash Orders. In general, investment vehicles intended to be treated as grantor trusts for U.S. federal income tax purposes historically have created additional trust interests only in kind, and there is no authority directly addressing whether a grantor trust may create or redeem trust interests under procedures similar to those that govern Cash Orders. Accordingly, there can be no complete assurance that the creation or redemption of Shares under the procedures governing Cash Orders will not cause the Trust to fail to qualify as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Moreover, because of the evolving nature of digital assets, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets, including forks, airdrops and other similar occurrences. Assuming that the Trust is currently a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, certain future developments could render it impossible, or impracticable, for the Trust to continue to be treated as a grantor trust for such purposes.

If the Trust is not properly classified as a grantor trust, the Trust might be classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, due to the uncertain treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes (as discussed below in “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets”), there can be no assurance in this regard. If the Trust were classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the tax consequences of owning Shares generally would not be materially different from the tax consequences described herein, although there might be certain differences, including with respect to timing of the recognition of taxable income or loss. In addition, tax information reports provided to beneficial owners of Shares would be made in a different form. Moreover, it is possible, in that case, that a portion of the Trust’s income would be considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States and, accordingly, a non-U.S. person owning Shares could be subject to U.S. federal income tax on a net income basis with respect to that “effectively connected” income and be required to file a U.S. tax return. If the Staking Condition were satisfied and none of the Trust’s Staking income were considered to be “effectively connected” income, a non-U.S. person owning Shares generally would be subject to withholding on its pro rata portion of any U.S.-source income from the Trust’s Staking activities as described below in “—Shareholders may be subject to withholding tax on income derived from forks, airdrops and similar occurrences and, if the Staking Condition is satisfied, Staking Consideration received as staking rewards.” Tax-exempt Shareholders may also recognize “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”) from the Trust’s Staking activities if the Trust is not treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

If the Trust were not classified as either a grantor trust or a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it would be classified as a corporation for such purposes. In that event, the Trust would be subject to entity-level U.S. federal income tax (currently at the rate of 21%) on its net taxable income and certain distributions made by the Trust to shareholders would be treated as taxable dividends to the extent of the Trust’s current and accumulated earnings and profits. Any such dividend distributed to a beneficial owner of Shares that is a non-U.S. person for U.S. federal income tax purposes would be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax at a rate of 30% (or such lower rate as provided in an applicable tax treaty). As a result, the taxation of the Trust as a corporation could materially reduce the after-tax return on an investment in Shares, and substantially reduce the value of the Shares, and result in a material divergence between NAV and the value of the Trust’s SUI.

The treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes is uncertain.

As discussed in the section entitled “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Uncertainty Regarding the U.S. Federal Income Tax Treatment of Digital Assets,” assuming that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each beneficial owner of Shares will be treated for U.S. federal income tax purposes as the owner of an undivided interest in the SUI (and, if applicable, any Incidental Rights, IR Virtual Currency and/or, if the Staking Condition is satisfied, any Staking Consideration) held in the Trust. Due to the new and evolving nature of digital assets and the absence of comprehensive guidance with respect to digital assets, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets are uncertain.

In 2014, the IRS released a notice (the “Notice”) discussing certain aspects of “convertible virtual currency” (that is, digital assets that have an equivalent value in fiat currency or that act as substitutes for fiat currency) for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, in particular, stating that such digital assets (i) are “property” (ii) are not currency” for purposes of the rules relating to foreign currency gain or loss and (iii) may be held as a capital asset. In 2019, the IRS released a revenue ruling and a set of “Frequently Asked Questions” that has been updated from time to time since (the “Ruling & FAQs”). The Ruling & FAQs provide some additional guidance, including guidance to the effect that, under certain circumstances, hard forks of digital assets are taxable events giving rise to ordinary income and guidance with respect to the determination of the tax basis of digital assets. Moreover, in 2023, the IRS

released a revenue ruling that provided guidance on digital asset staking, including guidance to the effect that staking rewards will, under certain circumstances, be treated as giving rise to taxable income (the “2023 Staking Guidance”). Further, the IRS recently issued the 2025 Revenue Procedure, which provides a staking safe harbor for certain grantor trust vehicles whose beneficial interests are listed and traded on a national securities exchange (the “2025 Revenue Procedure”). However, the Notice, the Ruling & FAQs, the 2023 Staking Guidance and the 2025 Revenue Procedure do not address other significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets. For example, for a non-U.S. Holder (as defined below), there currently is no guidance directly addressing whether or in what circumstances engaging in certain activities to generate yield on digital assets, including Staking, could give rise to income that is effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. Similarly, for a U.S. tax-exempt shareholder, there currently is no guidance directly addressing whether or in what circumstances such activities could give to rise to UBTI. Moreover, although the Ruling & FAQs address the treatment of hard forks, there continues to be uncertainty with respect to the timing and amount of the income inclusions.

There can be no assurance that the IRS will not alter its position with respect to digital assets in the future or that a court would uphold the treatment set forth in the Notice, the Ruling & FAQs, the 2023 Staking Guidance and the 2025 Revenue Procedure. It is also unclear what additional guidance on the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued in the future. Any such alteration of the current IRS positions or additional guidance could result in adverse tax consequences for shareholders and could have an adverse effect on the value of SUI. Future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For example, the Notice addresses only digital assets that are “convertible virtual currency,” and it is conceivable that, as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence, the Trust could hold certain types of digital assets that are not within the scope of the Notice in the event the Sponsor seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC.

Shareholders are urged to consult their tax advisers regarding the tax consequences of owning and disposing of Shares and digital assets in general.

Future developments regarding the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

As discussed above, many significant aspects of the U.S. federal income tax treatment of digital assets, such as SUI, are uncertain, and it is unclear what guidance on the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes may be issued in the future. It is possible that any such guidance would have an adverse effect on the prices of digital assets, including on the price of SUI in the Digital Asset Markets, and therefore may have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

Because of the evolving nature of digital assets, it is not possible to predict potential future developments that may arise with respect to digital assets, including forks, airdrops and similar occurrences or staking. Such developments may increase the uncertainty with respect to the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Moreover, certain future developments could render it impossible, or impracticable, for the Trust to continue to be treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Future developments in the treatment of digital assets for tax purposes other than U.S. federal income tax purposes could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The taxing authorities of certain states, including New York, (i) have announced that they will follow the Notice with respect to the treatment of digital assets for state income tax purposes and/or (ii) have issued guidance exempting the purchase and/or sale of digital assets for fiat currency from state sales tax. However, it is unclear what further guidance on the treatment of digital assets for state tax purposes may be issued in the future.

The treatment of digital assets for tax purposes by non-U.S. jurisdictions may differ from the treatment of digital assets for U.S. federal, state or local tax purposes. It is possible, for example, that a non-U.S. jurisdiction would impose sales tax or value-added tax on purchases and sales of digital assets for fiat currency. If a foreign jurisdiction with a significant share of the market of SUI users imposes onerous tax burdens on digital asset users, or imposes sales or value-added tax on purchases and sales of digital assets for fiat currency, such actions could result in decreased demand for SUI in such jurisdiction.

Any future guidance on the treatment of digital assets for state, local or non-U.S. tax purposes could increase the expenses of the Trust and could have an adverse effect on the prices of digital assets, including on the price of SUI in the Digital Asset Markets. As a result, any such future guidance could have an adverse effect on the value of the Shares.

The tax treatment of SUI and transactions involving SUI for state and local tax purposes is not settled.

Because SUI is a new technological innovation, the tax treatment of SUI for state and local tax purposes, including, without limitation state and local income and sales and use taxes, is not settled. It is uncertain what guidance, if any, on the treatment of SUI

for state and local tax purposes may be issued in the future. A state or local government authority’s treatment of SUI may have negative consequences, including the imposition of a greater tax burden on investors in SUI or the imposition of a greater cost on the acquisition and disposition of SUI generally. Any such treatment may have a negative effect on prices of SUI and may adversely affect the value of the Shares.

A U.S. tax-exempt shareholder may recognize “unrelated business taxable income” as a consequence of an investment in Shares.

Under the guidance provided in the Ruling & FAQs, hard forks, airdrops and similar occurrences with respect to digital assets will under certain circumstances be treated as taxable events giving rise to ordinary income. Moreover, as separately provided by the IRS in the 2023 Staking Guidance, staking rewards will, under certain circumstances, be treated as giving rise to taxable income. In the absence of guidance to the contrary, it is possible that any such income recognized by a U.S. tax-exempt shareholder would constitute UBTI. A tax-exempt shareholder should consult its tax adviser regarding whether such shareholder may recognize UBTI as a consequence of an investment in Shares. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

Shareholders may be subject to withholding tax on income derived from forks, airdrops and similar occurrences and, if the Staking Condition is satisfied, Staking Consideration received as staking rewards.

The Ruling & FAQs do not address whether income recognized by a non-U.S. person as a result of a fork, airdrop or similar occurrence or staking could be subject to the 30% withholding tax imposed on U.S.-source “fixed or determinable annual or periodical” income. Non-U.S. Holders (as defined under “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders”) should be aware that, in the absence of guidance, a withholding agent (including a broker through which a Non-U.S. Holder holds Shares) may withhold 30% of any such income recognized by a non-U.S. Holder in respect of its Shares, including by deducting such withheld amounts from proceeds that such non-U.S. Holder would otherwise be entitled to receive in connection with a distribution of Incidental Rights, IR Virtual Currency or, if the Staking Condition is satisfied, Staking Consideration received as staking rewards. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

In addition, the Trust may enter into Staking Arrangements with Staking Providers organized in, or that have operations in, a non-U.S. jurisdiction. Non-U.S. jurisdictions may seek to impose withholding tax on Staking Consideration received by the Trust as staking rewards, which may negatively affect a shareholder’s investment in the Trust.

Risk Factors Related to Staking

The Trust will not be permitted to engage in Staking unless (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition is satisfied in addition to the Trust satisfying any additional requirements that may arise in connection with the satisfaction of the Staking Condition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.

The Trust currently is prohibited from engaging in Staking, and there can be no assurance that the Trust will be permitted to engage in Staking in the future. The Trust Agreement provides that the Trust may engage in Staking, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied. As of the date of this prospectus, the Staking Condition has not been met for the Trust, and there can be no assurance as to whether or when the Staking Condition will be met for the Trust in the future.

The Sponsor may decide in its sole discretion not to pursue satisfaction of the Staking Condition, and there can be no assurance that the Sponsor will cause the Trust to engage in Staking.

Subject to the Staking Condition being satisfied and subject to compliance with certain related requirements, in the future the Trust may stake a portion of its SUI holdings to receive Native Staking Consideration. However, as long as the Staking Condition and any related requirements have not been satisfied, the Trust will not stake any portion of its SUI holdings to receive Native Staking Consideration. The current inability of the Trust to engage in Staking and receive such Native Staking Consideration could place the Shares at a comparative disadvantage relative to an investment in SUI directly or through a vehicle that is not subject to such a prohibition, which could negatively affect the value of the Shares.

Staking introduces a risk of loss of SUI, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

Staking introduces a risk of loss of SUI. None of the Trust’s assets, including potentially staked assets, are subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors or customers of institutions with FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation membership.

The Sui Network may impose penalties (i.e., “slashing”) if a validator commits malicious acts related to the validation of transactions. Currently on the Sui Network, slashing generally operates theoretically possible by social consensus, rather than being automatically applied by the protocol’s code. If two-thirds of validators determine that a validator should be slashed for low operational performance, malicious behavior, or poor community membership, that validator's rewards will be slashed. Slashing on the Sui Network does not slash a validator's staked SUI.

There can be no guarantee that slashing penalties and resulting lost opportunity to receive staking rewards will not occur as a result of the activities of a Staking Provider. Furthermore, a Staking Provider’s liability to the Trust is expected to be limited, and a Staking Provider may lack the assets or insurance in order to support the restitution for of any lost opportunity to receive staking rewards. While the Staking Arrangements may provide for indemnification up to a specified cap, slashing insurance or other reimbursement programs, there can be no guarantee that the Trust would recover any lost opportunity to receive staking rewards, if it is subject to penalties imposed by the Sui Network.

Staked SUI tokens will be inaccessible for a variable period of time, determined by a range of factors, which could result in certain liquidity risk to the Trust.

Under current Sui Network protocols, staked SUI tokens are permitted to be un-staked by the holder of the private keys for the withdrawal address of such SUI tokens. However, as part of the “activating” and “de-activating” or “cooling down” processes of staking. “Activation” is the funding of a validator to be included in the active set, thereby allowing the validator to participate in the Sui Network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. “De-activating” is the request to exit from the active set and no longer participate in the Sui Network’s proof-of-stake consensus protocol. As part of these “activating” and “de-activating” processes of staking on the Sui Network, any staked SUI will be inaccessible for a period of time, denominated in “epochs.” On the Sui Network, epochs are targeted to last approximately 24 hours, though actual epoch durations may vary slightly due to validator coordination and other timing effects inherent in the network’s consensus protocol. De-activation typically completes when the current epoch ends, which may be up to one full epoch after the request is submitted. Once the de-activation period ends, the stake becomes fully inactive and can be withdrawn. As a result, the elapsed time between a de-activation request and withdrawal availability may differ depending on (i) when the request is submitted and (ii) the slight variation in epoch duration.

Subject to the Staking Condition being satisfied and subject to compliance with certain related requirements, the Sponsor has sole discretion over whether the Trust will engage in Staking, and there can be no assurance that the Sponsor will cause the Trust to engage in Staking. If the Sponsor causes the Trust to engage in Staking, the Trust will engage in staking with respect to all of the Trust’s SUI at all times, except (i) as necessary to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and the Sponsor’s Staking Fee, (ii) as necessary to pay any additional Trust expenses, (iii) as necessary to satisfy existing and reasonably foreseen potential redemption requests (assuming the Trust is then permitted to operate an ongoing redemption program) as determined by the Sponsor, (iv) as necessary to reduce the SUI obtained by the Trust as Native Staking Consideration to cash for distribution at regular intervals, (v) as necessary to reduce the SUI obtained by the Trust as Native Staking Consideration to cash in connection with the Trust’s liquidation, (vi) as necessary to take protective actions in respect of vulnerabilities in the source code or cryptography underlying the Sui Network and/or its proof-of-stake protocol, its staking smart contracts or its validator client, (vii) if the Custodian discontinues its arrangements with the Trust and such discontinuance affects the Trust’s SUI, for so long as is reasonably necessary to re-establish those arrangements or to establish similar arrangements with other parties, (viii) if the Custodian discontinues its arrangements with the Staking Provider and such discontinuance affects the Trust’s SUI, for so long as is reasonably necessary to re-establish those arrangements or to establish similar arrangements with other parties, (ix) in the event of a change in applicable law or regulation, (x) as necessary to maintain a Liquidity Sleeve (as defined herein), (xi) as necessary pursuant to a “contingent liquidity arrangement” within the meaning of Section 6.02(12) of IRS Revenue Procedure 2025-31 or (xii) in accordance with any other exception that is expressly contemplated by an opinion, ruling or tax guidance that satisfies the Staking Condition. All SUI received by the Trust in connection with the creation of new Shares, or as Native Staking Consideration, would also be staked upon receipt by the Trust, unless one or more of the exceptions described in clauses (i)-(xii) above applies. If the Trust engages in Staking, the Sponsor will seek to stake as much of the Trust's SUI as is practicable (i.e., up to 100%) at all times, with the remainder of the Trust's SUI remaining unstaked in order to address the various exceptions and other considerations described herein, including the satisfaction of the Staking Condition, and the approximate percentage of the Trust's SUI that is staked each day will be reported the following day at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on etfs.grayscale.com/gsui.

In the future and subject to the satisfaction of the Staking Condition thereto, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, may be able to enter into short-term financing arrangements or implement other mechanisms to manage SUI liquidity constraints. For example, in the future, the Sponsor may arrange for the Trust to enter into redemption orders involving the delivery of SUI to a Liquidity Provider on a delayed basis (i.e., when the appropriate number of the Trust’s SUI are or become freely transferable), after the Liquidity Provider has delivered cash to the Trust to settle the redemption order. Under a delayed delivery order, the Variable Fee payable by an Authorized Participant would be adjusted, based on the estimated length of time to SUI delivery, to compensate the Liquidity Provider for agreeing to accept settlement on a delayed basis. No further adjustment to the Variable Fee would be made, and the Trust would not be required to further compensate the Liquidity Provider (or be entitled to compensation from the Liquidity Provider) if the actual date of SUI delivery differed from the estimated delivery date. It is also possible that, in connection with future redemption orders, the Sponsor may make arrangements for the Trust to obtain liquid SUI from the Custodian or another institutional liquidity provider in exchange for the Trust’s present or future delivery of a similar number of SUI tokens, although the details of any such future arrangement are not presently known. These and other liquidity risk policies and procedures are intended to be consistent with NYSE Arca's generic listing standards as well as recent IRS guidance. However, there can be no assurance that such arrangements will be available as intended or provide sufficient liquidity to satisfy redemption requests.

Assuming that the Trust is then permitted to operate an ongoing redemption program, due to the time involved in “exiting” the staking process, there is a risk that the Trust could become unable to timely meet excessive redemption requests in amounts that are greater than the portion of the Trust’s SUI that remains un-staked, leading to temporary delays in settlement and, in extreme scenarios, the temporary unavailability of the Trust’s redemption program. Moreover, any staked SUI which must be un-staked in order to fulfill a redemption (to the extent such redemption cannot be fulfilled utilizing the portion of the Trust’s SUI that has not been staked, or through another mechanism to manage liquidity in connection with Redemption Orders contemplated by an opinion of a Tax Advisor, a Tax Ruling or Tax Guidance that satisfies the Staking Condition) will be un-staked only after the redemption request is approved by the Trust, the Sponsor executes an un-stake or withdrawal transaction through the Custodian, and such transaction is processed by the Sui Network. The Staking Provider will not be able to transfer unstaked SUI or Staking Consideration to another address on the Sui Network.

Although the Sponsor anticipates, if the Staking Condition has been satisfied with respect to such activities, that the Trust may enter into financing arrangements in order to fulfill redemption requests if the Trust’s unstaked SUI is insufficient to do so, there can be no assurance that such arrangements will be available as intended or provide sufficient liquidity to satisfy redemption requests.

The Trust will be dependent on third parties to effectively execute the Trust’s Staking Arrangements.

As the Sponsor currently anticipates that validation activity in connection with Staking will be carried out by the third-party Staking Providers, the amount of Native Staking Consideration that the Trust’s Staking activity will generate will be dependent on the performance of the Staking Provider, including the adequacy and reliability of the hardware and software utilized by the Staking Provider. If the Custodian or the Staking Provider experience service outages or otherwise are unable to optimally execute validation activity in connection with the Staking of the Trust’s SUI, the Trust’s Staking Consideration may be adversely affected.

The regulatory landscape surrounding Staking is uncertain.

The regulatory landscape surrounding Staking is highly uncertain, and may expose the Sponsor, Custodian, third-party Staking Providers and the Trust and its shareholders to unforeseen regulatory risks or potential enforcement actions. For example, there is a risk that the Staking Arrangements could constitute an “investment contract” under the federal securities laws, such that it is a security, and thus needs to be registered or eligible for an exemption from registration. In May 2025, staff at the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement (the “SEC Staking Statement”) expressing the view that certain staking activities do not involve the offer and sale of securities within the meaning of the federal securities laws, and we believe the Staking Arrangements satisfy the criteria in this guidance. However, the SEC Staking Statement is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the Commission, and has no legal force or effect. There is accordingly a risk that a court could disagree with the views expressed in the SEC Staking Statement. In that case, or if SUI were deemed a security, there would also be a risk that a Staking Provider could be deemed to be acting as a broker-dealer, on the basis that the Staking Provider is receiving a commission for effecting the staking transactions and receipt of Staking Consideration.

The Sponsor is permitted to cause the Trust to engage in Staking only if certain conditions set forth in the Trust Agreement relating to the qualification of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes are satisfied. Due to the lack of authority regarding the ability of a grantor trust to engage in activities such as Staking, there can be no assurance whether or when these conditions will be satisfied or the Trust will be permitted to engage in Staking.

If the Staking Condition is satisfied, beneficial owners of Shares could incur tax liabilities without receiving corresponding distributions from the Trust.

There can be no assurance that the Staking Condition will be satisfied or that the Trust will stake any of its SUI tokens. If the Staking Condition is satisfied and the Trust engages in staking, Shareholders may suffer adverse tax consequences. In particular, the IRS has indicated that the receipt of Staking Consideration gives rise to current, ordinary income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Assuming that the Trust is properly treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, beneficial owners of Shares will be required to take their ratable share of any such income into account in determining their own tax liability, regardless of whether the Trust makes any corresponding distributions. Shareholders should therefore expect that, if the Staking Condition is satisfied, other sources of funds may be needed to satisfy any associated tax liability. Moreover, if the Staking Condition were satisfied and the Trust were to sell SUI to fund cash distributions in respect of that tax liability, a Shareholder generally would be treated as having sold its pro rata share of those SUI for their fair market value at that time (which, in the case of SUI sold by the Trust, generally will be equal to the cash proceeds received by the Trust in respect thereof), and the Shareholder generally would recognize gain or loss on such sale as described in the section entitled “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences.”

Risk Factors Related to Potential Conflicts of Interest

Potential conflicts of interest may arise among the Sponsor or its affiliates and the Trust. The Sponsor and its affiliates have no fiduciary duties to the Trust and its shareholders other than as provided in the Trust Agreement, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of the Trust and its shareholders.

The Sponsor will manage the affairs of the Trust. Conflicts of interest may arise among the Sponsor and its affiliates, on the one hand, and the Trust and its shareholders, on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, the Sponsor may favor its own interests and the interests of its affiliates over the Trust and its shareholders. These potential conflicts include, among others, the following:

By purchasing the Shares, shareholders agree and consent to the provisions set forth in the Trust Agreement. See “Business—Description of the Trust Agreement.”

For a further discussion of the conflicts of interest among the Sponsor, the distributor, the marketer, Authorized Participant, Liquidity Providers, the Trust and others, see “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions.”

DCG is a minority interest holder in Kraken, which operates one of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index Price.

DCG, the sole equity holder and indirect parent company of the Sponsor, holds a minority interest of less than 1.0% in Kraken. The Sponsor values its digital assets by reference to the Index Price. The Index Price is the price in U.S. dollars of a SUI derived from the Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are reflected in the Index developed by CoinDesk Indices, Inc. as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. Kraken is one of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index.

Although DCG does not exercise control over Kraken, it is possible that investors could have concerns that DCG could influence market data provided by this Digital Asset Trading Platform in a way that benefits DCG, for example by artificially inflating the values of SUI in order to increase the Sponsor’s fees. This could make the Trust’s Shares less attractive to investors than the shares of similar vehicles that do not present these concerns, adversely affect investor sentiment about the Trust and negatively affect Share trading prices.

Shareholders cannot be assured of the Sponsor’s continued services, the discontinuance of which may be detrimental to the Trust.

Shareholders cannot be assured that the Sponsor will be willing or able to continue to serve as sponsor to the Trust for any length of time. If the Sponsor discontinues its activities on behalf of the Trust and a substitute sponsor is not appointed, the Trust will terminate and liquidate its SUI.

Appointment of a substitute sponsor will not guarantee the Trust’s continued operation, successful or otherwise. Because a substitute sponsor may have no experience managing a digital asset financial vehicle, a substitute sponsor may not have the experience, knowledge or expertise required to ensure that the Trust will operate successfully or continue to operate at all. Therefore, the appointment of a substitute sponsor may not necessarily be beneficial to the Trust and the Trust may terminate. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions—The Sponsor.”

If the Custodian resigns or is removed by the Sponsor or otherwise, without replacement, it would trigger early termination of the Trust.

A Custodial Entity may terminate the Prime Broker Agreement for Cause (as defined in “Business— Description of the Prime Broker Agreement—Term; Termination and Suspension”) at any time or upon one hundred eighty days’ prior written notice to the Trust, as provided under the Prime Broker Agreement. If the Custodian resigns or is removed by the Sponsor or otherwise, without replacement, the Trust will dissolve in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement.

Shareholders may be adversely affected by the lack of independent advisers representing investors in the Trust.

The Sponsor has consulted with counsel, accountants and other advisers regarding the formation and operation of the Trust. No counsel was appointed to represent investors in connection with the formation of the Trust or the establishment of the terms of the Trust Agreement and the Shares. Moreover, no counsel has been appointed to represent an investor in connection with the offering of the Shares. Accordingly, an investor should consult his, her or its own legal, tax and financial advisers regarding the desirability of the value of the Shares. Lack of such consultation may lead to an undesirable investment decision with respect to investment in the Shares.

The Trust is an “emerging growth company” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make the Shares less attractive to investors.

The Trust is an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and intends to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in its periodic reports and exemptions from the requirement of shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. The Trust intends to take advantage of these reporting exemptions until it is no longer an emerging growth company. The Sponsor and the Trust cannot predict if investors will find the Shares less attractive because the Trust will rely on these exemptions. The Trust will remain an emerging growth company for up to five years after its initial public offering, although it will lose that status sooner if the Trust has more than $1.235 billion of revenues in a fiscal year, has more than $700 million in market value of Shares held by non-affiliates as of any June 30 or issues more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a rolling three-year period. If some investors find the Shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for the Shares and the price of the Shares may be more volatile.

Risk Factors Related to the Offering

There may be less liquidity or wider spreads in the market for the Shares as compared to the shares of other spot SUI exchange-traded products, if and when the listing of such products has been approved.

Although the Shares are expected to be publicly listed and traded on the NYSE Arca, as a new investment vehicle, there can be no guarantee that the trading market for the Shares will develop as robustly as the trading market for the shares of other spot SUI exchange-traded products, if and when the listing of such products has been approved, or that one will develop at all. To the extent that no active trading market develops and/or the assets of the Trust do not reach or maintain a viable size to facilitate robust trading, the liquidity of the Shares may be limited, which could result in wider bid/ask spreads and negatively impact the value of the Shares. In addition, if shareholders need to sell their Shares at a time when no active market for them exists, the price shareholders receive for their Shares, assuming that shareholders are able to sell them, likely will be lower than the price that shareholders would receive if an active market did exist and, accordingly, a shareholder may suffer losses. See “—Risk Factors Related to the Digital Asset Markets—The lack of active trading markets for the Shares may result in losses on investors’ investments at the time of disposition of Shares.”

The liquidity of the Shares may be affected if Authorized Participants cease to perform their obligations under the Participant Agreements or the Liquidity Engager is unable to engage Liquidity Providers.

In the event that one or more Authorized Participants having substantial interests in Shares or otherwise responsible for a significant portion of the Shares’ daily trading volume on NYSE Arca terminates its Participant Agreement, the liquidity of the Shares would likely decrease, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares. In addition, if the Liquidity Engager is unable to engage one or more Liquidity Providers to obtain or receive SUI in connection with Cash Orders, the Trust may have difficulty maintaining the participation of certain Authorized Participants or engaging additional Authorized Participants. Under such circumstances, the liquidity of the Shares would likely decrease, which could adversely affect the value of the Shares.

The Shares may trade at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share as a result of the non-concurrent trading hours between NYSE Arca and the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market.

The Trust’s NAV per Share will fluctuate with changes in the market value of SUI, and the Sponsor expects the trading price of the Shares to fluctuate in accordance with changes in the Trust’s NAV per Share, as well as market supply and demand. However, the Shares may trade on NYSE Arca at a price that is at, above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share for a variety of reasons. For example, NYSE Arca is open for trading in the Shares for a limited period each day, but the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market is a 24-hour marketplace. During periods when NYSE Arca is closed but Digital Asset Trading Platforms are open, significant changes in the price of SUI on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market could result in a difference in performance between the value of SUI as measured by the Index and the most recent NAV per Share or closing trading price. For example, if the price of SUI on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market, and the value of SUI as measured by the Index, move significantly in a negative direction after the close of NYSE Arca, the trading price of the Shares may “gap” down to the full extent of such negative price shift when NYSE Arca reopens. If the price of SUI on the Digital Asset Trading Platform Market drops significantly during hours NYSE Arca is closed, shareholders may not be able to sell their Shares until after the “gap” down has been fully realized, resulting in an inability to rapidly mitigate losses in a negative market. Even during periods when NYSE Arca is open, large Digital Asset Trading Platforms (or a substantial number of smaller Digital Asset Trading Platforms) may be lightly traded or closed for any number of reasons, which could increase trading spreads and widen any premium or discount on the Shares.

Shareholders may suffer a loss on their investment if the Shares trade above or below the Trust’s NAV per Share.

Historically, the Shares have traded at both a premium and discount to the NAV per Share, which at times have been substantial. If the Shares trade on NYSE Arca in the future at a premium, investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants. In contrast, if the Shares trade on NYSE Arca in the future at a discount, investors who purchase Shares directly from Authorized Participants will pay more for their Shares than investors who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca. The premium at which the Shares have traded has fluctuated over time. From November 24, 2025 to December 31, 2025, the maximum premium of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQB over the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 38%, the average premium was 29%, the maximum discount of the closing price of the Shares quoted on OTCQB below the value of the Trust’s NAV per Share was 30%, and the average discount was 11%. The closing price of the Shares, as quoted on OTCQB at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day between November 24, 2025 and December 31, 2025, has been quoted at a discount on 20 days. As of December 31, 2025, the Trust’s Shares were quoted on OTCQB at a discount of 3% to the Trust’s NAV per Share. As a result, shareholders who purchase Shares on NYSE Arca at a premium may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the premium has decreased from the premium at which they purchased the Shares even if the NAV per Share remains the same. Likewise, shareholders that purchase Shares directly from the Trust may suffer a loss on their investment if they sell their Shares at a time when the Shares are trading at a discount on NYSE Arca. Furthermore, shareholders may

suffer a loss on their investment even if the NAV per Share increases because the decrease in any premium or increase in any discount may offset any increase in the NAV per Share.

The inability of Authorized Participants and market makers to hedge their SUI exposure may adversely affect the liquidity of Shares and the value of an investment in the Shares.

Authorized Participants and market makers will generally want to hedge their exposure in connection with Basket purchase and redemption orders. To the extent Authorized Participants and market makers are unable to hedge their exposure due to market conditions (e.g., insufficient SUI liquidity in the market, inability to locate an appropriate hedge counterparty, extreme volatility in the price of SUI, wide spreads between prices quoted on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms, the closing of Digital Asset Trading Platforms due to fraud, failures, security breaches or otherwise etc.), such conditions may make it difficult to purchase or redeem Baskets or cause them to not create or redeem Baskets. In addition, the hedging mechanisms employed by Authorized Participants and market makers to hedge their exposure to SUI may not function as intended, which may make it more difficult for them to enter into such transactions. Such events could negatively impact the market price of the Shares and the spread at which the Shares trade on the open market.

Arbitrage transactions intended to keep the price of the Shares closely linked to the price of SUI may be problematic if the process for the purchase and redemption of Baskets encounters difficulties, which may adversely affect an investment in the Shares.

If the processes of creation and redemption of Shares (which depend on timely transfers of SUI to and by the Custodian) encounter any unanticipated difficulties due to, for example, the price volatility of SUI, the insolvency, business failure or interruption, default, failure to perform, security breach, or other problems affecting the Custodian, the closing of Digital Asset Trading Platforms to fraud, failures, security breaches or otherwise, or network outages or congestion, spikes in transaction fees demanded by validators, or other problems or disruptions affecting the Blockchain, then potential market participants, such as the Authorized Participants and their customers, who would otherwise be willing to purchase or redeem Baskets to take advantage of any arbitrage opportunity arising from discrepancies between the price of the Shares and the price of the underlying SUI may not take the risk that, as a result of those difficulties, they may not be able to realize the profit they expect.

Alternatively, in the case of a network outage or other problems affecting the Sui Network, the processing of transactions on the Sui Network may be disrupted, which in turn may prevent Liquidity Providers from depositing or withdrawing SUI from their custody accounts, which in turn could affect the creation or redemption of Baskets. If this is the case, the liquidity of the Shares may decline and the price of the Shares may fluctuate independently of the price of SUI and may fall or otherwise diverge from NAV. Furthermore, in the event that the market for SUI should become relatively illiquid and thereby materially restrict opportunities for arbitraging by delivering SUI in return for Baskets, the price of the Shares may diverge from the price of SUI.

Use of Proceeds

Proceeds received by the Trust from the issuance and sale of Baskets will consist of SUI deposited with the Trust in connection with creations. Such SUI will only be (i) owned by the Trust, (ii) transferred (or converted to U.S. dollars, if necessary) to pay the Trust’s expenses, (iii) distributed or otherwise disposed of in connection with the redemption of Baskets, (iv) liquidated in the event that the Trust terminates or as otherwise required by law or regulation or (v) used in Staking, only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition relating to the qualification of the Trust as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes is satisfied and subject to compliance with any additional requirements that may arise in connection with satisfaction of the Staking Condition.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial

Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read together with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, our audited financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). The following discussion may contain forward-looking statements based on assumptions we believe to be reasonable. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed below and elsewhere in this prospectus, particularly in “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Statements.”

Trust Overview

The Trust is a passive entity that is managed and administered by the Sponsor and does not have any officers, directors or employees. The Trust holds SUI and, from time to time on a periodic basis, will issue Creation Baskets in exchange for deposits of SUI (or cash to acquire SUI) and redeem Baskets in exchange for SUI (or proceeds from the disposition of SUI) from the Trust. As a passive investment vehicle, the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on SUI per Share) to reflect the value of SUI held by the Trust, including SUI earned as Staking Consideration (to the extent that the Staking Condition has been satisfied
and Staking is implemented), determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in SUI, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to SUI, including any SUI earned as Staking Consideration (to the extent that the Staking Condition has been satisfied and Staking is implemented). To date, the Trust has not met its investment objective and the Shares quoted on OTCQB have not reflected the value of the SUI held by the Trust, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, but instead have traded at both premiums and discounts to such value, which at times has been substantial. The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective. The Trust is not managed like a business corporation or an active investment vehicle.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Investment Transactions and Revenue Recognition

The Trust considers investment transactions to be the receipt of SUI by the Trust in connection with Share creations and the delivery of SUI by the Trust in connection with Share redemptions or for payment of expenses in SUI. The Trust records its investment transactions on a trade date basis and changes in fair value are reflected as net change in unrealized appreciation or depreciation on investments. Realized gains and losses are calculated using the specific identification method. Realized gains and losses are recognized in connection with transactions including settling obligations for the Sponsor’s Fee in SUI.

Principal Market and Fair Value Determination

To determine which market is the Trust’s principal market (or in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market) for purposes of calculating the Trust’s net asset value in accordance with U.S. GAAP (“Principal Market NAV”), the Trust follows Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820-10, which outlines the application of fair value accounting. ASC 820-10 determines fair value to be the price that would be received for SUI in a current sale, which assumes an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. ASC 820-10 requires the Trust to assume that SUI is sold in its principal market to market participants or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market. Market participants are defined as buyers and sellers in the principal or most advantageous market that are independent, knowledgeable, and willing and able to transact.

The Trust only receives SUI in connection with a creation order from an Authorized Participant and does not itself transact on any Digital Asset Markets. Therefore, the Trust looks to market-based volume and level of activity for Digital Asset Markets. An Authorized Participant or a Liquidity Provider may transact in a Brokered Market, a Dealer Market, Principal-to-Principal Markets and Exchange Markets (referred to as “Trading Platform Markets”), each as defined in the FASB ASC Master Glossary (collectively, “Digital Asset Markets”). In determining which of the eligible Digital Asset Markets is the Trust’s principal market, the Trust reviews these criteria in the following order:

The Trust determines its principal market (or in the absence of a principal market the most advantageous market) annually and conducts a quarterly analysis to determine (i) if there have been recent changes to each Digital Asset Market’s trading volume and level of activity in the trailing twelve months, (ii) if any Digital Asset Markets have developed that the Trust has access to, or (iii) if recent changes to each Digital Asset Market’s price stability have occurred that would materially impact the selection of the principal market and necessitate a change in the Trust’s determination of its principal market.

The cost basis of SUI received by the Trust in connection with a creation order is recorded by the Trust at the fair value of SUI at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the creation date for financial reporting purposes. The cost basis recorded by the Trust may differ from proceeds collected by an Authorized Participant from the sale of the corresponding Shares to investors.

Investment Company Considerations

The Trust is an investment company for GAAP purposes and follows accounting and reporting guidance in accordance with the FASB ASC Topic 946, Financial Services – Investment Companies. The Trust uses fair value as its method of accounting for SUI in accordance with its classification as an investment company for accounting purposes. The Trust is not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates and these differences could be material.

Review of Financial Results

Financial Highlights for the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025 and for the Period from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to September 30, 2024

(All amounts in the following table and the subsequent paragraphs, except Share, per Share, SUI and price of SUI amounts, are in thousands)

Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in SUI for the three months ended September 30, 2025 was $1,378, which includes a realized gain of $19 on the transfer of SUI to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in SUI of $1,359. Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in SUI for the period was driven by SUI price appreciation from $2.82 per SUI as of June 30, 2025, to $3.26 per SUI as of September 30, 2025. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was $1,308 for the three months ended September 30, 2025, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized gain

on investment in SUI, less the Sponsor’s Fee of $70. Net assets increased to $10,103 at September 30, 2025, a 15% increase for the three-month period. The increase in net assets resulted from the aforementioned SUI price appreciation, partially offset by the withdrawal of approximately 19,590 SUI to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in SUI for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 was ($2,779), which includes a realized gain of $45 on the transfer of SUI to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in SUI of ($2,824). Net realized and unrealized loss on investment in SUI for the period was driven by SUI price depreciation from $4.17 per SUI as of December 31, 2024, to $3.26 per SUI as of September 30, 2025. Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations was ($2,974) for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized loss on investment in SUI, plus the Sponsor’s Fee of $195. Net assets decreased to $10,103 at September 30, 2025, a 20% decrease for the nine-month period. The decrease in net assets was due to the aforementioned SUI price depreciation and the withdrawal of approximately 57,917 SUI to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee, partially offset by the contribution of approximately 127,090 SUI with a value of $441 to the Trust in connection with Share creations.

Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in SUI for the period from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to September 30, 2024 was $1,256, which includes a realized gain of $1 on the transfer of SUI to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in SUI of $1,255. Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in SUI for the period was driven by SUI price appreciation from $0.69 per SUI as of August 1, 2024 to $1.81 per SUI as of September 30, 2024. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was $1,252 for the period from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust's operations) to September 30, 2024, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized gain on investment in SUI, less the Sponsor’s Fee of $4. Net assets increased to $2,544 at September 30, 2024. The increase in net assets was due to the contribution of approximately 1,409,572 SUI with a value of $1,293 to the Trust in connection with Share creations and the aforementioned SUI price appreciation, partially offset by the withdrawal of approximately 3,845 SUI to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Financial Highlights for the Period from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2024

(All amounts in the following table and the subsequent paragraphs, except Share, per Share, SUI and price of SUI amounts, are in thousands)

Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in SUI for the period from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust's operations) to December 31, 2024 was $4,977, which includes a realized gain of $22 on the transfer of SUI to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and net change in unrealized appreciation on investment in SUI of $4,956. Net realized and unrealized gain on investment in SUI for the period was driven by SUI price appreciation from $0.69 per SUI as of August 1, 2024 to $4.17 per SUI as of December 31, 2024. Net increase in net assets resulting from operations was $4,932 for the period from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust's operations) to December 31, 2024, which consisted of the net realized and unrealized gain on investment in SUI, less the Sponsor’s Fee of $45. Net assets increased to $12,635 at December 31, 2024. The increase in net assets was due to the contribution of approximately 3,045,980 SUI with a value of $7,703 to the Trust in connection with Share creations and the aforementioned SUI price appreciation, partially offset by the withdrawal of approximately 16,103 SUI to pay the foregoing Sponsor’s Fee.

Cash Resources and Liquidity

The Trust only receives and holds cash in order to facilitate creations and redemptions pursuant to Cash Orders, and does not otherwise have or maintain a cash balance at any time. When selling SUI and, subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency in the Digital Asset Market to pay Additional Trust Expenses on behalf of the Trust, the Sponsor endeavors to sell the exact amount of SUI, Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency needed to pay expenses in order to minimize the Trust’s holdings of assets other than SUI. In addition, upon the consummation or deemed failure of a Cash Order to create or redeem Baskets, the Trust will promptly return any excess cash it continues to hold with respect to such Cash Order to the applicable counterparty. As a consequence, the Sponsor expects that the Trust will not record any cash flow from its operations and that its cash balance will be zero at the end of each reporting period. Furthermore, the Trust is not a party to any off-balance sheet arrangements.

Generally, the Trust does not intend to hold cash, except in connection with Cash Orders for creations or redemptions of Baskets. Cash includes non-interest bearing non-restricted cash with one institution. Cash in a bank deposit account, at times, may exceed U.S. federally insured limits. The Trust has not experienced any losses in such accounts and does not believe it is exposed to any significant credit risk on such bank deposits.

In exchange for the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor has agreed to assume most of the expenses incurred by the Trust. As a result, the only ordinary expense of the Trust expected to be incurred is the Sponsor’s Fee and, if applicable, any Additional Trust Expenses. The Trust is not aware of any trends, demands, conditions or events that are reasonably likely to result in material changes to its liquidity needs.

Selected Operating Data

Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2025 and for the Period from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to September 30, 2024

(All SUI balances are rounded to the nearest whole SUI)

For accounting purposes, the Trust reflects creations and the SUI receivable with respect to such creations on the date of receipt of a notification of a creation but does not issue Shares until the requisite amount of SUI is received. For the periods ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, the Trust did not accept redemption requests from shareholders. Subject to receipt of regulatory approval from the SEC and approval by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, the Trust may in the future operate a redemption program.

As of September 30, 2025, the Trust had a net closing balance with a value of $10,009,930, based on the Index Price (non-GAAP methodology). As of September 30, 2025, the Trust had a total market value of $10,102,902, based on the Digital Asset Market price of SUI on the Trust’s principal market (Coinbase).

As of September 30, 2024, the Trust had a net closing balance with a value of $2,544,366, based on the Index Price (non-GAAP methodology). As of September 30, 2024, the Trust had a total market value of $2,544,365, based on the Digital Asset Market price of SUI on the Trust’s principal market (Coinbase)

For the Period from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2024 (unaudited)

(All SUI balances are rounded to the nearest whole SUI)

For accounting purposes, the Trust reflects creations and the SUI receivable with respect to such creations on the date of receipt of a notification of a creation but does not issue Shares until the requisite amount of SUI is received. At this time, the Trust is not accepting redemption requests from shareholders. Subject to receipt of regulatory approval from the SEC and approval by the Sponsor in its sole discretion, the Trust may in the future operate a redemption program.

As of December 31, 2024, the Trust had a net closing balance with a value of $12,725,485, based on the Index Price (non-GAAP methodology). As of December 31, 2024, the Trust had a total market value of $12,634,588, based on the Digital Asset Market price of SUI on the Trust’s principal market (Coinbase).

Historical NAV and SUI Prices

As movements in the price of SUI will directly affect the price of the Shares, investors should understand recent movements in the price of SUI. Investors, however, should also be aware that past movements in the SUI price are not indicators of future movements. Movements may be influenced by various factors, including, but not limited to, government regulation, security breaches experienced by service providers, as well as political and economic uncertainties around the world.

Investing in the Shares does not insulate the investor from certain risks, including price volatility. The following chart illustrates the movement in the Trust’s NAV per Share (non-GAAP) vs the Index Price (non-GAAP) and the Trust’s Principal Market NAV per Share from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to September 30, 2025:

For more information on the determination of the Trust’s NAV, see “Business —Valuation of SUI and Determination of NAV.”

The following table illustrates the movements in the Index Price of SUI, as reported on the Trust’s principal market, from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to September 30, 2025. During such period, the price of SUI has ranged from $0.53 to $5.23, with the straight average being $2.95 through September 30, 2025. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the Constituent Trading Platforms individually or as a group.

The following table illustrates the movements in the Digital Asset Market price of SUI from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to September 30, 2025. During such period, the price of SUI has ranged from $0.53 to $5.24, with the straight average being $2.95 through September 30, 2025.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

The Trust Agreement does not authorize the Trust to borrow for payment of the Trust’s ordinary expenses. The Trust does not engage in transactions in foreign currencies which could expose the Trust or holders of Shares to any foreign currency related market risk. The Trust does not invest in derivative financial instruments and has no foreign operations or long-term debt instruments.

Business

Overview of the Trust and the Shares

Grayscale Sui Trust (SUI) (the “Trust”) is a Delaware Statutory Trust that was formed on April 30, 2024 by the filing of the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act. Prior to the effectiveness of the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part, the name of the Trust was Grayscale Sui Trust (SUI). In connection with the effectiveness of this registration statement and the listing of the Shares on NYSE Arca, the Sponsor intends to rename the Trust as Grayscale Sui Staking ETF by filing a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the DSTA. The Trust’s purpose is to hold “SUI”, which are digital assets that are created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Sui Network, a decentralized network of computers that operates on cryptographic protocols. Unlike other digital assets such as Bitcoin, which are solely created through a progressive process, 10 billion SUI were created in connection with the launch of the Sui Network. Out of the 10 billion initially issued SUI, approximately 3,737 million SUI have entered circulation as of December 31, 2025. As of December 31, 2025, the 24-hour trading volume of SUI was approximately $202.6 million. As of December 31, 2025, the aggregate market value of SUI was $5.2 billion. As of December 31, 2025, SUI was the twenty-third largest digital asset by market capitalization, as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com.

As a passive investment vehicle, the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on SUI per Share) to reflect the value of the SUI held by the Trust, including any SUI earned as Staking Consideration (to the extent that the Staking Condition has been satisfied and Staking is implemented), determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. The Trust does not seek to generate returns beyond tracking the price of SUI and any SUI earned as Staking Consideration (to the extent that the Staking Condition has been satisfied and Staking is implemented). There can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to achieve its investment objective. The Trust will not utilize leverage, derivatives or any similar arrangements in seeking to meet its investment objective.

From and after the date of this prospectus, the Trust intends to issue Shares on an ongoing basis pursuant to this registration statement, intends to rely on an exemption or other relief from the SEC under Regulation M to operate a redemption program, and intends to list the Shares on NYSE Arca under the symbol “GSUI.” The Shares will be distributed by Authorized Participants who will be able to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price (referred to as the “arbitrage mechanism”). In particular, upon listing on NYSE Arca, the Sponsor expects there to be a net creation of Shares if the Shares trade at a premium to NAV per Share and a net redemption of Shares if the Shares trade at a discount to NAV per Share, representing the effective functioning of the arbitrage mechanism.

Thereafter, it is expected that the Shares will be sold by the Authorized Participants to the public at varying prices to be determined by reference to, among other considerations, the price of the SUI represented by each Share and the trading price of the Shares on NYSE Arca at the time of each sale. There will not be an “initial” creation of Baskets upon the Trust’s listing on NYSE Arca given that the Trust already has created Baskets of Shares that will continue to be outstanding as of such date.

Until December 31, 2024, Grayscale Investments, LLC was the sponsor of the Trust. As a result of the Reorganization (as defined herein), on January 1, 2025, Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC (“GSIS”) and Grayscale Operating, LLC (“GSO”), consolidated subsidiaries of Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“DCG”), became Co-Sponsors of the Trust. On January 3, 2025 GSO voluntarily withdrew as a Sponsor of the Trust, and effective May 3, 2025 GSIS is the sole remaining Sponsor. Prior to May 3, 2025, all references herein to the “Sponsor” shall be deemed to include both GSIS and GSO as Sponsors unless the context otherwise requires, and on or after May 3, 2025, all references herein to the “Sponsor” shall refer only to GSIS. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Recent Developments” for more information. CSC Delaware Trust Company is the trustee (the “Trustee”) of the Trust, The Bank of New York Mellon is the transfer agent (in such capacity, the “Transfer Agent”) and the administrator (in such capacity, the “Administrator”) of the Trust, Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company is the co-transfer agent of the Trust (the “Co-Transfer Agent”), Coinbase, Inc. is the prime broker (the “Prime Broker”) of the Trust and Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC is the custodian (the “Custodian”).

The Trust issues Shares only in one or more blocks of 10,000 Shares (a block of 10,000 Shares is called a “Basket”) to certain authorized participants (“Authorized Participants”) from time to time. Baskets are offered in exchange for SUI (or cash to acquire SUI). Through its redemption program, the Trust will redeem Shares from Authorized Participants on an ongoing basis. The U.S. dollar value of a Basket of Shares at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date of a creation or redemption order is equal to the Basket Amount, which is the amount of SUI required to create or redeem a Basket of Shares, multiplied by the “Index Price,” which is the U.S. dollar value of a SUI derived from the Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are reflected in, from the commencement of the Trust’s operations until December 18, 2025, the CoinDesk SUI Reference Rate Price (the “Index”) at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day. The Index Price is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements. As

of December 19, 2025, the CoinDesk Sui Benchmark Rate (formerly known as the CoinDesk SUI CCIXber Reference Rate). See “Business—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—The Index and the Index Price.”

The Basket Amount on any trade date is determined by dividing (x) the amount of SUI owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on such trade date, after deducting the amount of SUI representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the Index Price at such time, and carried to the eighth decimal place), by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one SUI (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 10,000.

The Trust will create Baskets of Shares only upon receipt of SUI and will redeem Shares only by distributing SUI or proceeds from the disposition of SUI. Authorized Participants may submit orders to create or redeem Shares under one of two procedures, which are referred to as “In-Kind Orders” and “Cash Orders” in this prospectus. In connection with In-Kind Orders, Authorized Participants, or their AP Designees, deposit SUI directly with the Trust or receive SUI directly from the Trust. Cash Orders are made through the participation of a Liquidity Provider (as defined herein) and facilitated by the Transfer Agent, as described in “Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares.” Authorized Participants must pay a Variable Fee (as defined herein) in connection with certain Cash Orders.

The Shares are neither interests in nor obligations of the Sponsor or the Trustee. As provided under the Trust Agreement, the Trust’s assets will not be loaned or pledged, or serve as collateral for any loan, margin, rehypothecation, or other similar activity to which the Sponsor, the Trust or any of their respective affiliates are a party.

The Sponsor maintains an Internet website at etfs.grayscale.com/gsui. Additional information regarding the Trust may also be found on the SEC’s EDGAR database at www.sec.gov.

The contents of the websites referred to above and any websites referred to herein are not incorporated into this filing or any other report or documents we file with or furnish to the SEC. Further, our references to the URLs for these websites are intended to be inactive textual references only.

Investment Objective

The Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on SUI per Share) to reflect the value of the SUI held by the Trust, including SUI earned as Staking Consideration (to the extent that the Staking Condition is satisfied and Staking is implemented), determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities. There can be no assurance that the Trust will be able to achieve its investment objective. Although we expect the arbitrage mechanism to keep the value of the Shares closely linked to the Index Price, the Shares may trade at a premium or discount to the value of the SUI held by the Trust, determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, and any such premium or discount may be significant.

While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in SUI, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to SUI. A substantial direct investment in SUI may require expensive and sometimes complicated arrangements in connection with the acquisition, security and safekeeping of the SUI and may involve the payment of substantial fees to acquire such SUI from third-party facilitators through cash payments of U.S. dollars. Because the value of the Shares is designed to be correlated with the value of the SUI held by the Trust, it is important to understand the investment attributes of, and the market for, SUI. To date, the Trust has not met its investment objective and the Shares quoted on OTCQB have not reflected the value of the SUI held by the Trust, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, but instead have traded at both premiums and discounts to such value, which at times has been substantial.

The Trust’s SUI are carried, for financial statement purposes, at fair value as required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The Trust determines the fair value of SUI based on the price provided by the Digital Asset Market (defined below) that the Trust considers its principal market as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The net asset value of the Trust determined on a GAAP basis is referred to in this prospectus as “NAV.” “Digital Asset Market” means a “Brokered Market,” “Dealer Market,” “Principal-to-Principal Market” or “Exchange Market,” as each such term is defined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Master Glossary. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Principal Market and Fair Value Determination” in this prospectus for more information on the Trust’s principal market selection.

The Trust uses the Index Price to calculate its “NAV,” which is the aggregate value, expressed in U.S. dollars, of the Trust’s assets (other than U.S. dollars or other fiat currency), less the U.S. dollar value of the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities calculated in the manner set forth under “—Valuation of SUI and Determination of NAV.” “NAV per Share” is calculated by dividing NAV by the number of Shares then outstanding.

NAV and NAV per Share are not measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. NAV is not intended to be a substitute for the Trust’s Principal Market NAV calculated in accordance with GAAP, and NAV per Share is not intended to be a substitute for the Trust’s Principal Market NAV per Share calculated in accordance with GAAP.

Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust is required to dissolve under certain circumstances. In addition, the Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, dissolve the Trust for a number of reasons, including if the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that it is desirable or advisable for any reason to discontinue the affairs of the Trust. For example, if the Sponsor determines that SUI is a security under the federal securities laws, whether that determination is initially made by the Sponsor itself, or because a federal court upholds an allegation that SUI is a security, the Sponsor does not intend to permit the Trust to continue holding SUI in a way that would violate the federal securities laws (and therefore would either dissolve the Trust or potentially seek to operate the Trust in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”)). See “—Description of the Trust Agreement—Termination of the Trust” for additional discussion of the circumstances under which the Trust could be dissolved. See “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Trust and the Shares—The SEC has previously taken the view that SUI is a “security,” and a final determination that SUI or any other digital asset is a “security” may adversely affect the value of SUI and the value of the Shares, and result in potentially extraordinary, nonrecurring expenses to, or termination of, the Trust.”

Characteristics of the Shares

The Shares are intended to offer investors an opportunity to gain exposure to digital assets through an investment in securities. The logistics of accepting, transferring and safekeeping of SUI are dealt with by the Sponsor and Custodian, and the related expenses are built into the value of the Shares. Therefore, shareholders do not have additional tasks or costs over and above those generally associated with investing in any other security.

The Shares have certain other key characteristics, including the following:

The Trust differentiates itself from many competing digital asset financial vehicles in the following ways:

Activities of the Trust

The activities of the Trust are limited to (i) issuing Baskets in exchange for SUI (or cash to acquire SUI) transferred to the Trust as consideration in connection with the creations, (ii) transferring or selling SUI as necessary to cover the Sponsor’s Fee, the Sponsor’s Staking Fee and/or any Additional Trust Expenses, (iii) transferring or disposing of SUI to retire Baskets surrendered for redemption, (iv) causing the Sponsor to sell SUI on the termination of the Trust, (v) making distributions of Incidental Rights and/or IR Virtual Currency or cash from the sale thereof (subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC), as described in “—Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency” below, (vi) engaging in all administrative and security procedures necessary to accomplish such activities in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement, the Prime Broker Agreement, the Index License Agreement, the Participant Agreements and the Liquidity Provider Agreements and (vii) engage in any form of Staking, but only if (and, then, only to the extent that) the Staking Condition has been satisfied with respect thereto.

The Trust may engage in any lawful activity necessary or desirable in order to facilitate shareholders’ access to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency (subject to NYSE Arca obtaining regulatory approval from the SEC), provided that such activities do not conflict with the terms of the Trust Agreement. The Trust will not be actively managed. It will not engage in any activities designed to obtain a profit from, or to ameliorate losses caused by changes in the market prices of SUI.

Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency

The Sponsor has notified the Prime Broker, the Custodian and Coinbase Credit, on behalf of the Trust (such notices, together, the “Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices”) that the Trust will abandon, irrevocably and for no direct or indirect consideration, effective immediately prior to each time at which the Trust creates or redeems Shares (each such time, a “Creation Time” or “Redemption Time”, respectively), all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which it would otherwise be entitled as of such time. An abandonment made pursuant to the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices is referred to herein as a “Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment.” Pursuant to the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices, a Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment would not apply to any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency if (i) the Trust has taken, or is taking at such time, an “Affirmative Action” to acquire or abandon such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency at any time prior to the relevant Creation Time or Redemption Time or (ii) such Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency has been subject to a previous Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment. An “Affirmative Action” refers to a written notification from the Sponsor to the Prime Broker, the Custodian or Coinbase Credit of the Trust’s intention (i) to acquire and/or retain an Incidental Right and/or IR Virtual Currency or (ii) to abandon, with effect prior to the relevant Creation Time or Redemption Time, an Incidental Right and/or IR Virtual Currency.

As a result of the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices, the Trust has abandoned, prior to each relevant Creation Time or Redemption Time, any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency that it may have had any right to receive at such time. The Trust has no right to receive any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency abandoned pursuant to either the Pre-Creation/Redemption Abandonment Notices or Affirmative Actions. Furthermore, the Prime Broker, the Custodian and Coinbase Credit have no authority, pursuant to the Prime Broker Agreement or otherwise, to exercise, obtain or hold, as the case may be, any such abandoned Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency on behalf of the Trust or to transfer any such abandoned Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency to the Trust if the Trust terminates its custodial arrangement with the Prime Broker, the Custodian and Coinbase Credit. In addition, the Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust not to take any Affirmative Action to acquire any Incidental Right or IR Virtual Currency

and, therefore, irrevocably abandon any Incidental Right and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future.

Because the Sponsor has committed to causing the Trust to irrevocably abandon all Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust otherwise would become entitled in the future, and causing the Trust not to take any Affirmative Actions, the Trust will not receive any direct or indirect consideration for the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency and thus the value of the Shares will not reflect the value of the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency. In addition, in the event the Sponsor seeks to change the Trust’s policy with respect to Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, an application would need to be filed with the SEC by NYSE Arca seeking approval to amend its listing rules to permit the Trust to distribute the Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency in kind to an agent of the shareholders for resale by such agent. However, there can be no assurance as to whether or when the Sponsor would make such a decision, or when NYSE Arca will seek or obtain this approval, if at all. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Trust and the Shares—Shareholders will not receive the benefits of any forks or airdrops.”

The Sponsor has controls in place to monitor for material hard forks or airdrops. The Sponsor will notify investors of any material change to its policy with respect to Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency by filing a current report on Form 8-K.

Secondary Market Trading

While the Trust’s investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on SUI per Share) to reflect the value of SUI held by the Trust, including SUI earned as Staking Consideration (to the extent that the Staking Condition is satisfied and Staking is implemented), determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, the Shares may trade in the Secondary Market on NYSE Arca (or on another Secondary Market in the future) at prices that are lower or higher than the NAV per Share. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the NAV per Share may be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours and liquidity between NYSE Arca and larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms. While the Shares are expected to be listed on NYSE Arca and trade during NYSE Arca’s Core Trading Session from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., New York time, liquidity in the Digital Asset Markets may fluctuate depending upon the volume and availability of larger Digital Asset Trading Platforms. As a result, during periods in which Digital Asset Market liquidity is limited or a major Digital Asset Trading Platform is off-line, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on the Shares may widen.

Overview of the Sui Industry and Market

SUI is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Sui Network, a decentralized network of computers that operates on cryptographic protocols. No single entity owns or operates the Sui Network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. The Sui Network allows people to exchange tokens of value, called SUI, which are recorded on a public transaction ledger known as a blockchain. SUI can be used to pay for goods and services, including computational power on the Sui Network, or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on Digital Asset Trading Platforms or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system. Furthermore, the Sui Network was designed to allow users to write and implement smart contracts—that is, general-purpose code that executes redundantly across the network and can instruct the transmission of information and value based on a sophisticated set of logical conditions. Using smart contracts, users can create markets, store registries of debts or promises, represent the ownership of property, move funds in accordance with conditional instructions and create digital assets other than SUI on the Sui Network. Smart contract operations are executed on the Sui Network in exchange for payment of SUI. The Sui Network is one of a number of projects intended to expand blockchain use beyond just a peer-to-peer money system.

The Sui Network employs a proof-of-stake model to incentivize SUI holders to validate transactions. Unlike proof-of-work, in which miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, in delegated proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to participate in transaction validation and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of coins staked. Any malicious activity, such as disagreeing with the eventual consensus or otherwise violating protocol rules, results in the forfeiture or “slashing” of a potential rewards that court have been earned from such staking. Proof-of-stake is viewed as more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work and is sometimes referred to as “virtual mining”.

To achieve consensus among validators, the network historically used a dual-layer design consisting of “Narwhal,” a data-availability layer, and “Bullshark,” a consensus protocol. However, in July 2024, the Sui Network introduced the “Mysticeti” consensus mechanism to replace Bullshark, improving transaction latency and throughput while continuing to use Narwhal for data dissemination. This configuration enables the Sui Network to verify and execute many transactions in parallel, rather than sequentially like in prominent blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Sui was initially conceived in 2021 by Evan Cheng, Adeniyi Abiodun, Sam Blackshear, George Danezis, and Kostas Chalkias to continue research initially performed while the group was employed by Meta Platforms, Inc., in which they collaborated on a digital

asset project called Diem (formerly known as Libra). Mysten Labs Inc. (“Mysten”), a for-profit software company which contributes to the development of the Sui Network, formed as an outgrowth of the Diem project. The Sui Foundation is an independent nonprofit entity that supports research and development of open-source technology related to Sui.

Although Mysten and the Sui Foundation continue to exert significant influence over the direction of the development of SUI, the Sui Network is decentralized and does not require governmental authorities or financial institution intermediaries to create, transmit or determine the value of SUI.

Sui Foundation Potential Investment

The Sponsor and the Sui Foundation are currently in discussions regarding a potential investment in the Trust, pursuant to which the Sui Foundation would acquire Shares of the Trust in a private offering for an aggregate purchase price of approximately 20,000,000 SUI tokens.

The Shares acquired by the Sui Foundation would constitute restricted securities, and their resale would be subject to limitations under federal securities laws. In addition, the Sui Foundation is expected to agree that, for a period of one year following the Sui Foundation Contribution (the “Lock-up Period”), it shall not, without the prior written consent of the Sponsor, sell, transfer, assign, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise dispose of any of the Shares it holds, nor would the Sui Foundation seek to have the Trust or the Sponsor redeem its Shares during the Lock-up Period. Furthermore, the Sui Foundation is not an authorized participant and, accordingly, would not be eligible to present a redemption basket to the Trust for redemption.

There can be no assurance that the Sponsor and the Sui Foundation will reach a definitive agreement for the potential investment on the terms described herein, or at all, or that the potential investment will be consummated on any anticipated timeline.

Smart Contracts and Development on the Sui Network

Smart contracts are programs that run on a blockchain that can execute automatically when certain conditions are met. Smart contracts facilitate the exchange of anything representative of value, such as money, information, property, or voting rights. Using smart contracts, users can send or receive digital assets, create markets, store registries of debts or promises, represent ownership of property or a company, move funds in accordance with conditional instructions and create new digital assets. Smart contracts on the Sui Network are written in the programming language “Sui Move,” unlike smart contracts on the Ethereum Network that are written in Solidity.

Development on the Sui Network involves building more complex tools on top of smart contracts, such as decentralized apps (“DApps”); organizations that are autonomous, known as decentralized autonomous organizations (“DAOs”); and entirely new decentralized networks. For example, a company that distributes charitable donations on behalf of users could hold donated funds in smart contracts that are paid to charities only if the charity satisfies certain pre-defined conditions.

In total, as of December 31, 2025, more than 100 DApps are currently built on the Sui Network, including DApps in the collectible non-fungible token, gaming, music streaming, and decentralized finance categories.

Additionally, the Sui Network has been used for decentralized finance (“DeFi”), or open finance platforms, which seek to democratize access to financial services, such as borrowing, lending, custody, trading, derivatives and insurance, by removing third-party intermediaries. DeFi can allow users to lend and earn interest on their digital assets, exchange one digital asset for another and create derivative digital assets such as stablecoins, which are digital assets pegged to a reserve asset such as fiat currency. As of December 31, 2025, approximately $914.9 million was being used as collateral on DeFi platforms using the Sui Network.

In addition, the Sui Network and other smart contract platforms have been used for creating non-fungible tokens, or NFTs. Unlike digital assets native to smart contract platforms which are fungible and enable the payment of fees for smart contract execution, NFTs allow for digital ownership of assets that convey certain rights to other digital or real world assets. This new paradigm allows users to own rights to other assets through NFTs, which enable users to trade them with others on the Sui Network. For example, an NFT may convey rights to a digital asset that exists in an online game or a DApp, and users can trade their NFT in the DApp or game, and carry them to other digital experiences, creating an entirely new free-market internet-native economy that can be monetized in the physical world.

Overview of the Sui Network’s Operations

In order to own, transfer or use SUI directly on the Sui Network (as opposed to through an intermediary, such as a custodian), a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Sui Network. SUI transactions may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary. To prevent the possibility of double-spending SUI, a user must notify the Sui Network of the transaction by broadcasting the transaction data to its network peers. The Sui Network provides confirmation against

double-spending by memorializing every transaction on its ledger, which is publicly accessible and transparent. This memorialization and verification against double-spending is accomplished through the Sui Network validation process, which adds data, including recent transaction information, to the Sui Network.

Summary of a SUI Transaction

Prior to engaging in SUI transactions directly on the Sui Network, a user generally must first install on its computer or mobile device a Sui Network software program that will allow the user to generate a private and public key pair associated with an address on the Sui Network. The Sui Network software program and the SUI address also enable the user to connect to the Sui Network and transfer SUI to, and receive SUI from, other users.

Each Sui Network address, or wallet, is associated with a unique “public key” and “private key” pair. To receive SUI, the SUI recipient must provide its public key to the party initiating the transfer. This activity is analogous to a recipient for a transaction in U.S. dollars providing a routing address in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient’s account. The payor approves the transfer to the address provided by the recipient by “signing” a transaction that consists of the recipient’s public key with the private key of the address from where the payor is transferring the SUI. The recipient, however, does not make public or provide to the sender its related private key.

Neither the recipient nor the sender reveal their private keys in a transaction, because the private key authorizes transfer of the funds in that address to other users. Therefore, if a user loses his or her private key, the user may permanently lose access to the SUI contained in the associated address. Likewise, SUI is irretrievably lost if the private key associated with them is deleted and no backup has been made. When sending SUI, a user’s Sui Network software program must validate the transaction with the associated private key. In addition, since every computation on the Sui Network requires processing power, there is a transaction fee involved with the transfer that is paid by the payor. The resulting digitally validated transaction is sent by the user’s Sui Network software program to the Sui Network validators to allow transaction confirmation.

Sui Network validators record and confirm transactions when they validate and add information to the Sui Blockchain. When a validator validates transactions, it contributes to the formation of certified data structures—sometimes referred to as blocks—which include data relating to (i) the verification of newly submitted and accepted transactions and (ii) references necessary to maintain the continuity of prior transaction records. Validators become aware of outstanding, unrecorded transactions through the data packet transmission and distribution mechanisms discussed above.

Some SUI transactions are conducted “off-blockchain” and are therefore not recorded in the Sui Blockchain. These “off-blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of control over, or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding SUI or the reallocation of ownership of certain SUI in a pooled-ownership digital wallet, such as a digital wallet owned by a Digital Asset Trading Platform. In contrast to on-blockchain transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Sui Blockchain, information and data regarding off-blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available. Therefore, off-blockchain transactions are not truly Sui transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Sui Network and do not reflect a movement of SUI between addresses recorded in the Sui Blockchain. For these reasons, off-blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of SUI ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Sui Network or recorded in, and validated through, the blockchain mechanism.

Creation of SUI

Initial Creation of SUI

Unlike other digital assets such as Bitcoin, which are solely created through a progressive mining process, 10 billion SUI were created in connection with the launch of the Sui Network. Following the launch of the Sui Network, no further SUI shall be created without modifying the Sui protocol.

The initial 10 billion SUI were distributed as follows:

Modifications to the SUI Protocol

Historically the Sui Network’s development has been overseen by the Sui Foundation, Mysten, and other core developers. The Sui Foundation, Mysten, and core developers are able to access and alter the Sui Network source code and, as a result, they are responsible for quasi-official releases of updates and other changes to the Sui Network’s source code.

For example, in July 2024, the Sui Network released version 52 of the Sui protocol, which implemented the Mysticeti consensus mechanism. The Sui Foundation and Mysten led the development of this implementation.

The release of updates to the Sui Network’s source code does not guarantee that the updates will be automatically adopted. Users and nodes must accept any changes made to the Sui source code by downloading the proposed modification of the Sui Network’s source code. If a modification is accepted only by a percentage of users and validators, a division in the Sui Network may occur such that one network will run the pre-modification source code and the other network will run the modified source code. Such a division is known as a “fork.” See “Risk Factors— Risk Factors Related to Digital Assets— A temporary or permanent “fork” could adversely affect the value of the Shares”. Consequently, as a practical matter, a modification to the source code becomes part of the Sui Network only if accepted by validators collectively having at least 83.4% of SUI staked on the Sui Network.

Core development of the Sui Network’s source code has increasingly focused on modifications of the Sui Network’s protocol to increase speed and scalability and also allow for financial and non-financial next generation uses. The Trust’s activities will not directly relate to such projects, though such projects may utilize SUI as tokens for the facilitation of their non-financial uses, thereby potentially increasing demand for SUI and the utility of the Sui Network as a whole. Conversely, projects that operate and are built within the Sui Network may increase the data flow on the Sui Network and could either “bloat” the size of the Sui Network or slow confirmation times.

SUI Value

Digital Asset Trading Platform Valuation

The value of SUI is determined by the value that various market participants place on SUI through their transactions. The most common means of determining the value of a SUI is by surveying one or more Digital Asset Trading Platforms where SUI is traded publicly and transparently (e.g., Coinbase, Kraken and Crypto.com). Additionally, there are over-the-counter dealers or market makers that transact in SUI.

Digital Asset Trading Platform Public Market Data

On each online Digital Asset Trading Platform, SUI is traded with publicly disclosed valuations for each executed trade, measured by one or more fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar or euro, the U.S. dollar or euro, or stablecoins such as U.S. Dollar Coin (“USDC”). Over-the-counter dealers or market makers do not typically disclose their trade data.

As of December 31, 2025, the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index were Bitfinex, Bitstamp by Robinhood, Bullish, Bybit, Crypto.com, Kraken and OKX. As further described below, the Sponsor and the Trust reasonably believe each of these Digital Asset Trading Platforms are in material compliance with applicable U.S. federal and state licensing requirements and maintain practices and policies designed to comply with AML and KYC regulations.

Bitfinex: A British Virgin Islands based trading platform. Bitfinex does not hold any licenses or registrations in the U.S. and is not available to U.S.-based customers. Bitfinex is categorized by the Index Provider as a “Category 2” trading platform that meets the Inclusion Criteria but is non-U.S. licensed.

Bitstamp by Robinhood: A U.K.-based trading platform that has U.S. operations and entities registered as MSB’s with FinCEN, holds a BitLicense, and that is licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states.

Bullish: A Gibraltar-based trading platform that has entities registered as MSBs with FinCEN and as a virtual currency business under NYDFS BitLicense.

Bybit: A United Arab Emirates-based trading platform. Bybit does not hold any licenses or registrations in the U.S. and is not available to U.S. based customers. Bybit is categorized by the Index Provider as a “Category 2” trading platform that meets the Inclusion Criteria but is non-U.S. licensed.

Crypto.com: A Singapore-based trading platform that has entities registered as MSBs with FinCEN, and that is licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states and chartered as a non-depository trust company by the New Hampshire Banking Department. Crypto.com does not hold a BitLicense.

Kraken: A U.S.-based trading platform that has entities registered as MSBs with FinCEN, and that is licensed as a money transmitter in various U.S. states and chartered as a Special Purpose Depository Institution by the Wyoming Division of Banking. Kraken does not hold a BitLicense.

OKX: A Seychelles-based trading platform. OKX does not hold any licenses or registrations in the U.S. and is not available to U.S.-based customers. OKX is categorized by the Index Provider as a “Category 2” trading platform that meets the Inclusion Criteria but is non-U.S. licensed.

Currently, there are several Digital Asset Trading Platforms operating worldwide, and online Digital Asset Trading Platforms represent a substantial percentage of SUI buying and selling activity and provide the most data with respect to prevailing valuations of SUI. These trading platforms include established trading platforms such as the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index, which provide a number of options for buying and selling SUI. The below table reflects the trading volume in SUI and market share of the SUI-U.S. dollar and SUI-USDC trading pairs of each of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2025 (collectively, “Constituent Trading Platforms”), using data since January 1, 2024:

The domicile, regulation and legal compliance of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index varies. Information regarding each Digital Asset Trading Platform may be found, where available, on the websites for such Digital Asset Trading Platforms, among other places.

Although the Index is designed to accurately capture the market price of SUI, third parties may be able to purchase and sell SUI on public or private markets not included among the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms of the Index, and such transactions may take place at prices materially higher or lower than the Index Price. Moreover, there may be variances in the prices of SUI on the various Digital Asset Trading Platforms, including as a result of differences in fee structures or administrative procedures on different Digital Asset Trading Platforms. For example, based on data provided by the Index Provider, on any given day during the twelve months ended December 31, 2025, the maximum differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of any single Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index and the Index Price was 2.49% and the average of the maximum differentials of the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot price of each Digital Asset Trading Platform included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.98%. During this same period, the average differential between the 4:00 p.m., New York time, spot prices of all the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index and the Index Price was 0.01%.

To the extent such prices differ materially from the Index Price, investors may lose confidence in the Shares’ ability to track the market price of SUI.

The Index and the Index Price

The Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of SUI. The Index is designed to (1) mitigate the effects of fraud, manipulation and other anomalous trading activity from impacting the SUI reference rate, (2) provide a real-time, volume-weighted fair value of SUI and (3) appropriately handle and adjust for non-market related events.

The Index Price is determined by the Index Provider through a process in which trade data is cleansed and compiled in such a manner as to algorithmically reduce the impact of anomalistic or manipulative trading. This is accomplished by adjusting the weight of each data input based on price deviation relative to the observable set, as well as recent and long-term trading volume at each venue relative to the observable set. The Index Price is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements.

All references to the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust in this prospectus prior to the Trust’s listing on NYSE Arca have been calculated using the Index Price based on the CoinDesk SUI Reference Rate Price unless otherwise indicated. As of December 19, 2025, the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust is calculated using the Index Price based on the CoinDesk Sui Benchmark Rate.

Constituent Trading Platform Selection

The Digital Asset Trading Platforms to be included in the Index are selected by the Index Provider utilizing a methodology that is guided by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) principles for financial benchmarks. For a trading platform to become a Constituent Trading Platform, it must satisfy the criteria listed below (the “Inclusion Criteria”):

All trading platforms that meet these Inclusion Criteria will be assigned to a “Trading Platform Category” as defined by the additional criteria below, and at least one Category 1 Trading Platform must be included in each Index Price.

A Digital Asset Trading Platform is removed from the Constituent Trading Platforms when it no longer satisfies the Inclusion Criteria. The Index Provider does not currently include data from over-the-counter markets or derivatives platforms among the

Constituent Trading Platforms. Over-the-counter data is not currently included because of the potential for trades to include a significant premium or discount paid for larger liquidity, which creates an uneven comparison relative to more active markets. There is also a higher potential for over-the-counter transactions to not be arms-length, and thus not be representative of a true market price. SUI derivative markets are also not currently included. While the Index Provider has no plans to include data from over-the-counter markets or derivative platforms at this time, the Index Provider will consider IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks, the management of trading venues of SUI derivatives and the aforementioned Inclusion Criteria when considering whether to include over-the-counter or derivative platform data in the future.

The Index Provider and the Sponsor have entered into the index license agreement, dated as of February 1, 2022 (as amended, the “Index License Agreement”), governing the Sponsor’s use of the Index Price. Pursuant to the terms of the Index License Agreement, the Index Provider may adjust the calculation methodology for the Index Price without notice to, or consent of, the Trust or its shareholders. The Index Provider may decide to change the calculation methodology to maintain the integrity of the Index Price calculation should it identify or become aware of previously unknown variables or issues with the existing methodology that it believes could materially impact its performance and/or reliability. The Index Provider has sole discretion over the determination of the Index Price and may change the methodologies for determining the Index Price from time to time. Shareholders will be notified of any material changes to the calculation methodology or the Index Price in the Trust’s current reports and will be notified of all other changes that the Sponsor considers significant in the Trust’s periodic or current reports. The Sponsor will determine the materiality of any changes to the Index Price on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with external counsel.

The Index Provider may change the trading venues that are used to calculate the Index or otherwise change the way in which the Index is calculated at any time. For example, the Index Provider has scheduled quarterly reviews in which it may add or remove Constituent Trading Platforms that satisfy or fail the Inclusion Criteria. The Index Provider does not have any obligation to consider the interests of the Sponsor, the Trust, the shareholders, or anyone else in connection with such changes. While the Index Provider is not required to publicize or explain the changes or to alert the Sponsor to such changes, it has historically notified the Trust of any material changes to the Constituent Trading Platforms, including any additions or removals of the Constituent Trading Platforms, in addition to issuing press releases in connection with the same. The Sponsor will notify investors of any such material event by filing a current report on Form 8-K. Although the Index methodology is designed to operate without any manual intervention, rare events would justify manual intervention. Intervention of this kind would be in response to non-market-related events, such as the halting of deposits or withdrawals of funds on a Digital Asset Trading Platform, the unannounced closure of operations on a Digital Asset Trading Platform, insolvency or the compromise of user funds. In the event that such an intervention is necessary, the Index Provider would issue a public announcement through its website, API and other established communication channels with its clients.

Determination of the Index Price

The Index, as will be reflected by the CoinDesk Sui Benchmark Rate, for SUI is calculated through the application of an algorithm to the price of SUI on the Constituent Trading Platforms calculated every 5 seconds over a 24-hour period. The Index’s algorithm is expected to reflect a five-pronged methodology to calculate the Index Price from the Constituent Trading Platforms for SUI:

The Index Provider re-evaluates the weighting algorithm on a periodic basis, but maintains discretion to change the way in which an Index Price is calculated based on its periodic review or in extreme circumstances. The exact methodology to calculate the Index Price is not publicly available. Still, the Index is designed to limit exposure to trading or price distortion of any individual Digital Asset Trading Platform that experiences periods of unusual activity or limited liquidity by discounting, in real-time, anomalous price movements at individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms.

The Sponsor believes the Index Provider’s selection process for Constituent Trading Platforms as well as the methodology of the Index Price’s algorithm provides a more accurate picture of SUI price movements than a simple average of Digital Asset Trading Platform spot prices, and that the weighting of SUI prices on the Constituent Trading Platforms limits the inclusion of data that is influenced by temporary price dislocations that may result from technical problems, limited liquidity or fraudulent activity elsewhere in the SUI spot market.

By referencing multiple trading venues and weighting them based on trade activity, the Sponsor believes that the impact of any potential fraud, manipulation or anomalous trading activity occurring on any single venue is reduced.

If the Index Price becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that such Index Price does not reflect an accurate price for SUI , then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Index Provider to obtain the Index Price directly from the Index Provider. If after such contact such Index Price remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that such Index Price does not reflect an accurate price for the SUI , then the Sponsor will employ a cascading set of rules to determine the Index Price, as described below in “—Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable.”

The Trust values its SUI for operational purposes by reference to the Index Price. The Index Price is the value of a SUI as represented by the Index, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day.

Illustrative Example

For the purposes of illustration, outlined below are examples of how the attributes that impact weighting and adjustments in the aforementioned methodology may be utilized to generate the Index Price for a digital asset.

For example, Constituent Trading Platforms used to calculate the Index Price of the digital asset may include trading platforms such as Crypto.com, Kraken, LMAX Digital and Bitstamp by Robinhood.

The Index Price algorithm, as described above, is designed to account for manipulation at the outset by only including data from executed trades on Constituent Trading Platforms that charge trading fees. Then, the below-listed elements may impact the weighting of the Constituent Trading Platforms on the Index Price as follows:

Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable

The Sponsor uses the following cascading set of rules to calculate the Index Price. For the avoidance of doubt, the Sponsor will employ the below rules sequentially and in the order as presented below, should one or more specific rule(s) fail:

In the event of a fork, the Index Provider may calculate the Index Price based on a digital asset that the Sponsor does not believe to be the appropriate asset that is held by the Trust. In this event, the Sponsor has full discretion to use a different index provider or calculate the Index Price itself using its best judgment.

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, select a different index provider, select a different index price provided by the Index Provider, calculate the Index Price by using the cascading set of rules set forth above, or change the cascading set of rules set forth above at any time. The Sponsor will provide notice of any such changes in the Trust’s periodic or current reports and, if the Sponsor makes such a change other than on an ad hoc or temporary basis, will file a proposed rule change with the SEC.

Historical SUI Prices

As movements in the price of SUI will directly affect the price of the Shares, investors should understand recent movements in the price of SUI. Investors, however, should also be aware that past movements in the SUI price are not indicators of future movements. Movements may be influenced by various factors, including, but not limited to, government regulation, security breaches experienced by service providers, as well as political and economic uncertainties around the world.

The following table illustrates the movements in the Index Price of SUI, as reported on the Trust’s principal market, from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025. During such period, the Index Price has ranged from $0.53 to $5.23, with the straight average being $2.79 through December 31, 2025. The Sponsor has not observed a material difference between the Index Price and average prices from the Constituent Trading Platforms individually or as a group.

The following table illustrates the movements in the Digital Asset Market price of SUI as reported on the Trust’s principal market, from August 1, 2024 (the commencement of the Trust’s operations) to December 31, 2025. During such period, the price of SUI has ranged from $0.53 to $5.24, with the straight average being $2.79 through December 31, 2025.

Forms of Attack Against the Sui Network

All networked systems are vulnerable to various kinds of attacks. As with any computer network, the Sui Network contains certain flaws. For example, the Sui Network is currently vulnerable to attacks where, if a validator or group of validators acting in concert were to gain control of more than certain thresholds of staked SUI, a malicious actor would be able to gain full control of the network and the ability to manipulate the Sui Network. As of the date of this prospectus, no validator node individually controlled more than 3% of the voting power on the Sui Network.

In addition, many digital asset networks have been subjected to a number of denial of service attacks, which has led to temporary delays in block creation and the transfer of digital assets.

For example, on June 19, 2023, smart-contract audit firm Certik disclosed that they had discovered a bug in the Sui code that could cause a type of denial of service attack that could cause the Sui Network to go offline and cease full functionality. Certik apparently disclosed the vulnerability to the Sui Foundation and Mysten before the Sui Network’s launch, so it could be fixed unilaterally. However, had the vulnerability been exploited after the network was launched, while persons associated with the Sui Foundation and/or Mysten would have likely played a key role in bringing the network back online, the broader community would have had to play a key role, as Sui Network validators would have had to coordinate to upgrade and restart the network. Any similar attacks on the Sui Network that impact the ability to transfer SUI could have a material adverse effect on the price of SUI and the value of the Shares.

Market Participants

Validators

Validators range from Sui enthusiasts to professional operations that design and build dedicated machines and data centers, including “clusters,” which are groups of validators that act cohesively and combine their processing to confirm transactions. When a validator confirms a transaction, the validator and any associated stakers receive a fee. During the course of ordering transactions and validating blocks, validators may be able to prioritize certain transactions in return for increased transaction fees, an incentive system known as “Maximal Extractable Value” or MEV. For example, in blockchain networks that facilitate DeFi protocols in particular, such as the Ethereum Network, users may attempt to gain an advantage over other users by offering greater transaction fees. Validators less commonly capture MEV in the Sui Network because, unlike the Ethereum Network, it does not publicly expose

transactions before they are accepted by a validator. However, some efforts are underway to help SUI validators consistently capture MEV. See “—Summary of a SUI Transaction” above.

Investment and Speculative Sector

This sector includes the investment and trading activities of both private and professional investors and speculators. Historically, larger financial services institutions are publicly reported to have limited involvement in investment and trading in digital assets, although the participation landscape is beginning to change. Currently, there is relatively limited use of digital assets in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively extensive use by speculators, and a significant portion of demand for digital assets is generated by speculators and investors seeking to profit from the short- or long-term holding of digital assets.

Retail Sector

The retail sector includes users transacting in direct peer-to-peer SUI transactions through the direct sending of SUI over the Sui Network. The retail sector also includes transactions in which consumers purchase goods and services from commercial or service businesses through direct transactions or third-party service providers, although the use of SUI as a means of payment is still developing and has not yet been accepted in the same manner as Bitcoin or Ether due to its infancy and because SUI has a different purpose than Bitcoin and Ether.

Service Sector

This sector includes companies that provide a variety of services including the buying, selling, payment processing and storing of SUI. For buying and selling SUI, Coinbase, Crypto.com, Kraken, and Bitstamp are some of the largest Digital Asset Trading Platforms by volume traded. For storing SUI, Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC, the Custodian for the Trust, is a digital asset custodian that provides custodial accounts that store SUI for users. As SUI continues to grow in acceptance, it is anticipated that service providers will expand the currently available range of services and that additional parties will enter the service sector for SUI.

Competition

Thousands of digital assets, as tracked by CoinMarketCap.com as of December 31, 2025, have been developed since the inception of Bitcoin, which is currently the most developed digital asset because of the length of time it has been in existence, the investment in the infrastructure that supports it, and the network of individuals and entities that are using Bitcoin in transactions. While SUI has enjoyed some success in its limited history, the aggregate value of outstanding SUI is much smaller than that of Bitcoin and many other digital assets and may be further eclipsed by the more rapid development of other digital assets. In addition, a number of other digital assets also function as smart contract platforms, including the Ethereum Network, the Avalanche network and the Cardano network.

Some industry groups are also creating private, permissioned blockchain versions of digital asset technologies. For example, J.P. Morgan is developing a platform called Kinexys, which is described as a blockchain-based platform designed for use by the financial services industry.

Government Oversight

As digital assets have grown in both popularity and market size, the U.S. Congress and a number of U.S. federal and state agencies (including FinCEN, SEC, CFTC, FINRA, the CFPB, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and state financial institution and securities regulators) have been examining the operations of digital asset networks, digital asset users and the Digital Asset Markets, with particular focus on the extent to which digital assets can be used to launder the proceeds of illegal activities, evade sanctions or fund criminal or terrorist enterprises and the safety and soundness of trading platforms and other service providers that hold or custody digital assets for users. Many of these state and federal agencies have issued consumer advisories regarding the risks posed by digital assets to investors. In addition, federal and state agencies, and other countries and international bodies have issued rules or guidance about the treatment of digital asset transactions or requirements for businesses engaged in digital asset activity. Moreover, the failure of FTX in November 2022 and the resulting market turmoil substantially increased regulatory scrutiny in the United States and globally and led to SEC and criminal investigations, enforcement actions and other regulatory activity across the digital asset ecosystem. On January 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” aimed at supporting “the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technology, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.” The Executive Order also established an interagency working group that is tasked with “proposing a Federal regulatory framework governing the issuance and operation of digital assets” in the United States. Pursuant to this Executive Order, the working group released a report in July 2025 outlining the administration's recommendations to Congress and various agencies reflecting the administration’s “pro-innovation mindset toward digital assets and blockchain technologies.” In particular, the report recommends that Congress enact legislation

regarding self custody of digital assets, clarifying the applicability of Bank Secrecy Act obligations with respect to digital asset service providers, granting the CFTC authority to regulate spot markets in non-security digital assets, prohibiting the adoption of a CBDC, and clarifying tax laws as relevant to digital assets. In addition, the report recommends that agencies reevaluate existing guidance on digital asset activities, use existing authorities to enable the trading of digital assets at the federal level, embrace DeFi, launch or relaunch crypto innovation efforts, and promote U.S. private sector leadership in the responsible development of cross-border payments and financial markets technologies, among others.

In addition, the SEC, U.S. state securities regulators and several foreign governments have issued warnings and instituted legal proceedings in which they argue that certain digital assets may be classified as securities and that both those digital assets and any related initial coin offerings or other primary and secondary market transactions are subject to securities regulations. For example, in June 2023, the SEC brought charges against Binance and Coinbase, and in November 2023, the SEC brought charges against Kraken, alleging that they operated unregistered securities exchanges, brokerages and clearing agencies. In its complaints, the SEC asserted that several digital assets are securities under the federal securities laws. Between February 2025 and May 2025, the SEC entered into court-approved joint stipulations to dismiss each of the Binance Complaint, Coinbase Complaint and the Kraken Complaint. The SEC has terminated its investigation or enforcement action into many other digital asset market participants as well. Nonetheless, the existence of these proceedings, as well as ongoing uncertainty with respect to future regulatory actions, have had and may have a material adverse effect on the digital asset industry as a whole and on the price of SUI, and may alter, perhaps to a materially adverse extent, the nature of an investment in the Shares and/or the ability of the Trust to continue to operate. Additionally, U.S. state and federal, and foreign regulators and legislatures have taken action against virtual currency businesses or enacted restrictive regimes in response to adverse publicity arising from hacks, consumer harm, or criminal activity stemming from virtual currency activity.

In January 2025, the SEC launched a Crypto Task Force dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for digital assets led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Subsequently, Commissioner Peirce announced a list of specific priorities to further that initiative, which included pursuing final rules related to a digital asset’s security status, a revised path to registered offerings and listings for digital asset-based investment vehicles, and clarity regarding digital asset custody, lending and staking. On July 31, 2025, Chairman Atkins announced “Project Crypto,” a Commission-wide initiative to modernize securities rules for digital assets, reshore innovation in the United States, and implement the recommendations of the working group report. Chairman Atkins had directed the SEC’s policy divisions to work with the Crypto Task Force to draft “clear and simple rules of the road for crypto asset distributions, custody, and trading,” and the Commission and SEC staff will also consider using interpretive, exemptive, and other authorities with respect to digital asset markets.

Various foreign jurisdictions have, and may continue to, in the near future, adopt laws, regulations or directives that affect a digital asset network, the Digital Asset Markets, and their users, particularly Digital Asset Trading Platforms and service providers that fall within such jurisdictions’ regulatory scope. For example:

There remains significant uncertainty regarding foreign governments’ future actions with respect to the regulation of digital assets and Digital Asset Trading Platforms. Such laws, regulations or directives may conflict with those of the United States and may negatively impact the acceptance of SUI by users, merchants and service providers outside the United States and may therefore impede the growth or sustainability of the SUI ecosystem in the United States and globally, or otherwise negatively affect the value of SUI held by the Trust. The effect of any future regulatory change on the Trust or the SUI held by the Trust is impossible to predict, but such change could be substantial and adverse to the Trust and the value of the Shares.

The CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the SUI futures markets because the CFTC believes that most digital assets are non-security "commodities" under the CEA and the rules thereunder, it takes the position that it has jurisdiction to prosecute fraud and manipulation in the cash or spot market for those non-security digital assets. Beyond instances of fraud or manipulation, the CFTC generally does not oversee cash or spot market exchanges, spot Digital Asset Trading Platforms or transactions involving spot SUI that do not utilize collateral, leverage, or financing. The National Futures Association (“NFA”) is the self-regulatory agency for the U.S. futures industry, and as such has jurisdiction over SUI futures. However, the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority for the cash or spot market for SUI trading or transactions.

In September, 2025 Coinbase Derivatives as a designated contract market (“DCM”) registered with the CFTC launched new contracts for SUI futures products. DCMs are boards of trades (commonly referred to as exchanges) that operate under the regulatory oversight of the CFTC, pursuant to Section 5 of the CEA. To obtain and maintain designation as a DCM, an exchange must comply on an initial and ongoing basis with twenty-three Core Principles established under Section 5(d) of the CEA. Among other things, DCMs are required to establish self-regulatory programs designed to enforce the DCM’s rules, prevent market manipulation and customer and market abuses, and ensure the recording and safe storage of trade information.

The Coinbase Derivatives SUI futures contracts are cash-settled, based on the MarketVector Coinbase Sui Benchmark Rate. On August 4, 2025, CFTC Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham announced that the CFTC will launch an initiative for trading spot crypto asset contracts that are listed on a CFTC-registered futures exchange (DCM). This is the first initiative in the CFTC’s “crypto sprint” to start implementation of the recommendations in the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets report. Members of the public were invited to provide written input by August 18, 2025 through the CFTC website.

See “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Related to the Regulation of Digital Assets, the Trust and the Shares— Regulatory changes or actions by the U.S. Congress or any U.S. federal or state agencies may affect the value of the Shares or restrict the use of SUI , validating activity or the operation of the SUI Network or the Digital Asset Markets in a manner that adversely affects the value of the Shares.”

Description of the Trust

The Trust is a Delaware Statutory Trust that was formed on April 30, 2024 by the filing of the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (“DSTA”). The name of the Trust is Grayscale Sui Trust (SUI) as of the date of this prospectus, but prior to and in connection with the declaration of effectiveness of this registration statement and the listing of the Shares on NYSE Arca, the Sponsor intends to change the name of the Trust to Grayscale Sui Staking ETF by filing a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Trust with the Delaware Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the DSTA. The Trust operates pursuant to the Trust Agreement.

The Shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Trust. The Trust is passive and is not managed like a corporation or an active investment vehicle. The Trust’s SUI are held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust’s SUI will be transferred out of the Vault Balance only in the following circumstances: (i) transferred to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expenses, (ii) sold on an as-needed basis to pay Additional Trust Expenses or redeem Baskets or (iii) sold on behalf of the Trust in the event the Trust terminates and liquidates its assets or as otherwise required by law or regulation. Assuming that the Trust is treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes, each delivery or sale of SUI by the Trust to pay the Sponsor’s Fee or any Additional Trust Expenses will be a taxable event for shareholders. Gains or losses from the sale of SUI to fund cash redemptions are expected to be treated as incurred only by the shareholder that is being redeemed. See “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences—Tax Consequences to U.S. Holders.”

The Trust is not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act and the Sponsor believes that the Trust is not required to register under the Investment Company Act. The Trust will not trade, buy, sell or hold SUI derivatives, including SUI futures contracts, on any futures exchange. The Trust is authorized solely to take immediate delivery of actual SUI. The Sponsor does not believe the Trust’s activities are required to be regulated by the CFTC under the CEA as a “commodity pool” under current law, regulation and interpretation. The Trust will not be operated by a CFTC-regulated commodity pool operator because it will not trade, buy, sell or hold SUI derivatives, including SUI futures contracts, on any futures exchange. Investors in the Trust will not receive the regulatory protections afforded to investors in regulated commodity pools, nor may the COMEX division of the New York Mercantile Exchange or any futures exchange enforce its rules with respect to the Trust’s activities. In addition, investors in the Trust will not benefit from the protections afforded to investors in SUI futures contracts on regulated futures exchanges.

The Trust creates Shares from time to time but only in Baskets. A Basket equals a block of 10,000 Shares. The number of outstanding Shares is expected to increase from time to time as a result of the creation of Baskets.

The creation of Baskets will require the delivery to the Trust of the amount of SUI (or cash to acquire the amount of SUI) represented by the Baskets being created. The creation of a Basket will be made only upon the delivery to the Trust of the number of whole and fractional SUI represented by each Basket being created, the number of which is determined by dividing (x) the amount of SUI owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the relevant trade date, after deducting the amount of SUI representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the Index Price at such time, and carried to the eighth decimal place) by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one SUI (i.e., carried to the eighth decimal place)), and multiplying such quotient by 10,000.

The Shares are redeemable in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Agreement and the relevant Participant Agreement. The operation of a redemption program allows Authorized Participants to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities created when the market value of the Shares deviates from the value of the Trust’s SUI, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities, which may have the effect of reducing any premium at which the Shares trade on NYSE Arca over such value or cause the Shares to trade at a discount to such value.

Each Share represented approximately 14.4785 SUI as of December 31, 2025. Each Share in the initial Baskets represented approximately 15.0 SUI. The amount of SUI required to create a Basket is expected to continue to gradually decrease over time due to the transfer or sale of the Trust’s SUI to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses.

The Sponsor will determine the Trust’s NAV on each business day as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, or as soon thereafter as practicable. The Sponsor will also determine the NAV per Share, which equals the NAV divided by the number of outstanding Shares. Each business day, the Sponsor will publish the Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share on the Trust’s website, etfs.grayscale.com/gsui, as soon as practicable after the Trust’s NAV and NAV per Share have been determined by the Sponsor. See “—Valuation of SUI and Determination of NAV.”

The Trust’s assets consist solely of SUI, cash proceeds from the sale of SUI and any rights of the Trust pursuant to any agreements, other than the Trust Agreement, to which the Trust is a party. The Sponsor has committed to cause the Trust not to take any Affirmative Action to acquire any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency, thereby irrevocably abandoning any Incidental Rights and IR Virtual Currency to which the Trust may become entitled in the future. As a result, the Trust does not expect to hold any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency or to take any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency into account for the purposes of determining the NAV or the NAV per Share.

Each Share represents a proportional interest, based on the total number of Shares outstanding, in each of the Trust’s assets as determined in the case of SUI by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust’s expenses and other liabilities (which include accrued but unpaid fees and expenses). The Sponsor expects that the market price of the Shares will fluctuate over time in response to the market prices of SUI. In addition, because the Shares reflect the estimated accrued but unpaid expenses of the Trust, the amount of SUI represented by a Share will gradually decrease over time as the Trust’s SUI are used to pay the Trust’s expenses.

SUI pricing information is available on a 24-hour basis from various financial information service providers or Sui Network information sites, such as CoinMarketCap.com. The spot price and bid/ask spreads may also be available directly from Digital Asset Trading Platforms. As of December 31, 2025, the constituent Digital Asset Trading Platforms of the Index were Bitfinex, Bitstamp by Robinhood, Bullish, Bybit, Crypto.com, Kraken and OKX based on the CoinDesk Sui Benchmark Rate. The Index Provider may remove or add Digital Asset Trading Platforms to the Index in the future at its discretion. Market prices for the Shares will be available from a variety of sources, including brokerage firms, information websites and other information service providers. In addition, on each business day the Trust’s website will provide pricing information for the Shares.

The Trust has no fixed termination date.

Service Providers of the Trust

The Sponsor

The Trust’s Sponsor is Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formed on July 11, 2024 and a consolidated subsidiary of DCG. The Sponsor’s principal place of business is 290 Harbor Drive, 4th Floor, Stamford, Connecticut 06902, and its telephone number is (212) 668-1427. Under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act and the governing documents of the Sponsor, DCG, the indirect parent company of the Sponsor, is not responsible for the debts, obligations and liabilities of the Sponsor solely by reason of being the indirect parent company of the Sponsor.

The Sponsor is neither an investment adviser registered with the SEC nor a commodity pool operator registered with the CFTC, and will not be acting in either such capacity with respect to the Trust, and the Sponsor’s provision of services to the Trust will not be governed by the Investment Advisers Act or the CEA.

Grayscale Investments, LLC, the former Sponsor of the Trust, arranged for the creation of the Trust. As partial consideration for its receipt of the Sponsor’s Fee from the Trust, the Sponsor is obligated to pay the Sponsor-paid Expenses. The Sponsor also paid the costs of the Trust’s organization and the costs of the initial sale of the Shares.

The Sponsor is generally responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Trust under the provisions of the Trust Agreement. This includes (i) preparing and providing periodic reports and financial statements on behalf of the Trust for investors, (ii) processing orders to create Baskets and coordinating the processing of such orders with the Custodian and the Transfer Agent, (iii) calculating and publishing the NAV and the NAV per Share of the Trust each business day as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, or as soon thereafter as practicable, (iv) selecting and monitoring the Trust’s service providers and from time to time engaging additional, successor or replacement service providers, (v) instructing the Custodian to transfer the Trust’s SUI as needed to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and any Additional Trust Expenses, (vi) upon dissolution of the Trust, distributing cash proceeds of the sale of the Trust’s remaining SUI to the owners of record of the Shares and (vii) establishing the principal market for GAAP valuation. In addition, if there is a fork in the Sui Network after which there is a dispute as to which network resulting from the fork is the Sui Network, the Sponsor has the authority to select the network that it believes in good faith is the Sui Network, unless such selection or authority would otherwise conflict with the Trust Agreement.

The Sponsor does not store, hold, or maintain custody or control of the Trust’s SUI but instead has entered into the Prime Broker Agreement with the Custodian to facilitate the security of the Trust’s SUI.

The Sponsor may transfer all or substantially all of its assets to an entity that carries on the business of the Sponsor if at the time of the transfer the successor assumes all of the obligations of the Sponsor under the Trust Agreement. In such an event, the Sponsor will be relieved of all further liability under the Trust Agreement.

The Sponsor’s Fee is paid by the Trust to the Sponsor as compensation for services performed under the Trust Agreement and as partial consideration for the Sponsor’s agreement to pay the Sponsor-paid Expenses. See “—Expenses; Sales of SUI.”

The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, select a different index provider, select a different index price provided by the Index Provider, calculate the Index Price by using the cascading set of rules set forth under “— Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—The Index and the Index Price—Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable” above, or change the cascading set of rules set forth above at any time.

Marketing Agent Agreement

Pursuant to a Marketing Agent Agreement (the “Marketing Agent Agreement”) entered into between the Sponsor and Foreside Fund Services, LLC, as Marketing Agent (the “Marketing Agent”), the Marketing Agent will be paid by the Sponsor an annual fee. In addition, the Sponsor will pay certain out-of-pocket fees and expenses of the Marketing Agent incurred in connection with its assistance in the marketing of the Trust and its Shares. Under the Marketing Agent Agreement, the Marketing Agent will provide the following services to the Sponsor: (i) assist the Sponsor in facilitating Participation Agreements between and among Authorized Participants, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, and the Transfer Agent; (ii) provide prospectuses to Authorized Participants; (iii) work with the Transfer Agent to review and approve orders placed by the Authorized Participants and transmitted to the Transfer Agent; (iv) review and file applicable marketing materials with FINRA and (v) maintain, reproduce and store applicable books and records related to the services provided under the Marketing Agent Agreement.

Index License Agreement

The Sponsor has entered into the Index License Agreement with CoinDesk Indices, Inc., the Index Provider, governing the Sponsor’s use of the Index for calculation of the Index Price. The Index Provider may adjust the calculation methodology for the Index without notice to, or consent of, the Trust or its shareholders. Under the Index License Agreement, the Sponsor pays a monthly fee and a fee based on the NAV of the Trust to the Index Provider in consideration of its license to the Sponsor of Index-related intellectual property. The initial term of the Index License Agreement was February 1, 2022 through the later of February 29, 2024 and the latest date set forth on any order form executed under the Index License Agreement. On June 20, 2023, the Sponsor and the Index Provider, entered into an amendment to the Index License Agreement to extend the initial term of the Index License Agreement from February 29, 2024, to February 28, 2025. On February 5, 2025, the Sponsor and the Index Provider, entered into an amendment to the Index License Agreement to extend the term of the Index License Agreement from February 28, 2025, to February 29, 2028. Thereafter, the Index License Agreement will automatically renew on an annual basis, unless a notice of non-renewal is provided. The Index License Agreement is terminable by either party upon written notice in the event of a material breach that remains uncured for thirty days after initial written notice of such breach. Further, either party may terminate the Index License Agreement immediately upon notice under certain circumstances, including with respect to the other party’s (i) insolvency, bankruptcy or analogous event or (ii) violation of money transmission, taxation or trading regulations that materially adversely affect either party’s ability to perform under the Index License Agreement.

Administration and Accounting Agreement

The Sponsor expects to enter into a Fund Administration and Accounting Agreement with BNY Mellon Asset Servicing, a division of The Bank of New York Mellon, to provide administration and accounting services to the Trust. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and under the supervision and direction of the Sponsor and the Trust, BNY Mellon Asset Servicing keeps the operational records of the Trust and prepares and files certain regulatory filings on behalf of the Trust. BNY Mellon Asset Servicing may also perform other services for the Trust pursuant to the Agreement as mutually agreed upon by the Sponsor, the Trust and BNY Mellon Asset Servicing from time to time. The Administrator’s fees are paid on behalf of the Trust by the Sponsor.

The Trustee

CSC Delaware Trust Company (formerly known as Delaware Trust Company) serves as Delaware trustee of the Trust under the Trust Agreement. The Trustee has its principal office at 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. The Trustee is unaffiliated with the Sponsor. A copy of the Trust Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified above and is filed as an exhibit to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part.

The Trustee is appointed to serve as the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware for the sole purpose of satisfying the requirement of Section 3807(a) of the DSTA that the Trust have at least one trustee with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware. The duties of the Trustee will be limited to (i) accepting legal process served on the Trust in the State of Delaware and (ii) the execution of any certificates required to be filed with the Delaware Secretary of State which the Delaware Trustee is required to execute under the DSTA. To the extent that, at law or in equity, the Trustee has duties (including fiduciary duties) and liabilities relating thereto to the Trust or the shareholders, such duties and liabilities will be replaced by the duties and liabilities of the Trustee expressly set forth in the Trust Agreement. The Trustee will have no obligation to supervise, nor will it be liable for, the acts or omissions of the Sponsor, Transfer Agent, Custodian, Prime Broker or any other person.

Neither the Trustee, either in its capacity as trustee or in its individual capacity, nor any director, officer or controlling person of the Trustee is, or has any liability as, the issuer, director, officer or controlling person of the issuer of Shares. The Trustee’s liability in connection with the issuance and sale of Shares is limited solely to the express obligations of the Trustee as set forth in the Trust Agreement.

The Trustee has not prepared or verified, and will not be responsible or liable for, any information, disclosure or other statement in this prospectus or in any other document issued or delivered in connection with the sale or transfer of the Shares. The Trust Agreement provides that the Trustee will not be responsible or liable for the genuineness, enforceability, collectability, value, sufficiency, location or existence of any of the SUI or other assets of the Trust. See “—Description of the Trust Agreement.”

The Trustee is permitted to resign upon at least 180 days’ notice to the Trust. The Trustee will be compensated by the Sponsor and indemnified by the Sponsor and the Trust against any expenses it incurs relating to or arising out of the formation, operation or termination of the Trust, or the performance of its duties pursuant to the Trust Agreement except to the extent that such expenses result from gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith of the Trustee. The Sponsor has the discretion to replace the Trustee.

Fees paid to the Trustee are a Sponsor-paid Expense.

The Transfer Agent

The Bank of New York Mellon serves as the Transfer Agent of the Trust pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement (the “Transfer Agency and Service Agreement”). The Transfer Agent: (1) facilitates the issuance and redemption of Shares of the Trust; (2) responds to correspondence by Trust shareholders and others relating to its duties; (3) maintains shareholder accounts; and (4) makes periodic reports to the Trust. The Transfer Agent has its principal office at 240 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10286. A copy of the Transfer Agency and Service Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein.

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, a Delaware corporation, serves as a co-transfer agent for the Trust (the “Co-Transfer Agent”) pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Co-Transfer Agency Agreement (the “Co-Transfer Agency Agreement”). The Co-Transfer Agent has its principal office at 1 State Street, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10004. A copy of the Co-Transfer Agency Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein.

Fees paid to the Transfer Agent and Co-Transfer Agent are a Sponsor-paid Expense.

Administrator

BNY Mellon Asset Servicing, a division of The Bank of New York Mellon, serves as the administrator for the Trust. The Administrator’s fees are paid on behalf of the Trust by the Sponsor.

Authorized Participants

An Authorized Participant must enter into a “Participant Agreement” with the Sponsor and the Trust to govern its placement of orders to create and redeem Baskets. The Participant Agreement sets forth the procedures for the creation and redemption of Baskets, the delivery of SUI or cash required for creations and the delivery of Baskets or cash required for redemptions. A copy of the form of Participant Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein and is filed as an exhibit to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part.

Each Authorized Participant must (i) be a registered broker-dealer, (ii) have entered into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor and the Transfer Agent, and (iii) in the case of any creation or redemption pursuant to In-Kind Orders, own, or their AP Designee (as defined below) must own, a SUI wallet address that is known to the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant or its AP Designee and maintain an account with the Custodian.

The Trust issues and redeems Shares on an ongoing basis, but only in one or more whole Baskets of 10,000 Shares each. The creation and redemption of Baskets requires the delivery to or acquisition by the Trust, or the distribution or other disposition by the Trust, of the amount of SUI represented by the Baskets being created or redeemed, the number of which is equal to the “Basket Amount” as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date of a creation or redemption order multiplied by the number of Baskets being created or redeemed (the “Total Basket Amount”). The amount of SUI required to create a Basket, or to be delivered or sold upon the redemption of a Basket, will gradually decrease over time due to the transfer of the Trust’s SUI to pay the Sponsor’s Fee and the delivery or sale of the Trust’s SUI to pay any Trust expenses not assumed by the Sponsor. See “Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares” in this prospectus.

The Trust creates Baskets only upon the receipt of SUI, and redeems Baskets only by distributing SUI or proceeds from the disposition of SUI. An Authorized Participant may choose to submit Cash Orders, pursuant to which the Authorized Participant will deposit cash into, or accept cash from, the Cash Account in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets. Cash Orders will be facilitated by the Transfer Agent and Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, which will engage one or more Liquidity Providers to obtain or receive SUI in connection with such orders. The Sponsor may in its sole discretion limit the number of Shares created pursuant to Cash Orders on any specified day without notice to the Authorized Participants and may direct the Marketing Agent to reject any Cash Orders in excess of such capped amount. The redemption of Shares pursuant to Cash Orders will only take place if approved by the Sponsor in writing, in its sole discretion and on a case-by-case basis.

The Trust may also create and redeem Baskets via In-Kind Orders, pursuant to which an Authorized Participant or its AP Designee will deposit SUI directly with the Trust or receive SUI directly from the Trust.

As of the date of this prospectus, the Sponsor has entered into Participant Agreements with Jane Street Capital, LLC and Virtu Americas LLC pursuant to which such entities have agreed to act as Authorized Participants of the Trust, and are able to conduct creations and redemptions for cash. In addition, as of the date of this prospectus, Jane Street Capital, LLC and Virtu Americas LLC are able to conduct creations and redemptions in-kind. The Sponsor may engage additional Authorized Participants who are unaffiliated with the Trust in the future, and such Authorized Participants may be able to conduct creations and redemptions in-kind, in cash, or both.

No Authorized Participant has any obligation or responsibility to the Sponsor or the Trust to effect any sale or resale of Shares.

Liquidity Providers

Liquidity Providers facilitate the purchase and sale of SUI in connection with Cash Orders for creations or redemptions of Baskets. The Liquidity Providers with which Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC, acting in its capacity as the Liquidity Engager, will engage in SUI transactions are third parties that are not affiliated with the Sponsor or the Trust and are not acting as agents of the Trust, the Sponsor, or any Authorized Participant, but may be affiliated with the Authorized Participant, and such transactions will be done on an arms-length basis. Except for the contractual relationships between each Liquidity Provider and Grayscale Investments Sponsors, LLC in its capacity as the Liquidity Engager, there is no other pre-existing contractual relationship between each Liquidity Provider, on the one hand, and the Trust or the Sponsor, on the other hand.

A Liquidity Provider must enter into a “Liquidity Provider Agreement” with the Liquidity Engager and the Sponsor (on behalf of the Trust), which will obligate it to obtain or receive SUI in connection with creations and redemptions pursuant to Cash Orders.

As of the date of this prospectus, the Liquidity Engager has engaged JSCT, LLC, Virtu Financial Singapore Pte. Ltd., Galaxy Digital Trading Cayman LLC and Flowdesk as Liquidity Providers. The Liquidity Engager may engage additional Liquidity Providers who are unaffiliated with the Trust in the future.

Jane Street Capital, LLC, one of the Authorized Participants, is an affiliate of JSCT, LLC, one of the Liquidity Providers. Virtu Americas LLC, one of the Authorized Participants, is an affiliate of Virtu Financial Singapore Pte., Ltd., one of the Liquidity Providers.

The Custodian and Prime Broker

Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC is a fiduciary under § 100 of the New York Banking Law and a qualified custodian for purposes of Rule 206(4)-2(d)(6) under the Investment Advisers Act. The Custodian is authorized to serve as the Trust’s custodian under the Trust Agreement and pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Prime Broker Agreement. The Custodian has its principal office at 200 Park Avenue South, Suite 1208, New York, NY 10003. A copy of the Prime Broker Agreement is available for inspection at the Sponsor’s principal office identified herein and is filed as an exhibit to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part.

Under the Prime Broker Agreement, the Custodian controls and secures the Trust’s “Vault Balance,” a segregated custody account to store private keys, which allow for the transfer of ownership or control of the Trust’s SUI, on the Trust’s behalf. The Custodian’s services (i) allow SUI to be deposited from a public blockchain address to the Trust’s Vault Balance and (ii) allow the Trust or Sponsor to withdraw SUI from the Trust’s Vault Balance to a public blockchain address the Trust or Sponsor controls (the “Custodial and Prime Broker Services”). The Vault Balance uses offline storage, or “cold” storage, mechanisms to secure the Trust’s private keys. The term cold storage refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to digital assets are disconnected.

The Custodian will withdraw from the Trust’s Vault Balance the amount of SUI necessary to pay the Trust’s expenses.

Fees paid to the Custodian are a Sponsor-paid Expense.

Under the Prime Broker Agreement, each of the Custodian and the Trust has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the other party from any third-party claim or third-party demand (including reasonable and documented attorneys’ fees and any fines, fees or penalties imposed by any regulatory authority) arising out of or related to the Custodian’s or the Trust’s, as the case may be, breach of the Prime Broker Agreement, inaccuracy in any of the Custodian’s or the Trust’s, as the case may be, representations or warranties in the Prime Broker Agreement, or the Trust’s violation, or the Custodian’s knowing violation, of any law, rule or regulation, or the rights of any third party, except where such claim directly results from the negligence, fraud or willful misconduct of the other such party. In addition, the Trust has agreed to indemnify the Custodian with respect to any Incidental Rights or IR Virtual Currency abandoned by the Trust and any tax liability relating thereto or arising therefrom.

The Custodian and its affiliates may from time to time purchase or sell SUI for their own accounts and as agent for their customers or Shares for their own accounts. The foregoing notwithstanding, SUI in the Vault Balance are not treated as general assets of the Custodian and cannot be commingled with any other digital assets held by the Custodian. The Custodian serves as a fiduciary and custodian on the Trust’s behalf, and the SUI in the Vault Balance are considered fiduciary assets that remain the Trust’s property at all times.

Once each calendar year, the Sponsor or the Trust may request that the Custodian deliver a certificate signed by a duly authorized officer to certify that all representations and warranties made by the Custodian in the Prime Broker Agreement are true and correct on

and as of the date of such certificate, and have been true and correct throughout the preceding year. In addition, the Custodian has agreed to allow the Trust and the Sponsor to take any necessary steps to verify that satisfactory internal control system and procedures are in place, and to visit and inspect the systems on which the Custodian’s coins are held.

If the Custodian resigns in its capacity as custodian, the Sponsor may appoint an additional or replacement custodian and enter into a custodian agreement on behalf of the Trust with such custodian. Furthermore, the Sponsor and the Trust may use SUI custody services or similar services provided by entities other than Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC at any time without prior notice to Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC.

Custody of the Trust’s SUI

Digital assets and digital asset transactions are recorded and validated on blockchains, the public transaction ledgers of a digital asset network. Each digital asset blockchain serves as a record of ownership for all of the units of such digital asset, even in the case of certain privacy-preserving digital assets, where the transactions themselves are not publicly viewable. All digital assets recorded on a blockchain are associated with a public blockchain address, also referred to as a digital wallet. Digital assets held at a particular public blockchain address may be accessed and transferred using a corresponding private key.

Key Generation

Public addresses and their corresponding private keys are generated by the Custodian in secret key generation ceremonies at secure locations inside faraday cages, which are enclosures used to block electromagnetic fields and thus mitigate against attacks. The Custodian uses quantum random number generators to generate the public and private key pairs.

Once generated, private keys are encrypted, separated into “shards”, and then further encrypted. After the key generation ceremony, all materials used to generate private keys, including computers, are destroyed. All key generation ceremonies are performed offline. No party other than the Custodian has access to the private key shards of the Trust, including the Trust itself.

Key Storage

Private key shards are distributed geographically by the Custodial Entities in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States. The locations of the secure vaults may change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian and the Prime Broker for security purposes.

The Vault Balance primarily uses “cold” storage mechanisms to secure a substantial portion of the Trust’s private keys. A substantial portion of the Trust’s SUI holdings are held in cold storage at all times, with a portion of the Settlement Balance held temporarily in “hot” storage from time to time, for purposes of facilitating the receipt and distribution of SUI in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets. Any SUI credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance is stored in omnibus accounts, either on the Prime Broker’s systems or at Coinbase Connected Venues, using a combination of cold and hot storage mechanisms to secure the private keys representing the assets credited to the Trust’s Settlement Balance.

Cold storage is a safeguarding method with multiple layers of protections and protocols, by which the private keys corresponding to the Trust’s SUI are generated and stored in an offline manner. A digital wallet may receive deposits of digital assets but may not send digital assets without use of the digital assets’ corresponding private keys. In order to send digital assets from a digital wallet in which the private keys are kept in cold storage, either the private keys must be retrieved from cold storage and entered into an online, or hot, digital asset software program to sign the transaction, or the unsigned transaction must be transferred to the cold server in which the private keys are held for signature by the private keys and then transferred back to the online digital asset software program. At that point, the user of the digital wallet can transfer its digital assets. While private keys held in hot storage are more accessible and therefore enable more efficient transfers, such assets are more vulnerable to theft, loss or misappropriation.

Security Procedures

The Custodian and the Prime Broker hold the Trust’s private keys in custody in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Prime Broker Agreement. Transfers to and from the Vault Balance and, where held in cold storage, the Trust’s Settlement Balance, require certain security procedures, including but not limited to, multiple encrypted private key shards, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification. Multiple private key shards held by the applicable Custodial Entity or Entities must be combined to reconstitute the private key to sign any transaction in order to transfer the Trust’s assets. Private key shards are distributed geographically by the Custodial Entities in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States.

As a result, if any one secure vault is ever compromised, this event will have no impact on the ability of the Trust to access its assets, other than a possible delay in operations, while one or more of the other secure vaults is used instead. These security procedures are intended to remove single points of failure in the protection of the Trust’s assets.

Transfers of SUI to the Vault Balance from the Settlement Balance will be available to the Trust once processed on the Sui Network, subject to the availability of the Prime Broker’s online platform. When SUI is credited to the Settlement Balance, certain movements to allocate the balance among (i) omnibus cold storage wallets and omnibus hot storage wallets on the Prime Broker’s platform; or (ii) omnibus accounts at Coinbase Connected Venues may not be viewable by the Trust via the Prime Broker’s online portal. In addition, on a monthly basis the Custodial Entities will provide the Sponsor with an account statement identifying the amount of cash and SUI in the Trust’s Accounts at the end of the period and listing all account activity during that period.

The process of accessing and withdrawing SUI from the Trust to redeem a Basket by an Authorized Participant follows the same general procedure as transferring SUI to the Trust to create a Basket by an Authorized Participant, only in reverse. See “Description of Creation and Redemption of Shares.”

The Marketing Agent

Foreside Fund Services, LLC (“Foreside”) is the marketing agent of the Shares. Foreside is a registered broker-dealer with the SEC and is a member of FINRA.

In its capacity as marketing agent, Foreside provides the following services to the Sponsor: (i) assist the Sponsor in facilitating Participation Agreements between and among Authorized Participants, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Trust, and the Transfer Agent; (ii) provide prospectuses to Authorized Participants; (iii) work with the Transfer Agent to review and approve orders placed by the Authorized Participants and transmitted to the Transfer Agent; (iv) review and file applicable marketing materials with FINRA and (v) maintain, reproduce and store applicable books and records related to the services provided under the Marketing Agent Agreement.

The Sponsor may engage additional or successor marketing agents in the future.

Valuation of SUI and Determination of NAV

The Sponsor will evaluate the SUI held by the Trust and determine the NAV of the Trust in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Trust Documents. The following is a description of the material terms of the Trust Documents as they relate to valuation of the Trust’s SUI and the NAV calculations, which is calculated using non-GAAP methodology and is not used in the Trust’s financial statements.

On each business day at 4:00 p.m., New York time, or as soon thereafter as practicable (the “Evaluation Time”), the Sponsor will evaluate the SUI held by the Trust and calculate and publish the NAV of the Trust. To calculate the NAV, the Sponsor will:

In the event that the Sponsor determines that the primary methodology used to determine the Index Price is not an appropriate basis for valuation of the Trust’s SUI, the Sponsor will utilize the cascading set of rules as described in “—Overview of the Sui Industry and Market—The Index and the Index Price.”

The Sponsor will publish the Index Price, the Trust’s NAV and the NAV per Share on the Trust’s website as soon as practicable after its determination. If the NAV and NAV per Share have been calculated using a price per SUI other than the Index Price for such Evaluation Time, the publication on the Trust’s website will note the valuation methodology used and the price per SUI resulting from such calculation.

In the event of a hard fork of the Sui Network, the Sponsor will, if permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Sui Network, is generally accepted as the network for SUI and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on a variety of then relevant factors, including (but not limited to) the following: (i) the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of SUI, users, services, businesses, validators and other constituencies and (ii) the actual continued acceptance of, validating power on, and community engagement with the Sui Network.

The shareholders may rely on any evaluation furnished by the Sponsor. The determinations that the Sponsor makes will be made in good faith upon the basis of, and the Sponsor will not be liable for any errors contained in, information reasonably available to it. The Sponsor will not be liable to the Authorized Participants, the shareholders or any other person for errors in judgment. However, the preceding liability exclusion will not protect the Sponsor against any liability resulting from gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith in the performance of its duties.

Expenses; Sales of SUI

The Trust’s only ordinary recurring expense is expected to be the Sponsor’s Fee. The Sponsor’s Fee will accrue daily in U.S. dollars at an annual rate of 0.35% of the NAV Fee Basis Amount of the Trust as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each day; provided that for a day that is not a business day, the calculation will be based on the NAV Fee Basis Amount from the most recent business day, reduced by the accrued and unpaid Sponsor’s Fee for such most recent business day and for each day after such most recent business day and prior to the relevant calculation date. This dollar amount for each daily accrual will then be converted into SUI by reference to the same Index Price used to determine such accrual. The Sponsor’s Fee is payable in SUI to the Sponsor daily in arrears.

In addition, the Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, agree to rebate all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee and the Sponsor’s Staking Fee attributable to Shares held by certain large investors, individuals or entities. Any such rebate will be subject to negotiation and written agreement between the Sponsor and the investor/entity on a case-by-case basis. The Sponsor is under no obligation to provide any rebates of the Sponsor’s Fee or the Sponsor’s Staking Fee. Neither the Trust nor the Trustee will be a party to any Sponsor’s Fee or Sponsor’s Staking Fee rebate arrangements negotiated by the Sponsor.

The Sponsor, from time to time, may temporarily waive all or a portion of the Sponsor’s Fee in its sole discretion. Presently, the Sponsor has agreed to waive the entire Sponsor Fee until the earlier of (x) a 3-month period commencing on the day the Shares are initially listed on the NYSE Arca or (y) the Trust reaching $1 billion in assets under management. There are no circumstances under which the Sponsor has determined it will definitely waive the fee. The Sponsor is under no obligation to waive any portion of its fees and any such waiver shall create no obligation to waive any such fees during any period not covered by the waiver.

Expenses to Be Paid by the Sponsor