White paper drafted under the European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 for FFG FDQM0JPZP

The ResearchCoin (RSC) crypto-asset referred to in this white paper is a crypto-asset other than EMTs and ARTs and is implemented on the Ethereum network as a token under the ERC-20 token standard and is also available on the Base network, according to the DTI FFG shown in section F.14, as of 2026-09-22. On Ethereum, the crypto-asset has the contract address 0xd101dcc414f310268c37eeb4cd376ccfa507f571 and 18 decimals, and its first activity can be viewed on 2020-08-01 (transaction hash: 0x08ce5d163e4b56eb93221533502a67c55689637d9e72482fa3a4177fc6694405, source: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x08ce5d163e4b56eb93221533502a67c55689637d9e72482fa3a4177fc6694405, accessed 2026-09-22). On Base, the crypto-asset has the contract address 0xfbb75a59193a3525a8825bebe7d4b56899e2f7e1 and 18 decimals, and its first activity can be viewed on 2024-04-02 (transaction hash: 0x426f09fd4b0d0498f8bc327c7c9b8cb1bf0456991072c4da14495d3d00b86b87, source: https://basescan.org/tx/0x426f09fd4b0d0498f8bc327c7c9b8cb1bf0456991072c4da14495d3d00b86b87, accessed 2026-09-22). The maximum supply of RSC is 1,000,000,000 tokens.

According to the project's documentation (source: https://docs.researchhub.com/, accessed 2026-09-22), ResearchHub is an online platform for the open publication, review, discussion and funding of scientific research. Researchers can publish their work without paywalls, receive paid peer review and submit research proposals, and funders can publish calls for proposals with a budget or fund proposals directly.

RSC is the reward and payment token of the ResearchHub platform. Users receive RSC for contributions such as publishing, peer reviewing and discussing research, and can use it on the platform to fund research proposals, post bounties for services such as peer review, tip other users and vote on proposals for changes to the platform. RSC is not used to pay transaction fees on Ethereum or Base and plays no role in the consensus mechanism of either network.

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 purely technical or operational in nature and do not confer rights comparable to ownership, profit participation, governance, or similar entitlements known from traditional financial instruments.

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 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.

The ResearchHub Foundation supports the development and use of ResearchHub, an online platform for the open funding, publication, review and discussion of scientific research. The Foundation leads the community and governance of the platform and oversees the ResearchCoin (RSC) crypto-asset.

According to publicly available information (sources: https://docs.researchhub.com/welcome/what-is-researchhub, https://www.researchhub.com/about, https://docs.researchhub.com/researchhub/product-features/fund, accessed 2026-09-22), ResearchHub is an online platform for the open funding, publication, review and discussion of scientific research, founded in 2019. The stated objective of the project is to accelerate scientific research by addressing shortcomings it identifies in traditional academic publishing and research funding: peer reviewers who work without payment, publication processes that take months or years, research held behind journal subscriptions and grant processes that are slow and direct a large share of funding to indirect costs rather than to the research itself. The project seeks to address these by rewarding contributions to the scientific process directly and by making publication, review and funding openly accessible.

The principal components of the platform are publishing, peer review, a funding marketplace and bounties. Researchers can publish their work openly on the platform, and the project operates its own journal, the ResearchHub Journal. Peer reviewers are paid for their reviews. The funding marketplace connects funders with researchers: a researcher registers the design of a study publicly before it begins, qualified reviewers assess the proposal openly, funders commit funds to proposals and the results are later linked back to the original registration. Funders may also publish a call for proposals with a budget for a given research field. Bounties allow a user to offer a reward for a defined piece of work, such as a peer review or an answer to a research question. Funding on the platform may be provided in RSC or by conventional means of payment. The perceived value of RSC is therefore linked to the adoption and use of the platform by researchers, reviewers and funders.

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 RSC 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 RSC token; project plans are communicated through the ResearchHub Foundation's blog, its public announcements and its governance space, where Research Improvement Proposals are published and put to a vote of the holders of the token (sources: https://blog.researchhub.foundation/the-researchhub-story/, https://x.com/ResearchHubF, https://snapshot.org/#/s:researchhub.eth, accessed 2026-09-24).

Past milestones:

- Origin of the project (2019-02-25): Brian Armstrong published a blog post setting out problems in scientific research and publishing that the project was later set up to address.

- Launch of the platform (2019-08): the ResearchHub website went live, with Brian Armstrong and Patrick Joyce as co-founders.

- Token generation event (2020-08-01): the RSC token was created on the Ethereum network, the full maximum supply of 1,000,000,000 RSC was created on the same day, and RSC was introduced as the reward token of the platform.

- Bounties (2022-07): a bounty function was introduced, allowing users to offer RSC in return for defined research work.

- Crowdfunding of research (2024-01): the platform introduced crowdfunding of research projects, and the first six projects were funded in RSC.

- Deployment on the Base network (2024-04): RSC was deployed on the Base network on 2024-04-02 and announced on 2024-04-08, and transfers between the Ethereum and Base networks were enabled on 2024-04-19.

- Paid peer review (2024-05): the ResearchHub Foundation began paying peer reviewers in RSC for each review.

- New reputation and reward system (2024-08-23): following a proposal approved by the holders of RSC, a revised algorithm was introduced for the reputation of users and the distribution of rewards, designed to reward open and reproducible research practices.

- Second version of the platform (2025-04): the second version of the platform introduced funding of preregistered research proposals, calls for proposals published by funders, purchase of RSC within the platform and a publication process running from preregistration to funded publication.

- Removal of upvote rewards (2025-06): the holders of RSC approved a proposal to stop distributing rewards for upvotes.

- Fee burn (2025-08): the holders of RSC approved a proposal under which all transaction fees collected by the ResearchHub Foundation on platform activity are burned weekly. The first burn, of 71,229.48 RSC, took place on 2025-08-25.

- Distribution plan for 2026 (2026-01): the holders of RSC approved the allocation of the 40,000,000 RSC platform distribution for 2026 to peer review, research funding and partnership programmes.

- Endowments (2026-04-10): RSC held in an account on the platform began to accrue funding credits that can be used only to fund research proposals.

- Funder dashboard (2026-06-11): a dashboard was introduced for funders to track the funds they have committed, the researchers and institutions supported and the progress of funded projects.

- Funding pools (2026-09-22): funding pools were introduced, through which several funders can contribute to a single call for proposals.

Future milestones:

- Allocation of the 2026 platform distribution to peer review incentives, to funding incentives including matching funds for external funders and to partnerships with universities and research organisations.

- Further development of peer review, of the funding tools and of the reputation system.

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 RSC crypto-asset for its holders.

According to publicly available information, including filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, the development of the ResearchHub platform has been funded through private sales of equity in the company that operates it: a seed round of approximately USD 5,000,000 in June 2023 and a further round of USD 2,000,000 in February 2025. No public sale of RSC has been identified.

According to the project's documentation (sources: https://docs.researchhub.com/researchcoin/rsc-tokenomics/rsc-distribution-chart, https://docs.researchhub.com/researchcoin/rsc-tokenomics/rsc-emission-schedule, accessed 2026-09-24), ResearchHub Technologies, Inc. has been allocated 20 per cent of the maximum supply, or 200,000,000 RSC, which the project describes as not liquid. The issuer may receive up to 1 per cent of the maximum supply per year, or 10,000,000 RSC, out of the part of the supply allocated to the community, to compensate its representatives and contributors.

The token distribution can be traced on-chain on the Ethereum network: https://etherscan.io/token/0xd101dcc414f310268c37eeb4cd376ccfa507f571#balances. The investor must be aware that a public address cannot necessarily be assigned to a single person or entity, which limits the ability to determine exact economic influence or future actions.

The issuer, foundation, or entities associated with the RSC token have not independently confirmed the occurrence, precise amounts or current status of these reported allocations and fundraising figures. As a result, the referenced allocation figures cannot be independently verified and should be considered indicative only. Token distribution changes can negatively impact the investor.

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://docs.researchhub.com/researchcoin/what-is-researchcoin, https://docs.researchhub.com/researchcoin/rsc-tokenomics/rsc-distribution-chart, https://docs.researchhub.com/researchhub/product-features/fund/researchhub-endowment, accessed 2026-09-22), RSC is the reward and payment token of the ResearchHub platform. Its functions are distribution as a reward for contributions, payment for activity on the platform, the accrual of funding credits for research and voting on proposals for changes to the platform.

RSC is distributed to users as a reward for contributions to the platform, such as sharing, curating and discussing research, reviewing research and submitting research proposals. The number of RSC received for a given contribution depends on how valuable the community of the platform considers that contribution to be, according to a reward algorithm which may be adjusted over time. These rewards are paid out of the part of the supply allocated to the community.

RSC is used as a means of payment within the platform. Users can use it to fund research proposals, to post bounties that reward other users for defined work such as a peer review and to tip other users for contributions they consider valuable.

RSC held in an account on the platform accrues funding credits. Each day, the platform allocates a share of an annual amount of RSC set by the project to the holders of such balances, in proportion to the RSC each of them holds on the platform and with a higher weighting for balances held for longer. The project describes these credits as yield; their rate depends on how much RSC is held on the platform overall and is not guaranteed. Funding credits are recorded in the holder's account as a locked balance denominated in RSC. They can be used only to fund research proposals on the platform and cannot be transferred or withdrawn. The RSC deposited remains the holder's and can be withdrawn.

Holders of RSC vote on Research Improvement Proposals, which are put forward through the ResearchHub Foundation and may change how the platform operates, including the reward algorithm that determines distributions to users. Decisions are implemented by the Foundation and the platform rather than executed automatically on the token contract, so the token confers influence over those matters rather than direct control of the platform.

Beyond the functions described above, RSC has no further protocol-level functionality as of the date of this white paper. It does not entitle holders to any fee share, dividend or redemption, it is not used to pay transaction fees on the Ethereum or Base networks, and it plays no role in the consensus mechanism of either network. RSC should also be distinguished from the funding credits described above, which are not the subject of this white paper.

The RSC 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 and relate exclusively to interactions within the ResearchHub platform environment. The actual usability of RSC depends on factors such as system stability, governance decisions, development progress and the operational conditions of the Ethereum and Base blockchains, which are outside the control of token holders.

Future milestones:

- Allocation of the 2026 platform distribution to peer review incentives, to funding incentives including matching funds for external funders and to partnerships with universities and research organisations.

- Further development of peer review, of the funding tools and of the reputation system.

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 RSC crypto-asset for its holders.

The crypto-asset referred to herein is a crypto-asset other than EMTs and ARTs, and is available as a token under the ERC-20 standard on the Ethereum and Base networks. The crypto-asset is fungible up to 18 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.

It is not possible to exclude a possibility that the issuer of the token provides or will provide other services not covered by Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (i.e. MiCA).

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 (2026-09-22).

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 Base and Ethereum networks following the standards described below.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base and Ethereum.

The following applies to Base:

Base is an Ethereum Layer-2 rollup introduced by Coinbase and launched in 2023 using Optimism’s OP Stack. On 2026-02-18, Base announced a migration towards a unified, Base-operated technology stack. Base does not operate a separate decentralised consensus mechanism comparable to a Layer-1 blockchain. Transactions are currently ordered by a centralised sequencer, while transaction data and state commitments are posted to Ethereum, whose Proof-of-Stake consensus secures the underlying data availability and settlement layer. Since the Azul upgrade in May 2026, Base uses a multi-proof system in which state commitments may be verified by trusted execution environment (TEE) proofs or permissionless zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs, with the ZK path able to override an invalid TEE-backed proposal. If the sequencer becomes unavailable, users may submit transactions through Ethereum Layer-1 for inclusion, subject to the protocol’s applicable delay mechanisms.

The following applies to Ethereum:

Ethereum operates on a defined set of protocols and technical standards that are intended to ensure its security, decentralisation, and functionality. Key items are set out below.

1. Network protocols

Ethereum operates as a decentralised, peer-to-peer network. Nodes communicate using the DevP2P networking stack, with RLPx as the encrypted transport layer for peer-to-peer messages.

Transaction ordering and finality are secured through a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism. Validators on the Beacon Chain propose blocks, attest to them, and finalise them through Casper-FFG operating on top of the LMD-GHOST fork-choice rule. Smart contract execution is performed by the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), which interprets EVM bytecode within the gas limits set by the protocol and by the transaction sender.

2. Transaction and address standards

Ethereum addresses are 20-byte identifiers, derived as the last 20 bytes of the Keccak-256 hash of the uncompressed elliptic-curve public key (excluding the 0x04 prefix). They are commonly represented as 40-character hexadecimal strings with a 0x prefix and an optional EIP-55 mixed-case checksum.

The protocol currently supports the following transaction types:

- Type 0: legacy transactions (pre-EIP-1559).

- Type 1: access-list transactions (EIP-2930).

- Type 2: dynamic-fee transactions with base-fee burning (EIP-1559).

- Type 3: blob-carrying transactions (EIP-4844), introduced with the Dencun upgrade on 2024-03-13.

- Type 4: set-code transactions (EIP-7702), introduced with the Pectra upgrade on 2025-05-07, allow externally owned accounts (EOAs) to authorise delegated code execution during transactions, without permanently converting the account into a smart contract. This enables features such as transaction batching, sponsored gas payments and delegated signing.

3. Blockchain data structure and block standards

The Ethereum state consists of accounts (externally owned accounts and smart contracts) together with their associated storage and code, organised in Modified Merkle Patricia Tries to allow efficient verification.

Each block contains:

- a block header, comprising the parent hash, state root, transactions root, receipts root, timestamp, gas limit and gas used, among other fields;

- the ordered list of transactions, including smart-contract executions and value transfers; and

- blob commitments, where applicable, referring to data published to the data availability layer under EIP-4844.

Block size is not fixed in bytes. It is constrained by a per-block gas limit, which is adjustable within protocol-defined bounds and is currently set at approximately 60 million gas following EIP-7935 (Fusaka, activated on 2025-12-03). EIP-7825 (Fusaka) also introduces a per-transaction gas cap of 16,777,216 gas to improve block composability and resilience against denial-of-service patterns.

The data availability layer used by Layer 2 rollups, introduced through EIP-4844, was further developed by EIP-7691 (Pectra, 2025-05-07), which raised the maximum number of blob commitments per block, and by EIP-7594 (Fusaka, 2025-12-03), which introduced Peer Data Availability Sampling (PeerDAS). PeerDAS enables nodes to verify that blob data has been published by sampling small portions of it, rather than downloading every blob in full. Following PeerDAS, Ethereum uses Blob Parameter Only (BPO) forks, introduced by EIP-7892, to adjust blob targets and maxima between major upgrades.

4. Upgrade and improvement standards

Ethereum protocol upgrades are coordinated through the Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) process. EIPs are published openly, reviewed by core developers and the wider community, and bundled into named hard-fork upgrades. The most recent network upgrades are the Pectra upgrade (2025-05-07) and the Fusaka upgrade (2025-12-03). The next named upgrade currently under preparation by the Ethereum core developers is referred to as Glamsterdam.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base and Ethereum.

The following applies to Base:

1. Base-compatible wallets: The tokens are supported by wallets compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), including MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet and Trust Wallet. These wallets interact with Base in the same manner as with other EVM-compatible networks through standard Web3 interfaces.

2. Distributed ledger: Base operates as a Layer-2 network on Ethereum and maintains its own distributed ledger for recording token transactions. Transaction batches and corresponding state commitments are periodically posted to Ethereum Layer 1, allowing the Layer-2 state to be anchored to Ethereum and verified through the network’s security mechanisms.

3. Token standards: Base supports crypto-assets implemented using the ERC-20 token standard. As an EVM-compatible network, Base supports the same token interface standards commonly used on Ethereum. Since 8 July 2026, Base additionally supports B20, a native token standard implemented at protocol level that retains the ERC-20 interface, so B20 tokens remain interoperable with wallets and other infrastructure supporting ERC-20.

4. Scalability and transaction efficiency: As a Layer-2 rollup, Base executes transactions off-chain and periodically posts transaction data and state commitments to Ethereum. This reduces the volume of data processed directly on the Ethereum mainnet and typically results in lower transaction fees than settling the same transactions on Ethereum directly.

The following applies to Ethereum:

1. Decentralised Ledger: The Ethereum blockchain acts as the decentralised ledger and execution environment for ETH transactions and smart-contract operations, including ERC-20 token transfers, maintaining an append-only record of transfers and account balances to support transparency and verifiable settlement.

2. Account Model: Ethereum uses two account types: externally owned accounts (EOAs), which are controlled through private keys, and contract accounts, which are controlled through deployed smart contract code. Following the Pectra upgrade on 2025-05-07, EOAs can additionally authorise delegated code execution through EIP-7702 transactions without permanently converting the account into smart contracts.

3. Private Key Management: Users must securely store the private keys and recovery material associated with their wallets. Loss or compromise of a private key may result in irreversible loss of access to the associated ETH or ERC-20 token balance.

4. Cryptographic Integrity: Ethereum uses ECDSA over the secp256k1 elliptic curve for key generation and digital signatures on the execution layer. Keccak-256 hashing is used for transaction hashing, state hashing and address derivation. Ethereum addresses are derived from the last 20 bytes of the Keccak-256 hash of the public key. On the consensus layer, BLS (Boneh-Lynn-Shacham) signatures are used to aggregate validator attestations under the Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanism.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base and Ethereum.

The following applies to Base:

Base does not operate its own consensus mechanism or decentralised validator set comparable to a Layer-1 blockchain. As a Layer-2 rollup network, Base relies on Ethereum's Proof-of-Stake consensus for the finality and settlement of data and state commitments posted to Ethereum Layer 1. Transaction ordering on Base is performed by a sequencer, currently operated by Coinbase. This sequencing function provides transaction ordering and execution on the Layer-2 network but does not constitute a decentralised consensus mechanism. The validity of Layer-2 state transitions is established through a multi-proof system, under which state commitments may be verified by trusted execution environment (TEE) proofs or by permissionless zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs, the ZK path being able to override an invalid TEE-backed proposal, and under which incorrect state commitments may be challenged during the applicable dispute period. Accordingly, Base's security model depends on Ethereum Layer 1 for settlement and finality, while Layer-2 transaction ordering remains dependent on the sequencer.

The following applies to Ethereum:

Ethereum uses a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism introduced with The Merge on 2022-09-15, which replaced the previous Proof-of-Work consensus model. The PoS mechanism is implemented through Gasper, combining Casper-FFG for finality with the LMD-GHOST fork-choice rule for chain selection. Validators participate in consensus by staking ETH through the Beacon Chain. Validators are pseudo-randomly selected to propose new blocks, while other validators attest to the validity of proposed blocks. The network operates using 12-second slots grouped into epochs of 32 slots. Under normal network conditions, finality is typically achieved after two epochs, approximately 12.8 minutes, through Casper-FFG. The LMD-GHOST fork-choice rule determines the canonical chain based on the accumulated weight of validator attestations. Validators that engage in certain malicious behaviour, such as equivocation or contradictory attestations, may be subject to slashing penalties, while offline validators may incur inactivity penalties. Subsequent network upgrades, including Dencun (2024-03-13), Pectra (2025-05-07) and Fusaka (2025-12-03), introduced protocol changes affecting Ethereum’s consensus mechanism and Layer 2 functionality.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base and Ethereum.

The following applies to Base:

Base uses ETH for transaction fees and does not issue a separate Base network token or operate a staking or validator-reward mechanism. Fees comprise a charge for Layer-2 execution and a component reflecting the cost of posting transaction data to Ethereum. The checkpoint-verification system also uses proposal bonds, which may reward a successful challenge to an invalid checkpoint proposal.

The following applies to Ethereum:

Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism secures the network through validator incentives and protocol-defined penalties. Validators are required to stake ETH in order to participate in block proposal and attestation activities. A minimum of 32 ETH is required to activate a validator. Following the Pectra upgrade on 2025-05-07, EIP-7251 increased the maximum effective balance per validator from 32 ETH to 2,048 ETH. Validators may receive protocol-defined rewards for proposing blocks, attesting to valid blocks and participating in sync committees. Rewards consist of newly issued ETH and transaction-related fees. Transaction fees on Ethereum follow the mechanism introduced by EIP-1559, under which each transaction includes a base fee that is burned at the protocol level and an optional priority fee paid to the validator proposing the relevant block. Validators that engage in certain malicious behaviour, including equivocation or contradictory attestations, may be subject to slashing penalties. Validators that fail to participate correctly in consensus activities may also incur inactivity penalties. These mechanisms are intended to support validator participation and the economic security of the Ethereum 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.

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 that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base and Ethereum.

The following applies to Base:

Base does not operate its own consensus mechanism or decentralised validator set comparable to a Layer-1 blockchain. As a Layer-2 rollup network, Base relies on Ethereum's Proof-of-Stake consensus for the finality and settlement of data and state commitments posted to Ethereum Layer 1. Transaction ordering on Base is performed by a sequencer, currently operated by Coinbase. This sequencing function provides transaction ordering and execution on the Layer-2 network but does not constitute a decentralised consensus mechanism. The validity of Layer-2 state transitions is established through a multi-proof system, under which state commitments may be verified by trusted execution environment (TEE) proofs or by permissionless zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs, the ZK path being able to override an invalid TEE-backed proposal, and under which incorrect state commitments may be challenged during the applicable dispute period. Accordingly, Base's security model depends on Ethereum Layer 1 for settlement and finality, while Layer-2 transaction ordering remains dependent on the sequencer.

The following applies to Ethereum:

Ethereum uses a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism introduced with The Merge on 2022-09-15, which replaced the previous Proof-of-Work consensus model. The PoS mechanism is implemented through Gasper, combining Casper-FFG for finality with the LMD-GHOST fork-choice rule for chain selection. Validators participate in consensus by staking ETH through the Beacon Chain. Validators are pseudo-randomly selected to propose new blocks, while other validators attest to the validity of proposed blocks. The network operates using 12-second slots grouped into epochs of 32 slots. Under normal network conditions, finality is typically achieved after two epochs, approximately 12.8 minutes, through Casper-FFG. The LMD-GHOST fork-choice rule determines the canonical chain based on the accumulated weight of validator attestations. Validators that engage in certain malicious behaviour, such as equivocation or contradictory attestations, may be subject to slashing penalties, while offline validators may incur inactivity penalties. Subsequent network upgrades, including Dencun (2024-03-13), Pectra (2025-05-07) and Fusaka (2025-12-03), introduced protocol changes affecting Ethereum’s consensus mechanism and Layer 2 functionality.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base and Ethereum.

The following applies to Base:

Base uses ETH for transaction fees and does not issue a separate Base network token or operate a staking or validator-reward mechanism. Fees comprise a charge for Layer-2 execution and a component reflecting the cost of posting transaction data to Ethereum. The checkpoint-verification system also uses proposal bonds, which may reward a successful challenge to an invalid checkpoint proposal.

The following applies to Ethereum:

Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism secures the network through validator incentives and protocol-defined penalties. Validators are required to stake ETH in order to participate in block proposal and attestation activities. A minimum of 32 ETH is required to activate a validator. Following the Pectra upgrade on 2025-05-07, EIP-7251 increased the maximum effective balance per validator from 32 ETH to 2,048 ETH. Validators may receive protocol-defined rewards for proposing blocks, attesting to valid blocks and participating in sync committees. Rewards consist of newly issued ETH and transaction-related fees. Transaction fees on Ethereum follow the mechanism introduced by EIP-1559, under which each transaction includes a base fee that is burned at the protocol level and an optional priority fee paid to the validator proposing the relevant block. Validators that engage in certain malicious behaviour, including equivocation or contradictory attestations, may be subject to slashing penalties. Validators that fail to participate correctly in consensus activities may also incur inactivity penalties. These mechanisms are intended to support validator participation and the economic security of the Ethereum network.

The energy consumption of this asset is aggregated across multiple components: To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the networks Ethereum and Base 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 the 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.