White paper drafted under the European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 for FFG D74JZ1VRD

The crypto-asset LTC referred to in this white paper is a crypto-asset other than EMTs and ARTs and is issued on the Litecoin network as of 2026-05-18, as reflected in the DTI FFG shown in F.14. The maximum supply amounts to 84,000,000 units.

The crypto-asset “Litecoin” refers to the native token of the distributed ledger of the same name. The Litecoin distributed ledger is decentralised, meaning that no central authority controls it. The crypto-asset, and the associated distributed ledger, were originally created by Charlie Lee in October 2011 as a “lighter” version of Bitcoin. It is primarily intended to function as a medium of exchange and store of value. Transactions involving the crypto-asset are recorded on a blockchain designed to be secure, transparent, and immutable. The network operates using a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism based on the Scrypt hashing algorithm, under which miners validate transactions and secure the network. For token holders, owning Litecoin enables the transfer or use of tokens without reliance on a central intermediary. The crypto-asset may be used for payment purposes or held as a store of value.

The crypto-asset does not grant any legally enforceable or contractual rights or obligations to its holders or purchasers, including rights to ownership, profit participation, governance, or claims against any entity. Any functionalities accessible through the underlying technology are purely technical or operational in nature.

As defined in Article 3(9) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on Markets in Crypto-Assets – amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937 – a utility token is “a type of crypto-asset that is only intended to provide access to a good or a service supplied by its issuer”. This crypto-asset does not qualify as a utility token, as its intended use goes beyond providing access to a good or a service supplied solely by the issuer.

Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH is seeking admission to trading on the Payward Global Solutions LTD (“Kraken”) platform in the European Union in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on Markets in Crypto-Assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937. The admission to trading is not accompanied by a public offer of the crypto-asset.

Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH is a technical service provider that supports regulated entities in fulfilling their regulatory requirements. Among other services, Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH acts as a data provider for ESG data under Article 66(5). In light of the requirements set out in Articles 4(7), 5(4) and 66(3) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on Markets in Crypto-Assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937, Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH aims to provide central services for crypto-asset white papers.

Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH, founded in 2018 and based in Hamburg (HRB 154488), has undergone several strategic shifts in its business focus since incorporation. Due to these changes in business model and operational direction over time, the financial figures from earlier years are only comparable to a limited extent with the company’s current commercial activities. The present business model – centred on regulatory technology and risk analytics in the context of the MiCA framework – has been developed progressively and can realistically be considered fully operational since approximately 2024.

The company’s financial trajectory over the past three years reflects the transition from exploratory development towards market-ready product delivery. Profit or loss after tax for the last three financial years is as follows:

2024 (unaudited): loss of EUR 50,891.81

2023 (unaudited): loss of EUR 27,665.32

2022: profit of EUR 104,283.00

The profit in 2022 resulted primarily from legacy consulting activities, which were discontinued as part of the company’s repositioning.

The losses in 2023 and 2024 resulted from strategic investments in the development of proprietary software infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and compliance technology for the MiCA ecosystem. During those periods, no substantial commercial revenues were expected, as resources were directed towards preparing the platform for market entry in a regulated environment.

A fundamental repositioning of the company occurred in 2023 and especially in 2024, when the focus shifted towards providing risk management, regulatory reporting, and supervisory compliance solutions for financial institutions and crypto-asset service providers. This marked a material shift in business operations and monetisation strategy.

Based on preliminary unaudited management information for the financial year 2025, revenues are expected to have exceeded EUR 800,000, while preliminary net profit is expected to exceed EUR 100,000.

These figures are not audited and are not based on a finalised annual financial statement. Accordingly, they remain subject to finalisation and may differ from the figures ultimately reported in the annual financial statements.

With the regulatory environment now taking shape and the platform commercially validated, it is assumed that the effects of the strategic developments will continue to materialise in 2026. The company foresees further scalability of its technology and growing market demand for regulatory compliance tools in the European crypto-asset sector.

No public subsidies or governmental grants have been received to date; all operations have been financed through shareholder contributions and internally generated resources. Crypto Risk Metrics has never accepted any payments in tokens from projects it has worked with and – due to its internal Conflicts of Interest Policy – never will.

Not applicable. The company has been established for more than three years and its financial condition over the past three years is provided in Part A.16 above.

Could not be found while drafting this white paper (2026-05-18).

Could not be found while drafting this white paper (2026-05-18).

According to publicly available information, the Litecoin project is a crypto-asset initiative concerned with the development and maintenance of a decentralised, permissionless payment network operating on a public distributed ledger. The project originated in 2011, when Charlie Lee introduced Litecoin as a modification of the Bitcoin protocol, with adjustments aimed at improving transaction speed and accessibility.

The technical core of the project consists of an open-source blockchain system secured by a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism. Transactions are validated by miners who compete to solve cryptographic puzzles using the Scrypt hashing algorithm. The blockchain is structured as a sequential chain of blocks, each referencing the hash of the previous block, thereby supporting the integrity and continuity of the ledger. The protocol provides for a fixed maximum supply of 84,000,000 LTC, with issuance governed by a predefined halving mechanism occurring approximately every 840,000 blocks.

The Litecoin crypto-asset is intended to function as a decentralised medium of exchange within this technical framework. It enables peer-to-peer value transfer without reliance on a central intermediary and is designed to support faster transaction confirmation times compared to Bitcoin, with a targeted block interval of approximately 2.5 minutes. Governance of the protocol is based on open-source development practices, including Litecoin Improvement Proposals (LIPs), and coordination among network participants such as developers, miners, and node operators.

The project is maintained by a decentralised network of independent participants and does not rely on a single controlling entity. Certain organisations, including the Litecoin Foundation Ltd., contribute to ecosystem development and support activities; however, such contributions do not constitute control over the network. The ongoing development and evolution of the protocol depend on distributed community participation and may vary over time based on technical and operational considerations.

The crypto-asset is a decentralised digital currency designed for fast and low-cost transactions. It was created by Charlie Lee in 2011 as a “lighter” version of Bitcoin, with a focus on efficiency and accessibility. Since its launch, the crypto-asset has undergone multiple upgrades aimed at enhancing scalability, security, and transaction speed. All forward-looking elements are subject to significant uncertainty. They do not constitute commitments, assurances, or guarantees, and may be modified, delayed, or discontinued at any time. The implementation of past milestones cannot be assumed to continue in the future, and future changes may have adverse effects for token holders.

Past milestones:

1. Launch & Genesis Block (2011)

- The crypto-asset was created by Charlie Lee, based on modifications of Bitcoin’s code to reduce block times and transaction fees.

2. First Halving (2015)

- Block rewards were reduced from 50 LTC to 25 LTC, following its pre-set issuance schedule.

3. SegWit Activation (2017)

- The network became one of the first major blockchains to adopt Segregated Witness (SegWit), improving scalability and enabling second-layer solutions such as the Lightning Network.

4. Second Halving (2019)

- Block rewards are reduced from 25 LTC to 12.5 LTC.

5. MimbleWimble Extension Block (MWEB) Proposal (2019)

- Development begins on MWEB, aiming to improve privacy and fungibility by introducing confidential transactions. MWEB is subsequently activated on the Litecoin network in 2022.

6. Third Halving (2023)

- Block rewards were reduced to 6.25 LTC, continuing the disinflationary issuance model.

7. MWEB Adoption Enhancements (2024)

- Litecoin Core v0.21.3 introduced improvements supporting broader MWEB adoption, including enhanced compatibility with mobile and light-wallet infrastructure.

8. LitVM Announcement and Ongoing Development (2025 – ongoing)

- Litecoin’s EVM-compatible Layer-2 solution, LitVM, built using the Arbitrum Nitro stack, is announced to introduce smart contract functionality to the network. As of the date of this white paper, LitVM remains under active development and testing, with a testnet in operation, while mainnet deployment has not yet occurred.

9. MWEB Security Incident and Network Response (2026)

- A validation flaw affecting Litecoin’s MimbleWimble Extension Block (MWEB) implementation was identified and exploited, resulting in an inflated peg-out of approximately 85,034 LTC. According to the publicly available postmortem (source: https://litecoin.com/news/litecoin-mweb-security-incident-postmortem, accessed 2026-05-18), the issue was subsequently addressed through coordinated mitigation measures, recovery actions, and software updates, including Litecoin Core v0.21.5.4. A related April 2026 incident involved an invalid chain extension that was later reorganised out.

Future milestones:

1. Next Halving Event (Expected ~2027)

- Block rewards are expected to be reduced further in line with the predefined issuance schedule.

2. Scalability & Layer-2 Enhancements (Expected 2026-2027)

- Further adoption of LitVM and other scalability solutions to improve transaction throughput.

3. Privacy & Fungibility Enhancements (Expected 2026-2027)

- Ongoing refinements to MWEB to balance privacy with regulatory compliance.

Note: All future milestones are subject to significant uncertainty, including but not limited to technical feasibility, regulatory developments, market adoption, and community governance decisions. The project may modify, delay, or discontinue any of these initiatives at any time. Past implementation or performance outcomes do not constitute an indication of future results, and any such changes may materially affect the characteristics, availability, or perceived value of the LTC crypto-asset for its holders.

According to its audited financial statements for the financial year ended 30 June 2024, the Litecoin Foundation Ltd. reported total assets of S$125,354 (Singapore dollars) and total equity of S$59,573. The resources of the foundation are used to promote the adoption, awareness, and development of Litecoin and its ecosystem, according to the website https://litecoin.com/financials (accessed 2026-05-18).

The purpose of seeking admission to trading is to enable the crypto-asset to be listed on a regulated platform in accordance with the applicable provisions of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2984. The white paper has been drawn up to comply with the transparency requirements applicable to trading venues.

The token is intended to be listed on the trading platform operated by Payward Global Solutions LTD ("Kraken"). Access to this platform depends on regional availability and user eligibility under Kraken’s terms and conditions. Investors should consult Kraken’s official documentation to determine whether they meet the requirements for account creation and token trading.

The costs involved in accessing the trading platform depend on the specific fee structure and terms of the respective crypto-asset service provider. These may include trading fees, deposit or withdrawal charges, and network-related transaction fees. Investors are advised to consult the applicable fee schedule of the chosen platform before engaging in trading activities.

Not applicable, as this white paper is written to seek admission to trading, not for the initial offer to the public.

MiCA-compliant crypto-asset service providers shall have strong measures in place in order to manage conflicts of interest. Due to the broad audience this white paper addresses, potential investors should always check the conflicts-of-interest policy of their respective counterparty.

Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH has established, implemented, and documented comprehensive internal policies and procedures for the identification, prevention, management, and documentation of conflicts of interest in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. These internal measures are actively applied within the organisation. For the purposes of this specific assessment and the crypto-asset covered by this white paper, a token-specific review has been conducted by Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH. Based on this individual review, no conflicts of interest relevant to this crypto-asset have been identified at the time of preparation of this white paper.

Not applicable, as this white paper is written to seek admission to trading, not for the initial offer to the public.

Not applicable, as this white paper is written to seek admission to trading, not for the initial offer to the public.

The LTC crypto-asset is designed to function as a decentralised medium of exchange operating on a peer-to-peer network without reliance on a central intermediary. Transactions are validated and recorded on a public distributed ledger through a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism based on the Scrypt hashing algorithm. The crypto-asset enables the transfer of value between participants and is primarily used for payment purposes and as a store of value. Compared to Bitcoin, the network is configured to support faster transaction confirmation times.

The LTC crypto-asset does not confer ownership, profit participation, governance rights over any entity, or any form of economic entitlement. All functionalities are technical in nature and relate exclusively to interactions within the Litecoin network. The actual usability of LTC depends on factors such as network stability, software implementation, development progress, and the operational conditions of the underlying distributed ledger, which are outside the control of token holders.

Future milestones:

1. Next Halving Event (Expected ~2027)

- Block rewards are expected to be reduced further in line with the predefined issuance schedule.

2. Scalability & Layer-2 Enhancements (Expected 2026-2027)

- Further adoption of LitVM and other scalability solutions to improve transaction throughput.

3. Privacy & Fungibility Enhancements (Expected 2026-2027)

- Ongoing refinements to MWEB to balance privacy with regulatory compliance.

Note: All future milestones are subject to significant uncertainty, including but not limited to technical feasibility, regulatory developments, market adoption, and community governance decisions. The project may modify, delay, or discontinue any of these initiatives at any time. Past implementation or performance outcomes do not constitute an indication of future results, and any such changes may materially affect the characteristics, availability, or perceived value of the LTC crypto-asset for its holders.

The crypto-asset referred to herein is a crypto-asset other than EMTs and ARTs, native to the Litecoin network. The crypto-asset is fungible up to 8 digits after the decimal point. The crypto-asset constitutes a digital representation recorded on distributed-ledger technology and does not confer ownership, governance, profit participation, or any other legally enforceable rights. Any functionalities associated with the token are limited to potential technical features within the relevant platform environment. These functionalities do not represent contractual entitlements and may depend on future development decisions, technical design choices, and operational conditions. The crypto-asset does not embody intrinsic economic value; instead, its value, if any, is determined exclusively by market dynamics such as supply, demand, and liquidity in secondary markets.

As no issuer is identified for the crypto-asset, it cannot be excluded that additional services exist or may be offered in the future outside the scope of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.

The crypto-asset does not grant any legally enforceable or contractual rights or obligations to its holders or purchasers.

Any functionalities accessible through the underlying technology are of a purely technical or operational nature and do not constitute rights comparable to ownership, profit participation, governance, or similar entitlements known from traditional financial instruments.

Accordingly, holders do not acquire any claim capable of legal enforcement against the issuer or any third party.

As the crypto-asset does not establish any legally enforceable rights or obligations, there are no applicable procedures or conditions for their exercise.

Any interaction or functionality that may be available within the technical infrastructure of the project – such as participation mechanisms or protocol-level features – serves operational purposes only and does not create or constitute evidence of any contractual or statutory entitlement.

As the crypto-asset does not confer any legally enforceable rights or obligations, there are no conditions or mechanisms under which such rights could be modified.

Adjustments to the technical protocol, smart contract logic, or related systems may occur in the ordinary course of development or maintenance.

Such changes do not alter the legal position of holders, as no contractual or regulatory rights exist. Holders should not interpret technical updates or governance-related changes as amendments to legally binding entitlements.

Information on the future offers to the public of crypto-assets was not available at the time of writing this white paper (2026-05-18).

The crypto-assets themselves are not subject to any technical or contractual transfer restrictions and are generally freely transferable. However, crypto-asset service providers may impose restrictions on buyers or sellers in accordance with applicable laws, internal policies or contractual terms agreed with their clients.

Not applicable.

This white paper is submitted in the context of an application for admission to trading on a trading platform established in the European Union. Accordingly, this white paper shall be governed by the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Any disputes arising in relation to this white paper or the admission to trading may be brought before the competent courts in Hamburg, Germany.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Litecoin network following the standards described below.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Litecoin network following the standards described below.

The crypto-asset operates on a defined set of protocols and technical standards intended to support its security, decentralisation, and functionality. The following applies to the Litecoin network:

1. Network Protocols

- The crypto-asset operates on a decentralised peer-to-peer (P2P) network in which nodes communicate using a protocol derived from the original Bitcoin wire protocol over TCP/IP.

- Litecoin uses a Scrypt-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism instead of SHA-256, making mining more memory-intensive compared to Bitcoin.

- Miners compete to identify a valid nonce that satisfies the network’s difficulty target.

- Litecoin transactions use a stack-based scripting language for defining transaction-spending conditions, similar to Bitcoin.

- The network additionally supports technologies such as Segregated Witness (SegWit), the Lightning Network, and MimbleWimble Extension Blocks (MWEB).

2. Transaction and Address Standards

- P2PKH (Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash) legacy addresses

- P2SH (Pay-to-Script-Hash) addresses

- Bech32 SegWit addresses

- P2WPKH and P2WSH SegWit transaction formats

- SegWit support was activated in 2017 and is intended to reduce transaction malleability and improve transaction efficiency.

- Litecoin also supports M-addresses as an alternative representation of certain P2SH address formats.

3. Blockchain Data Structure & Block Standards

Transactions in each block are organised in a Merkle tree for efficient verification.

Each block contains:

- A block header, including the previous block hash, Merkle root, timestamp, difficulty target, and nonce

- A list of validated Litecoin transactions

- The network targets a block interval of approximately 2.5 minutes.

- The blockchain follows a UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) model similar to Bitcoin.

- The effective transaction capacity of blocks was increased through the implementation of SegWit.

4. Upgrade & Improvement Standards

- Litecoin Improvement Proposals (LIPs) are used to propose and discuss protocol changes and technical improvements.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Litecoin network following the standards described below.

1. Decentralised Ledger

The Litecoin blockchain acts as a decentralised ledger for token transactions and is designed to maintain an immutable record of transfers and ownership. This is intended to support transparency, network integrity, and security without reliance on a central authority.

2. Private Key Management

To safeguard their token holdings, Litecoin users must securely store their wallet private keys and recovery phrases. Loss of these credentials may result in permanent loss of access to the associated crypto-assets, reinforcing the importance of secure key-management practices.

3. Cryptographic Integrity

Litecoin employs elliptic curve cryptography (ECDSA using the secp256k1 curve) to generate public-private key pairs and to securely sign transactions.

The network uses the Scrypt hashing algorithm for its Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism, in contrast to Bitcoin’s SHA-256 algorithm. Scrypt was originally intended to make mining more memory-intensive and less dependent on specialised hardware.

Addresses are derived through public-key hashing mechanisms similar to those used by Bitcoin.

In 2022, Litecoin introduced MimbleWimble Extension Blocks (MWEB), an optional protocol extension intended to enhance transaction confidentiality and fungibility through confidential transaction functionality.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Litecoin network following the standards described below.

Litecoin uses a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism similar to Bitcoin, with certain technical differences.

1. Scrypt Hashing Algorithm: Unlike Bitcoin’s SHA-256 algorithm, Litecoin uses the Scrypt hashing algorithm for mining. Scrypt is more memory-intensive than SHA-256 and was originally intended to reduce dependence on specialised mining hardware during the early development of the network.

2. Mining and Block Creation: Miners compete to solve cryptographic puzzles in order to add new blocks to the blockchain. This process involves performing computational work using the Scrypt algorithm. The first miner to identify a valid solution may add the next block to the blockchain and receive the applicable block reward and transaction fees associated with that block.

3. Block Time: Litecoin targets a block interval of approximately 2.5 minutes, compared to Bitcoin’s approximate 10-minute interval. As a result, transactions may achieve confirmation more quickly than on the Bitcoin network.

4. Block Reward Halving: Similar to Bitcoin, Litecoin has a block reward halving event approximately every four years. Initially, miners earned 50 LTC per block, but this reward decreases by half after each halving event. This process continues until the maximum supply of 84 million LTC is reached.

5. Difficulty Adjustment: Litecoin adjusts the mining difficulty approximately every 2,016 blocks (about every 3.5 days) to ensure that blocks continue to be mined at a consistent rate of 2.5 minutes per block, regardless of fluctuations in the total network hash rate.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Litecoin network following the standards described below.

Litecoin, like Bitcoin, uses the Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism to secure transactions and incentivise miners.

1. Mining Rewards:

- Block Rewards: Miners receive Litecoin (LTC) for successfully mining new blocks. The initial block reward amounted to 50 LTC per block and is reduced by half approximately every four years through the protocol’s predefined halving mechanism.

- Transaction Fees: Miners also receive transaction fees associated with the transactions included in the blocks they mine. Users may pay transaction fees to prioritise the processing of their transactions during periods of higher network activity.

- Merged Mining: Dogecoin, another Scrypt-based Proof-of-Work distributed ledger, supports auxiliary proof-of-work (AuxPoW), commonly referred to as merged mining. As a result, Litecoin miners may simultaneously participate in Litecoin and Dogecoin mining activities using the same computational work and may receive rewards from both networks. This contributes to the combined mining hash rate securing the networks and may provide additional economic incentives for miners.

2. Halving:

The halving mechanism ensures that over time, fewer Litecoins are introduced into circulation, creating a deflationary model. This reduces the rate at which new LTC enters circulation. Over time, transaction fees may become a more relevant component of miner compensation as block rewards decrease.

3. Economic Security:

The cost of mining (e.g., hardware and electricity) provides a strong economic incentive for miners to act honestly. If miners attempt to cheat or attack the network, they risk losing the computational work they invested, as invalid blocks will be rejected by the network.

Fees on the Litecoin Blockchain

1. Transaction Fees: Litecoin users pay a transaction fee for each transaction, typically calculated in LTC per byte of transaction data. The fees are dynamic and vary based on network congestion.

2. Fee Redistribution: Transaction fees associated with validated transactions are awarded to miners as part of the compensation for validating blocks and securing the network.

Not applicable, as the DLT is not operated by the issuer, the offeror, the person seeking admission to trading, or any third-party acting on their behalf.

Not applicable, as no comprehensive audit of the technology used has been conducted or can be confirmed.

1. Regulatory and Compliance

Regulatory frameworks applicable to crypto-asset services in the European Union and in third countries are evolving. Supervisory authorities may introduce, interpret, or enforce rules that affect (i) the eligibility of this crypto-asset for admission to trading, (ii) the conditions under which a crypto-asset service provider may offer trading, custody, or transfer services for it, or (iii) the persons or jurisdictions to which such services may be provided. As a result, the crypto-asset service provider admitting this crypto-asset to trading may be required to suspend, restrict, or terminate trading or withdrawals for regulatory reasons, even if the crypto-asset itself continues to function on its underlying network.

2. Trading venue and connection risk

Trading in the crypto-asset depends on the uninterrupted operation of the trading platform admitting it and, where applicable, on its technical connections to external liquidity sources or venues. Interruptions such as system downtime, maintenance, faulty integrations, API changes, or failures at an external venue can temporarily prevent order placement, execution, deposits, or withdrawals, even when the underlying blockchain is functioning. In addition, trading platforms in emerging markets may operate under differing governance, compliance, and oversight standards, which can increase the risk of operational failures or disorderly market conditions.

3. Market formation and liquidity conditions

The price and tradability of the crypto-asset depend on actual trading activity on the venues to which the service provider is connected, whether centralised exchanges (CEXs) or decentralised exchanges (DEXs). Trading volumes may at times be low, order books thin, or liquidity concentrated on a single venue. In such conditions, buy or sell orders may not be executed in full or may be executed only at a less favourable price, resulting in slippage.

Volatility: The market price of the crypto-asset may fluctuate significantly over short periods, including for reasons that are not linked to changes in the underlying project or protocol. Periods of limited liquidity, shifts in overall market sentiment, or trading on only a small number of CEXs or DEXs can amplify these movements and lead to higher slippage when orders are executed. As a result, investors may be unable to sell the crypto-asset at or close to a previously observed price, even though no negative project-specific event has occurred.

4. Counterparty and service-provider dependence

The admission of the crypto-asset to trading may rely on several external parties, such as connected centralised or decentralised trading venues, liquidity providers, brokers, custodians, or technical integrators. If any of these counterparties fail to perform, suspend their services, or apply internal restrictions, the trading, deposit, or withdrawal of the crypto-asset on the admitting service provider can be interrupted or halted.

Quality of counterparties: Trading venues and service providers in certain jurisdictions may operate under regulatory or supervisory standards that are lower or differently enforced than those applicable in the European Union. In such environments, deficiencies in governance, risk management, or compliance may remain undetected, which increases the probability of abrupt service interruptions, investigations, or forced wind-downs.

Delisting and service suspension: The crypto-asset’s availability may depend on the internal listing decisions of these counterparties. A delisting or suspension on a key connected venue can materially reduce liquidity or make trading temporarily impossible on the admitting service provider, even if the underlying crypto-asset continues to function.

Insolvency of counterparties: If a counterparty involved in holding, routing, or settling the crypto-asset becomes insolvent, enters restructuring, or is otherwise subject to resolution-type measures, assets held or processed by that counterparty may be frozen, become temporarily unavailable, or be recoverable only in part or not at all, which can result in losses for clients whose positions were maintained through that counterparty. This risk applies in particular where client assets are held on an omnibus basis or where segregation is not fully recognised in the counterparty’s jurisdiction.

5. Operational and information risks

Due to the irrevocability of blockchain transactions, incorrect approvals or the use of wrong networks or addresses will typically make the transferred funds irrecoverable. Because trading may also rely on technical connections to other venues or service providers, downtime or faulty code in these connections can temporarily block trading, deposits, or withdrawals even when the underlying blockchain is functioning. In addition, different groups of market participants may have unequal access to technical, governance, or project-related information, which can lead to information asymmetry and place less informed investors at a disadvantage when making trading decisions.

6. Market access and liquidity concentration risk

If the crypto-asset is only available on a limited number of trading platforms or through a single market-making entity, this may result in reduced liquidity, greater price volatility, or periods of inaccessibility for retail holders.

Interpretative note for this section: The risk factors set out in this Part I.2 follow the structure of the applicable MiCA white paper template for crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens under Title II of MiCA, including references to issuer-related risks. For the purposes of this Part I.2, references to an “issuer”, “issuer-related risks”, or similar terms are to be read in line with the definition of “issuer” under MiCA, including any natural or legal person, or other undertaking, that issues crypto-assets. Where this white paper does not specify a separate issuer, the relevant risk descriptions should be understood as referring, as applicable, to persons, entities, undertakings, arrangements, or governance structures that may materially influence the crypto-asset or the related project. This may include, for example, foundations, core contributor entities, developers, maintainers, governance participants, or other relevant project-related actors, to the extent such information is available.

1. Absence or insolvency of an identifiable issuer

Where an identifiable issuer exists, that issuer may face insolvency risks. These may result from insufficient funding, low market interest, mismanagement, legal or regulatory developments, or external shocks, including pandemics or armed conflicts. In such a case, ongoing development, support, communication, or governance of the crypto-asset project may be reduced, suspended, or discontinued, potentially affecting the viability, availability, market acceptance, or tradability of the crypto-asset.

2. Legal and regulatory risks

The issuer operates in a dynamic and evolving regulatory environment. Failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations in relevant jurisdictions may result in enforcement actions, penalties, or restrictions on the project’s operations. These may negatively impact the crypto-asset’s availability, market acceptance, or legal status.

3. Operational risks

The issuer may fail to implement adequate internal controls, risk management, or governance processes. This can result in operational disruptions, financial losses, delays in updating the white paper, or reputational damage.

4. Governance and decision-making

The issuer’s management body is responsible for key strategic, operational, and disclosure decisions. Ineffective governance, delays in decision-making, or lack of resources may compromise the stability of the project and its compliance with MiCA requirements. High concentration of decision-making authority or changes in ownership/control can amplify these risks.

5. Reputational risks

The issuer’s reputation may be harmed by internal failures, external accusations, or association with illicit activity. Negative publicity can reduce trust in the issuer and impact the perceived legitimacy or value of the crypto-asset.

6. Counterparty dependence

The issuer may depend on third-party providers for certain core functions, such as technology development, marketing, legal advice, or infrastructure. If these partners discontinue their services, change ownership, or underperform, the issuer’s ability to operate the project or maintain investor communication may be impaired. This could disrupt project continuity or undermine market confidence, ultimately affecting the crypto-asset’s value.

1. Valuation risk

The crypto-asset does not represent a claim, nor is it backed by physical assets or legal entitlements. Its market value is driven solely by supply and demand dynamics and may fluctuate significantly. In the absence of fundamental value anchors, such assets can lose their entire market value within a very short time. Historical market behaviour has shown that some types of crypto-assets – such as memecoins or purely speculative tokens – have become worthless. Investors should be aware that this crypto-asset may lose all of its value.

2. Market volatility risk

Crypto-asset prices can fluctuate sharply due to changes in market sentiment, macroeconomic conditions, regulatory developments, or technology trends. Such volatility may result in rapid and significant losses. Holders should be prepared for the possibility of losing the full amount invested.

3. Liquidity and price-determination risk

Low trading volumes, fragmented trading across venues, or the absence of active market makers can restrict the ability to buy or sell the crypto-asset. In such situations, it is not guaranteed that an observable market price will exist at all times. Spreads may widen materially, and orders may only be executable under unfavourable conditions, which can make liquidation costly or temporarily impossible.

4. Asset security risk

Loss or theft of private keys, unauthorised access to wallets, or failures of custodial or exchange service providers can result in the irreversible loss of assets. Because blockchain transactions are final, recovery of funds after a compromise is generally impossible.

5. Fraud and scam risk

The pseudonymous and irreversible nature of blockchain transactions can attract fraudulent schemes. Typical forms include fake or unauthorised crypto-assets imitating established ones, phishing attempts, deceptive airdrops, or social-engineering attacks. Investors should exercise caution and verify the authenticity of counterparties and information sources.

6. Legal and regulatory reclassification risk

Legislative or regulatory changes in the European Union or in the Member State where the crypto-asset is admitted to trading may alter its legal classification, permitted uses, or tradability. In third countries, the crypto-asset may be treated as a financial instrument or security, which can restrict its offering, trading, or custody.

7. Absence of investor protection

The crypto-asset is not covered by investor-compensation or deposit-guarantee schemes. In the event of loss, fraud, or insolvency of a service provider, holders may have no access to recourse mechanisms typically available in regulated financial markets.

8. Counterparty risk

Reliance on third-party exchanges, custodians, or intermediaries exposes holders to operational failures, insolvency, or fraud of these parties. Investors should conduct due diligence on service providers, as their failure may lead to the partial or total loss of held assets.

9. Reputational risk

Negative publicity related to security incidents, misuse of blockchain technology, or associations with illicit activity can damage public confidence and reduce the crypto-asset’s market value.

10. Community and sentiment risk

Because the crypto-asset’s perceived relevance and expected future use depend largely on community engagement and the prevailing sentiment, a loss of public interest, negative coverage or reduced activity of key contributors can materially reduce market demand.

11. Macroeconomic and interest-rate risk

Fluctuations in interest rates, exchange rates, general market conditions, or overall market volatility can influence investor sentiment towards digital assets and affect the crypto-asset’s market value.

12. Taxation risk

Tax treatment varies across jurisdictions. Holders are individually responsible for complying with all applicable tax laws, including the reporting and payment of taxes arising from the acquisition, holding, or disposal of the crypto-asset.

13. Anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing risk

Wallet addresses or transactions connected to the crypto-asset may be linked to sanctioned or illicit activity. Regulatory responses to such findings may include transfer restrictions, report obligations, or the freezing of assets on certain venues.

14. Market-abuse risk

Due to limited oversight and transparency, crypto-assets may be vulnerable to market-abuse practices such as spoofing, pump-and-dump schemes, or insider trading. Such activities can distort prices and expose holders to sudden losses.

15. Legal ownership and jurisdictional risk

Depending on the applicable law, holders of the crypto-asset may not have enforceable ownership rights or effective legal remedies in cases of disputes, fraud, or service failure. In certain jurisdictions, access to exchanges or interfaces may be restricted by regulatory measures, even if on-chain transfer remains technically possible.

16. Concentration risk

A large proportion of the total supply may be held by a small number of holders. This can enable market manipulation, governance dominance, or sudden large-scale liquidations that adversely affect market stability, price levels, and investor confidence.

Interpretative note for this section: The risk factors set out in this Part I.4 follow the structure of the applicable MiCA white paper template for crypto-assets other than asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens under Title II of MiCA, including references to issuer-related risks. For the purposes of this Part I.4, references to an “issuer”, “issuer-related risks”, or similar terms are to be read in line with the definition of “issuer” under MiCA, including any natural or legal person, or other undertaking, that issues crypto-assets. Where this white paper does not specify a separate issuer, the relevant risk descriptions should be understood as referring, as applicable, to persons, entities, undertakings, arrangements, or governance structures that may materially influence the crypto-asset or the related project. This may include, for example, foundations, core contributor entities, developers, maintainers, governance participants, or other relevant project-related actors, to the extent such information is available.

As this white paper relates to the admission to trading of the crypto-asset, the following risk description reflects general implementation risks on the crypto-asset service provider's side typically associated with crypto-asset projects. The party admitting the asset to trading is not involved in the project’s implementation and does not assume responsibility for its governance, funding, or execution.

Delays, failures, or changes in the implementation of the project as outlined in its public roadmap or technical documentation may negatively impact the perceived credibility or usability of the crypto-asset. This includes risks related to project governance, resource allocation, technical delivery, and team continuity.

Key-person risk: The project may rely on a limited number of individuals for development, maintenance, or strategic direction. The departure, incapacity, or misalignment of these individuals may delay or derail the implementation.

Timeline and milestone risk: Project milestones may not be met as announced. Delays in feature releases, protocol upgrades, or external integrations can undermine market confidence and affect the adoption, use, or value of the crypto-asset.

Delivery risk: Even if implemented on time, certain functionalities or integrations may not perform as intended or may be scaled back during execution, limiting the token’s practical utility.

As this white paper relates to the admission to trading of the crypto-asset, the following risks concern the underlying distributed ledger technology (DLT), its supporting infrastructure, and related technical dependencies. Failures or vulnerabilities in these systems may affect the availability, integrity, or transferability of the crypto-asset.

1. Blockchain dependency risk

The functionality of the crypto-asset depends on the continuous and stable operation of the Litecoin blockchain. Network congestion, outages, or protocol errors may temporarily or permanently disrupt on-chain transactions. Extended downtime or degradation in network performance can affect trading, settlement, or usability of the crypto-asset.

2. Protocol and software vulnerability risk

The protocol rules, scripts, software implementations, or related technical components that define the crypto-asset's parameters or govern its transfers may contain coding errors or security vulnerabilities. Exploitation of such weaknesses can result in unintended consequences, including loss of funds or disruption of network functionality. Even after extensive peer review and community auditing, undetected vulnerabilities may persist, particularly given the long-standing and deeply embedded nature of the deployed code.

3. Wallet and key-management risk

The custody of crypto-assets relies on secure private key management. Loss, theft, or compromise of private keys results in irreversible loss of access. Custodians, trading venues, or wallet providers may be targeted by cyberattacks. Compatibility issues between wallet software and changes to the Litecoin protocol (e.g. network upgrades or soft forks) can further limit user access or the ability to transfer the crypto-asset.

Outdated or vulnerable wallet software:

Users relying on outdated, unaudited, or unsupported wallet software may face compatibility issues, security vulnerabilities, or failures when interacting with the Litecoin network. Failure to update wallet software in line with protocol developments can result in transaction errors, loss of access, or exposure to known exploits.

4. Network security risks

Attack Risks: The Litecoin network may be subject to denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, 51% attacks, or other exploits targeting the proof-of-work consensus mechanism. These can delay transactions, compromise finality, or disrupt the accurate recording of transfers.

Centralisation Concerns: Despite the decentralised design of the Litecoin protocol, a high concentration of mining hashrate among a small number of mining pools may increase the risk of collusion, censorship, or coordinated network disruption. These factors can affect the resilience and operational reliability of the crypto-asset.

5. Bridge and interoperability risk

Where the crypto-asset is represented on networks other than the Litecoin blockchain through third-party infrastructure such as bridges, wrapped representations, or synthetic instruments, vulnerabilities in such external protocols, validator sets, or locking mechanisms may result in loss, duplication, or misrepresentation of assets. These risks arise outside the native Litecoin scope and depend on the integrity of the third-party systems concerned. Exploits or technical failures in such systems can impact circulating supply, ownership claims, or token fungibility across chains.

6. Forking and protocol-upgrade risk

Network upgrades or disagreements among node operators or miners can result in blockchain "forks", where the blockchain splits into two or more incompatible versions that continue separately from a shared past. This may lead to duplicate token representations or incompatibilities between exchanges and wallets. Until consensus stabilises, trading or transfers may be disrupted or misaligned. Such situations may be difficult for retail holders to navigate, particularly when trading platforms or wallets display inconsistent token information.

7. Economic-layer and abstraction risk

Mechanisms such as wrapped representations or synthetic instruments may alter the transaction economics of the underlying crypto-asset. Changes in network transaction fees, demand for block space, or utility may reduce usage and weaken both the economic function and perceived value of the crypto-asset within its ecosystem.

8. Spam and network-efficiency risk

High volumes of low-value ("dust") or automated transactions may congest the network, slow block propagation, inflate ledger size, and raise network transaction fees. This can impair performance, reduce throughput, and expose address patterns to analysis, thereby reducing network efficiency and privacy.

9. Front-end and access-interface risk

If users rely on centralised web interfaces or hosted wallets to interact with the Litecoin network, service outages, malicious compromises, or domain expiries affecting these interfaces may block access to the crypto-asset, even while the underlying network itself remains fully functional. Dependence on single web portals introduces a critical point of failure outside the DLT layer.

10. Decentralisation claim risk

While the technical infrastructure of the Litecoin network is widely regarded as decentralised, certain operational layers, such as mining pool concentration or software development repositories, may exhibit higher degrees of centralisation. This disconnect between general perception and structural reality can give rise to regulatory scrutiny or reputational concerns, particularly where claims of full decentralisation are made without substantiation.

None.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Litecoin network following the standards described below.

Litecoin uses a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism similar to Bitcoin, with certain technical differences.

1. Scrypt Hashing Algorithm: Unlike Bitcoin’s SHA-256 algorithm, Litecoin uses the Scrypt hashing algorithm for mining. Scrypt is more memory-intensive than SHA-256 and was originally intended to reduce dependence on specialised mining hardware during the early development of the network.

2. Mining and Block Creation: Miners compete to solve cryptographic puzzles in order to add new blocks to the blockchain. This process involves performing computational work using the Scrypt algorithm. The first miner to identify a valid solution may add the next block to the blockchain and receive the applicable block reward and transaction fees associated with that block.

3. Block Time: Litecoin targets a block interval of approximately 2.5 minutes, compared to Bitcoin’s approximate 10-minute interval. As a result, transactions may achieve confirmation more quickly than on the Bitcoin network.

4. Block Reward Halving: Similar to Bitcoin, Litecoin has a block reward halving event approximately every four years. Initially, miners earned 50 LTC per block, but this reward decreases by half after each halving event. This process continues until the maximum supply of 84 million LTC is reached.

5. Difficulty Adjustment: Litecoin adjusts the mining difficulty approximately every 2,016 blocks (about every 3.5 days) to ensure that blocks continue to be mined at a consistent rate of 2.5 minutes per block, regardless of fluctuations in the total network hash rate.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Litecoin network following the standards described below.

Litecoin, like Bitcoin, uses the Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism to secure transactions and incentivise miners.

1. Mining Rewards:

- Block Rewards: Miners receive Litecoin (LTC) for successfully mining new blocks. The initial block reward amounted to 50 LTC per block and is reduced by half approximately every four years through the protocol’s predefined halving mechanism.

- Transaction Fees: Miners also receive transaction fees associated with the transactions included in the blocks they mine. Users may pay transaction fees to prioritise the processing of their transactions during periods of higher network activity.

- Merged Mining: Dogecoin, another Scrypt-based Proof-of-Work distributed ledger, supports auxiliary proof-of-work (AuxPoW), commonly referred to as merged mining. As a result, Litecoin miners may simultaneously participate in Litecoin and Dogecoin mining activities using the same computational work and may receive rewards from both networks. This contributes to the combined mining hash rate securing the networks and may provide additional economic incentives for miners.

2. Halving:

The halving mechanism ensures that over time, fewer Litecoins are introduced into circulation, creating a deflationary model. This makes mining more valuable as the circulating supply becomes scarcer, incentivising miners to continue participating in the network even as block rewards decrease.

3. Economic Security:

The cost of mining (e.g., hardware and electricity) provides a strong economic incentive for miners to act honestly. If miners attempt to cheat or attack the network, they risk losing the computational work they invested, as invalid blocks will be rejected by the network.

Fees on the Litecoin Blockchain

1. Transaction Fees: Litecoin users pay a transaction fee for each transaction, typically calculated in LTC per byte of transaction data. The fees are dynamic and vary based on network congestion.

2. Fee Redistribution: Transaction fees associated with validated transactions are awarded to miners as part of the compensation for validating blocks and securing the network.

For the calculation of energy consumption, the so-called “top-down” approach is used, within which an economic model of miners is assumed. Miners are persons or devices that actively participate in the Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism. They are considered the primary factor contributing to the network’s energy consumption.

Hardware is pre-selected based on the consensus mechanism’s hashing algorithm, namely Scrypt. A current profitability threshold is determined on the basis of the revenue and cost structure of mining operations. Only hardware above this profitability threshold is considered part of the network.

The energy consumption of the network is estimated by taking into account the distribution of hardware, the efficiency levels of operating such hardware, and on-chain information regarding miners’ revenue opportunities. Where significant use of merge mining is identified, this is also taken into account.

When calculating energy consumption, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is used, where available, to determine all implementations of the asset in scope. The mappings are updated regularly based on data provided by the Digital Token Identifier Foundation.

To determine the proportion of renewable energy usage, the locations of the nodes are determined using public information sites, open-source and in-house-developed crawlers. Where no information is available on the geographic distribution of mining nodes, comparable reference networks are used, taking into account similarities in incentivisation structure and consensus mechanism. This geographic information is then combined with publicly available data from Our World in Data. The resulting intensity is calculated as the marginal energy consumption with respect to one additional transaction.

Ember (2025); Energy Institute, Statistical Review of World Energy (2024), with major processing by Our World in Data. “Share of electricity generated by renewables - Ember and Energy Institute” [dataset]. Underlying sources: Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data Europe”; Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data”; Energy Institute, “Statistical Review of World Energy”. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewables

To determine GHG emissions, the locations of the mining nodes are determined using public information sites, open-source crawlers, and crawlers developed in-house. Where no information is available on the geographic distribution of mining nodes, comparable reference networks are used, taking into account similarities in incentivisation structure and consensus mechanism. This geographic information is then combined with publicly available data from Our World in Data. The resulting intensity is calculated as the marginal emission intensity with respect to one additional transaction.

Ember (2025); Energy Institute, Statistical Review of World Energy (2024), with major processing by Our World in Data. “Carbon intensity of electricity generation – Ember and Energy Institute” [dataset]. Underlying sources: Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data Europe”; Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data”; Energy Institute, “Statistical Review of World Energy”. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.