White paper drafted under the European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 for FFG 13JBPT88T

The crypto-asset PENGU referred to in this white paper is a crypto-asset other than an EMT or ART and is deployed on the Solana and Abstract blockchains, according to DTI FFG shown in section F.14. The initial production of 88,888,888,888 PENGU tokens, referred to as the mint, took place on 29 November 2024 on Solana (transaction hash: 5mSLwwmFe7rmREBvhp4YR8B5hveTHQ6NhRkJrcY5ZUVmXeMC8rdsHRRkxj8s4EG6NGYJ1PTYL2ssRuQ28V2gsBKo, source: https://solscan.io/tx/5mSLwwmFe7rmREBvhp4YR8B5hveTHQ6NhRkJrcY5ZUVmXeMC8rdsHRRkxj8s4EG6NGYJ1PTYL2ssRuQ28V2gsBKo, accessed 2026-08-24). The PENGU contract was deployed on Abstract on 21 January 2025 (transaction hash: 0xaf8ca3b18bcd710113cd9408b18cf85c646152388da2ceceaaaac79519ec90bd, source: https://abscan.org/tx/0xaf8ca3b18bcd710113cd9408b18cf85c646152388da2ceceaaaac79519ec90bd, accessed 2026-09-02).

Pudgy Penguins is a digital-collectibles and consumer brand. It began in July 2021 with a collection of 8,888 penguin non-fungible tokens on Ethereum. Igloo, Inc. acquired the project in April 2022 and developed it as a licensing and merchandise business. Since May 2023, physical Pudgy Toys have been sold through mainstream retail channels and connected to the Pudgy World online experience. PENGU was launched in December 2024 as a meme-based community token and distributed by airdrop to eligible holders of Pudgy Penguins-related non-fungible tokens and to other community participants. Its role is to represent participation in the Pudgy Penguins community and brand ecosystem. It may be used in connection with community engagement and certain brand or partner programmes. PENGU is not a claim on the project, its assets, revenues or profits.

The crypto-asset does not grant holders or purchasers any legally enforceable or contractual rights or obligations. In particular, it does not confer ownership rights, entitlement to dividends or other distributions, voting or governance rights, redemption rights, interest or similar entitlements associated with traditional financial instruments. Any functionality made available through the underlying technology is technical or operational in nature and does not alter this position.

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 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 GmbH has never accepted any payments in tokens from projects it has worked with and – due to its internal Conflicts of Interest Policy – never will.

Could not be found while drafting this white paper (2026-08-19).

Could not be found while drafting this white paper (2026-08-19).

According to publicly available information (sources: https://pengu.pudgypenguins.com/, accessed 2026-09-02), Pudgy Penguins is a digital-collectibles and consumer brand that began with a collection of 8,888 penguin non-fungible tokens launched on Ethereum in 2021. The project has since developed into a licensing and merchandise business whose products are sold through mainstream retail channels, and PENGU is its community token.

The brand's principal consumer products are physical Pudgy Toys, sold through retail channels since 2023 and connected to the Pudgy World online experience, alongside collaborations with consumer brands and media partners. The project describes PENGU as broadening participation in the brand beyond non-fungible-token ownership, and presents the token as a symbol for the community. The perceived value of the token is linked to the adoption of the wider brand ecosystem; those ecosystem products are not the subject of this white paper.

Igloo, Inc. acquired the project in 2022 and developed it as a licensing and merchandise business. PENGU represents participation in the Pudgy Penguins community and brand ecosystem. It may be used in connection with community engagement and certain brand or partner programmes. PENGU is not a claim on the project, its assets, revenues or profits. The long-term evolution of the project depends on governance outcomes and technical, economic and regulatory considerations, and all future developments remain subject to change.

This section provides an overview of the historical developments related to the PENGU crypto-asset and a description of planned or anticipated project milestones as publicly communicated. 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.

There is no single formally published roadmap for the PENGU token; project plans are communicated through the project website (sources: https://pengu.pudgypenguins.com/, accessed 2026-09-02).

Past milestones:

- Launch of the Pudgy Penguins NFT collection (2021-07-22): a collection of 8,888 penguin non-fungible tokens launched on Ethereum, recorded by the project as selling out at launch and establishing the brand.

- Acquisition by Igloo Inc (2022-04): the Pudgy Penguins project was acquired by Igloo Inc, a holding company, which developed it as a licensing and merchandise business. The exact day of the acquisition has not been published.

- Launch of Pudgy Toys (2023-05): physical Pudgy Toys entered retail distribution and were connected to the Pudgy World online experience. The project reports first-weekend sales of more than 500,000 US dollars.

- Launch of PENGU (2024-12-17): PENGU was launched as a meme-based community token, and the airdrop to eligible holders of Pudgy Penguins-related non-fungible tokens and to other community participants opened on 2024-12-17 at 13:00 UTC. The initial production of 88,888,888,888 PENGU took place on Solana on 2024-11-29. The airdrop claim period ran for 88 days from launch, closing on 2025-03-15, after which unclaimed airdrop allocations were reported to be burned.

- Abstract deployment (2025-01-21): the PENGU token contract was deployed on the Abstract blockchain, extending the token to a second network.

- Pengu validator (2025-04): the project announced a Solana proof-of-stake validator operated in collaboration with Sol Strategies, described by the project as supporting the institutional adoption of the Pengu brand. The validator stakes SOL and not PENGU.

- Brand and partner programmes (ongoing): the project reports collaborations including Lufthansa Miles & More, NASCAR, Manchester City and PEZ, and a PENGU burn amount equal to 13.69% of total supply as presented on the project website.

Future milestones:

- The project describes continued expansion of the brand into traditional consumer markets and media, including dedicated Asia-Pacific operations, as presented on the project website.

- The project presents the Pengu validator programme as ongoing.

- No dated token-specific development roadmap for PENGU has been identified in project-published sources.

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 PENGU crypto-asset for its holders.

Based on information from various third-party and industry sources, it is reported that the crypto-asset project associated with the PENGU token and entities within the wider Pudgy Penguins ecosystem have conducted multiple funding rounds involving seed funding and strategic financing. The reported financing relates to Pudgy Penguins and its parent company, Igloo, Inc.; the cited sources do not establish the amounts allocated specifically to the PENGU token project.

According to publicly referenced information, Pudgy Penguins announced a seed funding round of USD 9,000,000 on 9 May 2023. The round was reportedly led by 1kx, with participation from Big Brain Holdings, Kronos Research, the founders of LayerZero Labs, Old Fashion Research and CRIT Ventures. Public reporting described the intended use of the proceeds as expanding the project's intellectual property, growing its team and enhancing community offerings.

Public sources further indicate that, on 23 July 2024, Igloo, Inc., described in the announcement as Pudgy Penguins' parent company, announced the closing of strategic financing exceeding USD 11,000,000. Founders Fund reportedly led the round, with additional investments from Fenbushi Capital, 1kx, Everest Ventures Group and Selini Capital. The stated purpose was to establish Cube Labs to undertake blockchain research and technology development and oversee and contribute to Abstract, a consumer-focused blockchain described as being incubated under the not-for-profit Abstract Foundation. This financing is relevant as wider ecosystem funding, but the announcement does not quantify resources already deployed or any allocation specifically to PENGU.

However, all such information is derived exclusively from public announcements, portfolio disclosures, press releases, transparency reports, and third-party publications. The issuer, foundation, or entities associated with the PENGU crypto-asset have not independently confirmed the occurrence, precise amounts, valuation, legal structure, or contractual terms of these reported financing rounds. As a result, the referenced investment amounts, investor participation, and any implied cumulative funding figures cannot be independently verified and should be considered indicative only.

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.

According to publicly available information (sources: https://pengu.pudgypenguins.com/, https://solscan.io/token/2zMMhcVQEXDtdE6vsFS7S7D5oUodfJHE8vd1gnBouauv, accessed 2026-09-02), PENGU is a fungible community token associated with the Pudgy Penguins brand. Its role is to represent participation in the Pudgy Penguins community and brand ecosystem.

PENGU may be held in compatible wallets, transferred peer-to-peer on Solana and Abstract and exchanged on third-party trading venues that list it. It may also be used in connection with community engagement and certain brand or partner programmes of the Pudgy Penguins ecosystem, as those programmes are made available from time to time. The Pudgy Penguins digital collectibles, the Pudgy World experience and the Pudgy Toys programme are separate components of the brand ecosystem and are not themselves functions of the PENGU token.

Beyond holding, transfer and the community and partner-programme uses described above, PENGU has no further protocol-level functionality as at the date of this white paper. It is not used to pay transaction fees on Solana or Abstract, plays no role in the consensus mechanism of either network and confers no governance rights. It does not itself confer any entitlement to yield, fee sharing, redemption or staking rewards. The Pengu validator programme presented on the project website involves staking of SOL, the native asset of the Solana network, and not of PENGU.

The usability of PENGU depends on factors such as wallet compatibility, system stability and the operational conditions of the Solana and Abstract networks, which are outside the control of token holders. The PENGU token does not confer ownership, profit participation, governance rights over the issuer or any related entity in a corporate-law sense, or any form of legally enforceable economic entitlement. All functionalities are technical in nature.

Future milestones:

- The project describes continued expansion of the brand into traditional consumer markets and media, including dedicated Asia-Pacific operations, as presented on the project website.

- The project presents the Pengu validator programme as ongoing.

- No dated token-specific development roadmap for PENGU has been identified in project-published sources.

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 PENGU crypto-asset for its holders.

The crypto-asset referred to herein is a crypto-asset other than an e-money token (EMT) or an asset-referenced token (ART) and is available on the Solana and Abstract networks. The crypto-asset is fungible up to 6 decimal places on the Solana network and up to 18 decimal places on the Abstract network. 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.

No such services are currently known to be provided by the issuer. However, 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 legally enforceable claim against the issuer of the crypto-asset or any third party.

As the crypto-asset does not confer 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 project’s technical infrastructure – such as participation mechanisms or protocol-level features – serves operational purposes only and does not create, evidence, or constitute any contractual or statutory entitlement.

As the crypto-asset does not confer any legally enforceable rights or obligations, there are no conditions or mechanisms for modifying such rights or obligations. 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 rights exist and no rights arise under applicable law or regulation. Holders should not interpret technical updates or governance-related changes as amendments to legally binding entitlements.

Information on future offers to the public of crypto-assets was not available at the time of writing this white paper (2026-08-19).

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 Solana and Abstract networks following the standards described below.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Solana and Abstract networks following the standards described below.

The following applies to Solana:

The crypto-asset is implemented on the Solana blockchain, a decentralised distributed-ledger network designed to support transaction processing and the execution of on-chain programs. The network relies on a set of technical protocols, cryptographic standards, and program frameworks intended to enable secure transaction validation, deterministic execution of instructions, and interoperability across the Solana ecosystem. The most relevant technical standards and protocols are outlined below.

1. Network Architecture and Core Protocols

The Solana network is structured as a peer-to-peer validator network in which independent nodes maintain the distributed ledger and process transactions.

- Solana uses Proof-of-History (PoH) as a cryptographic timing and ordering mechanism, while validator participation and voting are stake-weighted under its Proof-of-Stake model and Tower BFT consensus process.

- Tower BFT: A Byzantine fault tolerant consensus mechanism, derived from PBFT, that governs validator voting and block confirmation.

- Turbine: A block propagation protocol that distributes blocks across the validator network by splitting them into smaller data fragments (“shreds”) and transmitting them through a layered tree-based structure.

- Gulf Stream: A transaction forwarding mechanism that routes transactions directly to upcoming block producers and thereby limits the need for a global transaction mempool.

- Sealevel: A parallel transaction execution engine that enables non-conflicting transactions and programs to execute simultaneously across multiple processing threads.

Together, these mechanisms support transaction processing while maintaining a synchronised and verifiable ledger state across participating validator nodes.

2. Address and Cryptographic Standards

Accounts and transactions on the Solana network rely on defined cryptographic primitives and address formats.

- Account Addresses: Accounts are identified by 32-byte addresses. Externally controlled accounts typically use Ed25519 key pairs, while program-derived addresses (PDAs) are deterministically derived off-curve addresses that do not correspond to a private key.

- Transaction Signatures: Transactions are authorised through Ed25519 signatures associated with the account owner’s keypair.

- Hashing: Sequential SHA-256 hashing is used within the Proof-of-History mechanism to generate a verifiable ordering of events.

- Program Derived Addresses (PDAs): Deterministically generated addresses derived through hashing procedures that ensure the resulting address does not correspond to a private key, thereby enabling secure program-controlled accounts.

These cryptographic mechanisms provide the basis for transaction authentication, deterministic account control, and verifiable execution of on-chain instructions.

3. Networking and Data Transmission Standards

Communication between validator nodes and network participants follows defined networking protocols and technical constraints.

- QUIC is used for transaction ingress and TPU-related forwarding paths on Solana validators, alongside other networking channels used across the cluster.

- UDP-based propagation: Utilised for distributing block fragments (“shreds”) across the network through the Turbine protocol.

- Transaction size limits: The maximum transaction size of approximately 1,232 bytes is aligned with the IPv6 minimum transmission unit (MTU) after accounting for network headers, and is intended to enable atomic transmission without fragmentation.

- JSON-RPC interfaces: Standardised APIs used by wallets, applications, and infrastructure providers to submit transactions and query blockchain state.

These standards support interoperability between network nodes, developer infrastructure, and user-facing applications interacting with the Solana ledger.

4. Token and Program Standards (Solana Program Library)

Tokens on Solana are commonly implemented using either the original Token Program or the Token Extension Program (Token-2022), each of which defines standardised token behaviour through on-chain program logic.

Within this framework:

- A token type is represented by a mint account, which defines parameters such as total supply and mint authority.

- Individual token balances are stored in token accounts, which hold balances associated with a specific mint and owner address.

- Interactions with tokens occur through instructions executed by the relevant token program rather than through separate token-specific smart contracts.

These programmatic standards enable consistent token management across the Solana ecosystem. Projects may also integrate metadata functionality, for example through the Metaplex Token Metadata Program or, where applicable, through Token-2022 metadata extensions.

5. Protocol Development and Improvement Standards

Technical changes to the Solana protocol may be proposed and discussed through Solana Improvement Documents (SIMDs). These proposals document suggested modifications to protocol behaviour, economic parameters, or technical limits. Accepted changes may be implemented through updates to validator software and related developer tooling used by network participants.

The following applies to Abstract:

Abstract is an Ethereum Layer 2 zero-knowledge rollup built using the ZK Stack. It processes transactions on the Layer 2 and periodically commits transaction batches, including state differences, to Ethereum. The batches are made available on Ethereum through blobs using the EIP-4844 standard. Abstract uses zero-knowledge validity proofs for batch verification on Ethereum and supports Ethereum-standard JSON-RPC interfaces over HTTP and WebSocket. The network uses ETH as its gas currency.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Solana and Abstract networks following the standards described below.

The following applies to Solana:

1. Solana-Compatible Wallets: The tokens are generally supported by wallets compatible with Solana’s token programs.

2. Decentralised Ledger: The Solana blockchain acts as a decentralised ledger for all token transactions, with the intention of preserving a tamper-resistant record of token transfers and ownership in order to ensure both transparency and security.

3. SPL Token Program: Tokens on Solana are commonly implemented using either the original Token Program or the Token Extension Program (Token-2022), which provide standardised on-chain logic for token creation, issuance, transfer, and account management. Unlike the ERC-20 model on Ethereum, where a project typically deploys its own token contract, Solana tokens generally rely on shared token-program infrastructure, which promotes a high degree of standardisation across the ecosystem.

4. Blockchain Scalability: Solana is designed to support high transaction throughput and comparatively low transaction fees, with the intention of enabling efficient token transfers and related on-chain operations.

Security Protocols for Asset Custody and Transactions:

1. Private Key Management: To safeguard their token holdings, users must securely store their wallet’s private keys and recovery phrases.

2. Cryptographic Integrity: Solana uses Ed25519 digital signatures to authenticate transactions submitted by authorised signers, thereby supporting the integrity and verifiability of token transfers.

The following applies to Abstract:

1. Distributed ledger architecture: Abstract maintains a Layer-2 ledger which records transaction execution and state changes. Transaction batches and related state commitments are submitted to Ethereum, where the Layer-1 contracts record batch information, verify validity proofs and execute finalised batches.

2. Zero-knowledge proving system: Abstract uses the ZK Stack and a ZKsync-based virtual machine. An off-chain prover produces proofs of batch validity; an Ethereum smart contract verifies the submitted proof before the relevant batch is executed on Ethereum.

3. EVM compatibility: Abstract supports smart-contract development using Ethereum tooling and Solidity, subject to specified differences between the Ethereum Virtual Machine and Abstract’s ZKsync-based virtual machine. These include differences in bytecode handling, opcode behaviour and contract-address derivation.

4. Native account abstraction: All accounts on Abstract are smart-contract accounts at protocol level. Transactions are processed through system contracts, including the bootloader. Externally owned Ethereum-style accounts can interact with the network through a default-account implementation. The protocol supports paymasters, which may sponsor transaction fees or implement arrangements under which users provide ERC-20 tokens to the paymaster.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Solana and Abstract networks following the standards described below.

The following applies to Solana:

Solana uses a combination of Proof-of-History (PoH) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS). The core concepts of the mechanism are intended to work as follows:

Core Concepts

1. Proof-of-History (PoH):

PoH is a cryptographic ordering and timing mechanism that provides evidence that data existed in a particular sequence and that time passed between proofs.

Verifiable Delay Function (VDF): PoH relies on a sequential hash-based proof process that Solana describes as VDF-like. This sequence of hashes provides a verifiable order of events, enabling the network to efficiently agree on the sequence of transactions.

2. Proof-of-Stake (PoS):

Validator Selection: Leader slots are assigned through the network’s leader schedule, which is stake-weighted. The more SOL staked, the higher the chance of being selected to validate transactions and produce new blocks.

Delegation: Token holders can delegate their SOL tokens to validators, earning rewards proportional to their stake while contributing to the network's security.

Consensus Process

1. Transaction Validation:

Transactions are broadcasted to the network and collected by validators. Each transaction is validated to ensure it meets the network’s criteria, such as having correct signatures and sufficient funds.

2. PoH Sequence Generation:

A validator generates a sequence of hashes using PoH, each containing a timestamp and the previous hash. This process creates a historical record of transactions, establishing a cryptographic clock for the network.

3. Block Production:

The network uses PoS to select a leader validator based on their stake. The leader is responsible for bundling the validated transactions into a block. The leader validator uses the PoH sequence to order transactions within the block, ensuring that all transactions are processed in the correct order.

4. Consensus and Finalisation:

Other validators vote on the ledger state associated with the block. A block may first become confirmed and later finalised once it reaches the network’s strongest confirmation state.

Security and Economic Incentives

1. Incentives for Validators:

Block Rewards: Validators earn rewards for producing and validating blocks. These rewards are distributed in SOL tokens and are proportional to the validator’s stake and performance.

Transaction Fees: Validators also earn transaction fees from the transactions included in the blocks they produce. These fees provide an additional incentive for validators to process transactions efficiently.

2. Security:

Staking: Staking provides economic alignment, and Solana documentation notes that slashing has been discussed as a future mechanism for intentional malicious behaviour, but is not implemented yet.

Delegated Staking: Token holders can delegate their SOL tokens to validators, intended to enhance network security and decentralisation. Delegators share in the rewards and are incentivised to choose reliable validators.

3. Economic Penalties:

Slashing (planned): Validators can be penalised for malicious behaviour, such as double-signing or producing invalid blocks. This penalty, known as slashing, results in the loss of a portion of the staked tokens, discouraging dishonest actions.

The following applies to Abstract:

Abstract does not operate a separate decentralised consensus mechanism or validator set. Transaction ordering, block production and batch formation are performed by the Abstract main node, which the project documentation describes as centralised. Publicly runnable Abstract Nodes are read-only replicas. They can independently reproduce and check the published state, but cannot produce Layer-2 blocks, generate validity proofs, submit data to Ethereum, vote on blocks or participate in fork choice.

Abstract relies on Ethereum for settlement finality of committed batches. Following Layer-2 execution, the operator commits batches to Ethereum, an off-chain prover produces a zero-knowledge validity proof and an Ethereum verifier contract verifies that proof. A batch is executed on Ethereum after successful proof verification. Before execution on Ethereum, the operator may roll back unfinalised batches. Executed batches cannot be reverted.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Solana and Abstract networks following the standards described below.

The following applies to Solana:

1. Validators:

Validators participate in block production and voting under Solana’s stake-weighted model. They may receive staking-related rewards and a share of transaction-fee income. Under Solana’s fee model, the base fee is split between burn and validator compensation, while any prioritisation fee is paid to the validator.

Transaction Fees: Validators earn a portion of the transaction fees paid by users for the transactions they include in the blocks. This is intended to provide an additional financial incentive for validators to process transactions efficiently and maintain the network's integrity.

2. Delegators:

Delegated Staking: Token holders who do not wish to run a validator node can delegate their SOL tokens to a validator. In return, delegators share the rewards earned by the validators. This is intended to encourage widespread participation in securing the network and to support decentralisation.

3. Economic Security:

Solana staking documentation notes slashing as a possible future mechanism for intentional malicious conduct, but states that slashing is not implemented in the protocol today. Economic alignment instead currently arises primarily from staking participation, validator performance incentives, and the opportunity cost of locking capital in staking positions.

Fees Applicable on the Solana Blockchain

1. Transaction Fees:

Solana transactions require fees in SOL. The fee model consists of a base fee and, where used, an optional prioritisation fee. The base fee compensates signature verification work and is split between burn and validator compensation, while any prioritisation fee is paid to the validator.

2. Rent Fees:

Solana accounts that store on-chain state must satisfy the rent-exemption threshold, which is linked to the amount of data stored. This mechanism is intended to support efficient use of network state and account storage resources.

3. Program Execution Costs:

Deploying and interacting with on-chain programs may involve transaction fees and, where relevant, compute-related prioritisation fees and account-storage requirements. These mechanisms are intended to allocate network resources in proportion to use.

The following applies to Abstract:

Users pay gas fees for transactions on Abstract, ordinarily in ETH. Fees include an off-chain component associated with Layer-2 state processing and zero-knowledge-proof generation, and an on-chain component associated with publishing Layer-2 data and verifying proofs on Ethereum. The on-chain component varies with Ethereum gas prices and the transaction’s use of published data. Transactions may be charged up to a specified maximum fee and receive a refund for unused gas or an overpayment. A paymaster may instead pay the transaction fee, including under an arrangement in which the user pays the paymaster in an ERC-20 token.

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.

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 venues on which it is listed 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 where 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 listing crypto-asset 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 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 transaction 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.

1. Insolvency of the issuer

As with any commercial entity, the issuer may face insolvency risks. These may result from insufficient funding, low market interest, mismanagement, or external shocks (e.g. pandemics, armed conflicts). In such a case, ongoing development, support, and governance of the project may cease, potentially affecting the viability and 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 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. Crypto-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, reporting 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.

As this white paper relates to admission to trading of the crypto-asset, the risk description below reflects general implementation risks typically associated with crypto-asset projects and relevant for the crypto-asset service provider. The party admitting the crypto-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 crypto-asset’s practical utility.

As this white paper relates to 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 blockchain(s) on which it is issued. 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 the usability of the crypto-asset.

2. Smart contract vulnerability risk

The smart contract that defines the crypto-asset’s parameters or governs its transfers may contain coding errors or security vulnerabilities. Exploitation of such weaknesses can result in unintended token minting, permanent loss of funds, or disruption of token functionality. Even after external audits, undetected vulnerabilities may persist due to the immutable nature of 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 blockchain protocol (e.g. network upgrades) 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 blockchain. 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: Blockchains may be subject to denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, 51% attacks, or other exploits targeting the consensus mechanism. These can delay transactions, compromise finality, or disrupt the accurate recording of transfers.

Centralisation concerns: Despite claims of decentralisation, a relatively small number of validators or a high concentration of stake may increase the risk of collusion, censorship, or coordinated network downtime, which can affect the resilience and operational reliability of the crypto-asset.

5. Bridge and interoperability risk

Where tokens can be bridged or wrapped across multiple blockchains, vulnerabilities in bridge protocols, validator sets, or locking mechanisms may result in loss, duplication, or misrepresentation of assets. Exploits or technical failures in these systems can instantly impact circulating supply, ownership claims, or token fungibility across chains.

6. Forking and protocol-upgrade risk

Network upgrades or disagreements among node operators or validators 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 gas relayers, wrapped tokens, or synthetic representations may alter the transaction economics of the underlying token. Changes in transaction costs, token demand, or utility may reduce its usage and weaken both its economic function and perceived value within its ecosystem.

8. Spam and network-efficiency risk

High volumes of low-value (“dust”) or automated transactions may congest the network, slow validation times, inflate ledger size, and raise transaction costs. 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 blockchain, service outages, malicious compromises, or domain expiries affecting these interfaces may block access to the crypto-asset, even while the blockchain 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 may appear distributed, the actual governance or economic control of the project may lie with a small set of actors. This disconnect between marketing claims and structural reality can lead to regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage, or legal uncertainty – especially if the project is presented as ‘community-governed’ without substantiation.

None.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Solana and Abstract networks following the standards described below.

The following applies to Solana:

Solana uses a combination of Proof-of-History (PoH) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS). The core concepts of the mechanism are intended to work as follows:

Core Concepts

1. Proof-of-History (PoH):

PoH is a cryptographic ordering and timing mechanism that provides evidence that data existed in a particular sequence and that time passed between proofs.

Verifiable Delay Function (VDF): PoH relies on a sequential hash-based proof process that Solana describes as VDF-like. This sequence of hashes provides a verifiable order of events, enabling the network to efficiently agree on the sequence of transactions.

2. Proof-of-Stake (PoS):

Validator Selection: Leader slots are assigned through the network’s leader schedule, which is stake-weighted. The more SOL staked, the higher the chance of being selected to validate transactions and produce new blocks.

Delegation: Token holders can delegate their SOL tokens to validators, earning rewards proportional to their stake while contributing to the network's security.

Consensus Process

1. Transaction Validation:

Transactions are broadcasted to the network and collected by validators. Each transaction is validated to ensure it meets the network’s criteria, such as having correct signatures and sufficient funds.

2. PoH Sequence Generation:

A validator generates a sequence of hashes using PoH, each containing a timestamp and the previous hash. This process creates a historical record of transactions, establishing a cryptographic clock for the network.

3. Block Production:

The network uses PoS to select a leader validator based on their stake. The leader is responsible for bundling the validated transactions into a block. The leader validator uses the PoH sequence to order transactions within the block, ensuring that all transactions are processed in the correct order.

4. Consensus and Finalisation:

Other validators vote on the ledger state associated with the block. A block may first become confirmed and later finalised once it reaches the network’s strongest confirmation state.

Security and Economic Incentives

1. Incentives for Validators:

Block Rewards: Validators earn rewards for producing and validating blocks. These rewards are distributed in SOL tokens and are proportional to the validator’s stake and performance.

Transaction Fees: Validators also earn transaction fees from the transactions included in the blocks they produce. These fees provide an additional incentive for validators to process transactions efficiently.

2. Security:

Staking: Staking provides economic alignment, and Solana documentation notes that slashing has been discussed as a future mechanism for intentional malicious behaviour, but is not implemented yet.

Delegated Staking: Token holders can delegate their SOL tokens to validators, intended to enhance network security and decentralisation. Delegators share in the rewards and are incentivised to choose reliable validators.

3. Economic Penalties:

Slashing (planned): Validators can be penalised for malicious behaviour, such as double-signing or producing invalid blocks. This penalty, known as slashing, results in the loss of a portion of the staked tokens, discouraging dishonest actions.

The following applies to Abstract:

Abstract does not operate a separate decentralised consensus mechanism or validator set. Transaction ordering, block production and batch formation are performed by the Abstract main node, which the project documentation describes as centralised. Publicly runnable Abstract Nodes are read-only replicas. They can independently reproduce and check the published state, but cannot produce Layer-2 blocks, generate validity proofs, submit data to Ethereum, vote on blocks or participate in fork choice.

Abstract relies on Ethereum for settlement finality of committed batches. Following Layer-2 execution, the operator commits batches to Ethereum, an off-chain prover produces a zero-knowledge validity proof and an Ethereum verifier contract verifies that proof. A batch is executed on Ethereum after successful proof verification. Before execution on Ethereum, the operator may roll back unfinalised batches. Executed batches cannot be reverted.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Solana and Abstract networks following the standards described below.

The following applies to Solana:

1. Validators:

Validators participate in block production and voting under Solana’s stake-weighted model. They may receive staking-related rewards and a share of transaction-fee income. Under Solana’s fee model, the base fee is split between burn and validator compensation, while any prioritisation fee is paid to the validator.

Transaction Fees: Validators earn a portion of the transaction fees paid by users for the transactions they include in the blocks. This is intended to provide an additional financial incentive for validators to process transactions efficiently and maintain the network's integrity.

2. Delegators:

Delegated Staking: Token holders who do not wish to run a validator node can delegate their SOL tokens to a validator. In return, delegators share the rewards earned by the validators. This is intended to encourage widespread participation in securing the network and to support decentralisation.

3. Economic Security:

Solana staking documentation notes slashing as a possible future mechanism for intentional malicious conduct, but states that slashing is not implemented in the protocol today. Economic alignment instead currently arises primarily from staking participation, validator performance incentives, and the opportunity cost of locking capital in staking positions.

Fees Applicable on the Solana Blockchain

1. Transaction Fees:

Solana transactions require fees in SOL. The fee model consists of a base fee and, where used, an optional prioritisation fee. The base fee compensates signature verification work and is split between burn and validator compensation, while any prioritisation fee is paid to the validator.

2. Rent Fees:

Solana accounts that store on-chain state must satisfy the rent-exemption threshold, which is linked to the amount of data stored. This mechanism is intended to support efficient use of network state and account storage resources.

3. Program Execution Costs:

Deploying and interacting with on-chain programs may involve transaction fees and, where relevant, compute-related prioritisation fees and account-storage requirements. These mechanisms are intended to allocate network resources in proportion to use.

The following applies to Abstract:

Users pay gas fees for transactions on Abstract, ordinarily in ETH. Fees include an off-chain component associated with Layer-2 state processing and zero-knowledge-proof generation, and an on-chain component associated with publishing Layer-2 data and verifying proofs on Ethereum. The on-chain component varies with Ethereum gas prices and the transaction’s use of published data. Transactions may be charged up to a specified maximum fee and receive a refund for unused gas or an overpayment. A paymaster may instead pay the transaction fee, including under an arrangement in which the user pays the paymaster in an ERC-20 token.

The energy consumption of this asset is aggregated across multiple components: To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the Solana and Abstract networks is calculated first. For the energy consumption of the token, a fraction of the energy consumption of the network is attributed to the token, which is determined based on the activity of the crypto-asset within each network. When calculating the energy consumption, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is used - if available - to determine all implementations of the asset in scope. The mappings are updated regularly, based on data of the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. The information regarding the hardware used and the number of participants in the network is based on assumptions that are verified with best effort using empirical data. In general, participants are assumed to be largely economically rational. As a precautionary principle, we make assumptions on the conservative side when in doubt, i.e. making higher estimates for the adverse impacts.

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 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 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 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.