1. Sign up to Bitpanda
Sign up to create your free Bitpanda account.
ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) regulations for crypto assets aim to address their environmental impact (e.g., energy-intensive mining), promote transparency, and ensure ethical governance practices to align the crypto industry with broader sustainability and societal goals. These regulations encourage compliance with standards that mitigate risks and foster trust in digital assets.
| Name | Bitpanda Asset Management GmbH, Bitpanda GmbH |
| Relevant legal entity identifier | 9845005X9B7N610K0093, 5493007WZ7IFULIL8G21 |
| Name of the crypto-asset | Ethereum Eth |
| Consensus Mechanism | The Ethereum network uses a Proof-of-Stake Consensus Mechanism to validate new transactions on the blockchain. Core Components 1. Validators: Validators are responsible for proposing and validating new blocks. To become a validator, a user must deposit (stake) 32 ETH into a smart contract. This stake acts as collateral and can be slashed if the validator behaves dishonestly. 2. Beacon Chain: The Beacon Chain is the backbone of Ethereum 2.0. It coordinates the network of validators and manages the consensus protocol. It is responsible for creating new blocks, organizing validators into committees, and implementing the finality of blocks. Consensus Process 1. Block Proposal: Validators are chosen randomly to propose new blocks. This selection is based on a weighted random function (WRF), where the weight is determined by the amount of ETH staked. 2. Attestation: Validators not proposing a block participate in attestation. They attest to the validity of the proposed block by voting for it. Attestations are then aggregated to form a single proof of the block’s validity. 3. Committees: Validators are organized into committees to streamline the validation process. Each committee is responsible for validating blocks within a specific shard or the Beacon Chain itself. This ensures decentralization and security, as a smaller group of validators can quickly reach consensus. 4. Finality: Ethereum 2.0 uses a mechanism called Casper FFG (Friendly Finality Gadget) to achieve finality. Finality means that a block and its transactions are considered irreversible and confirmed. Validators vote on the finality of blocks, and once a supermajority is reached, the block is finalized. 5. Incentives and Penalties: Validators earn rewards for participating in the network, including proposing blocks and attesting to their validity. Conversely, validators can be penalized (slashed) for malicious behavior, such as double-signing or being offline for extended periods. This ensures honest participation and network security. |
| Incentive Mechanisms and Applicable Fees | Ethereum, particularly after transitioning to Ethereum 2.0 (Eth2), employs a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism to secure its network. The incentives for validators and the fee structures play crucial roles in maintaining the security and efficiency of the blockchain. Incentive Mechanisms 1. Staking Rewards: Validator Rewards: Validators are essential to the PoS mechanism. They are responsible for proposing and validating new blocks. To participate, they must stake a minimum of 32 ETH. In return, they earn rewards for their contributions, which are paid out in ETH. These rewards are a combination of newly minted ETH and transaction fees from the blocks they validate. Reward Rate: The reward rate for validators is dynamic and depends on the total amount of ETH staked in the network. The more ETH staked, the lower the individual reward rate, and vice versa. This is designed to balance the network's security and the incentive to participate. 2. Transaction Fees: Base Fee: After the implementation of Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) 1559, the transaction fee model changed to include a base fee that is burned (i.e., removed from circulation). This base fee adjusts dynamically based on network demand, aiming to stabilize transaction fees and reduce volatility. Priority Fee (Tip): Users can also include a priority fee (tip) to incentivize validators to include their transactions more quickly. This fee goes directly to the validators, providing them with an additional incentive to process transactions efficiently. 3. Penalties for Malicious Behavior: Slashing: Validators face penalties (slashing) if they engage in malicious behavior, such as double-signing or validating incorrect information. Slashing results in the loss of a portion of their staked ETH, discouraging bad actors and ensuring that validators act in the network's best interest. Inactivity Penalties: Validators also face penalties for prolonged inactivity. This ensures that validators remain active and engaged in maintaining the network's security and operation. Fees Applicable on the Ethereum Blockchain 1. Gas Fees: Calculation: Gas fees are calculated based on the computational complexity of transactions and smart contract executions. Each operation on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) has an associated gas cost. Dynamic Adjustment: The base fee introduced by EIP-1559 dynamically adjusts according to network congestion. When demand for block space is high, the base fee increases, and when demand is low, it decreases. 2. Smart Contract Fees: Deployment and Interaction: Deploying a smart contract on Ethereum involves paying gas fees proportional to the contract's complexity and size. Interacting with deployed smart contracts (e.g., executing functions, transferring tokens) also incurs gas fees. Optimizations: Developers are incentivized to optimize their smart contracts to minimize gas usage, making transactions more cost-effective for users. 3. Asset Transfer Fees: Token Transfers: Transferring ERC-20 or other token standards involves gas fees. These fees vary based on the token's contract implementation and the current network demand. |
| Beginning of the period | 2024-01-30 |
| End of the period | 2025-01-30 |
| Energy consumption | 2811960.00000 (kWh/a) |
| Energy consumption resources and methodologies | For the calculation of energy consumptions, the so called “bottom-up” approach is being used. The nodes are considered to be the central factor for the energy consumption of the network. These assumptions are made on the basis of empirical findings through the use of public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. The main determinants for estimating the hardware used within the network are the requirements for operating the client software. The energy consumption of the hardware devices was measured in certified test laboratories. When calculating the energy consumption, we used - if available - the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) to determine all implementations of the asset of question in scope and we update the mappings regulary, based on data of the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. |
| Renewable energy consumption | 17.204390967 (%) |
| Energy intensity | 0.00011 (kWh) |
| Scope 1 DLT GHG emissions - Controlled | 0.00000 (tCO2e/a) |
| Scope 2 DLT GHG emissions - Purchased | 946.94704 (tCO2e/a) |
| GHG intensity | 0.00004 (kgCO2e) |
| Key energy sources and methodologies | To determine the proportion of renewable energy usage, the locations of the nodes are to be determined using public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. If no information is available on the geographic distribution of the nodes, reference networks are used which are comparable in terms of their incentivization structure and consensus mechanism. This geo-information is merged with public information from the European Environment Agency (EEA) and thus determined. |
| Key GHG sources and methodologies | To determine the GHG Emissions, the locations of the nodes are to be determined using public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. If no information is available on the geographic distribution of the nodes, reference networks are used which are comparable in terms of their incentivization structure and consensus mechanism. This geo-information is merged with public information from the European Environment Agency (EEA) and thus determined. |