White paper drafted under the European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 for FFG 7WMBV0R29

The crypto-assets this white paper refers to are crypto-assets other than EMTs and ARTs, which are available on the Base, Ethereum and Solana blockchain (2025-07-07 and according to DTI FFG shown in F.14).

The initial production of the 1,000,000,000 tokens (the so-called "mint") took place on 2023-12-23 on Ethereum (see transaction https://etherscan.io/tx/0x95ea29a4755202c2245fd554f7661b802ebff02ed208fdde766a15ad45bee7ec, accessed 2025-07-03) and on 2024-03-14 on Base Network (see https://basescan.org/tx/0x3a352d6f45fa896e3af94a0dfd761e6676e6ea007687244290d6d78181eb93ce, accessed 2025-07-03). It has to be noted that the total supply of the initial mint is supposed to be unaffected by deployments on other ecosystems like Base (Token Address: 0x0b3e328455c4059EEb9e3f84b5543F74E24e7E1b or Solana (Token Address: 3iQL8BFS2vE7mww4ehAqQHAsbmRNCrPxizWAT2Zfyr9y). This is due to the fact that for any token to be released on another ecosystem, the same number of tokens must be locked in the respective bridge contract.

This asset bridge creates corresponding risks for investors, as this lock-in mechanism may not function properly for technical reasons or may be subject to attack.

The ecosystem has various governance mechanisms that are similar to a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Voting is claimed to be part of the token functionalities. The novel governance structure of a DAO, which has a significant influence on the project, creates additional risks for investors. The DAO can make decisions that adversely affect the investor.

Not applicable.

The token has been admitted to trading to the trading platform operated by Bitstamp Europe S.A. on its own initiative.

Could not be found in official documents while drafting this white paper (2025-07-03). However, on Crunchbase (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/virtual-protocol, accessed 2025-07-03), the following summary is given: "Virtual Protocol is a decentralized organization that develops AI agents capable of learning, strategizing, and making decisions."

Not applicable.

As a MiCAR-licensed operator of the trading platform, Bitstamp Europe S.A. shall comply with the requirements set out in Article 5 of MiCAR when admitting to trading on its own initiative a crypto-asset for which no white paper has been published in accordance with MiCAR. In such cases, including admission of the token to trading, Bitstamp Europe S.A. shall provide, notify and publishing the crypto-asset white paper in accordance with the relevant provisions of MiCAR.

Bitstamp Europe S.A. is a Crypto-Asset Service Provider authorized with the CSSF under the number N00000003 to provide the following crypto-asset services:

• providing custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients;

• operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets;

• exchange of crypto-assets for funds;

• exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets;

• execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of clients;

• reception and transmission of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of clients; and

• providing transfer services for crypto-assets on behalf of clients.

Bitstamp Europe S.A. is a payment institution authorized with the CSSF under number Z00000012 to provide the following payment services:

3.a) execution of direct debits, including one-off direct debits,

3.b) execution of payment transactions through a payment card or a similar device,

3.c) execution of credit transfers, including standing orders and

6.) money remittance.

Bitstamp Europe S.A. has notified the cross-border provision of payment services and of crypto-asset services in all EU and EEA member states.

Bitstamp has admitted the asset to which this white paper relates to, to trading on its own initiative on its trading platform.

Robinhood Markets, Inc is the holding company for the Robinhood group.

Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH, Lange Reihe 73, 20099 Hamburg

Crypto Risk Metrics GmbH, Lange Reihe 73, 20099 Hamburg, was mandated to draw up the white paper by Bitstamp Europe S.A.

Virtuals Protocol is a crypto-native project focused on the development and deployment of decentralized AI agents within the entertainment and gaming industries. The project is led by Jansen Teng and Weekee Tiew.

The protocol aims to combine generative and autonomous AI with blockchain-based tokenization mechanisms. Its platform hosts a suite of products enabling the creation, operation, and economic participation in AI-driven entities. Key products include (non-exhaustive):

AI Souls: Digital identity modules encapsulating memory and personality.

AI WAIFU: Conversational AI companions.

Sanctum: A gaming platform leveraging AI agents.

The system also aims to integrate a decentralized repository of gaming AI agents, utilizing blockchain-based smart contracts for programmable revenue sharing and economic coordination.

Virtuals Protocol conceptualizes AI agents as autonomous, productive entities within a tokenized economic environment. These agents are intended to be co-owned and governed by stakeholders through sub-DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations), enabling community decision-making over the agent’s development and resource allocation. A portion of transaction fees within the ecosystem is directed into agent-specific wallets to subsidize operational costs such as inference. The platform’s current iteration follows an infrastructural phase pivoted towards a consumer-facing model, emphasizing tokenization as a mechanism to drive engagement, distribute ownership, and lower the financial barriers to AI experimentation. This includes use cases such as AI-generated content monetization and autonomous virtual influencers. The protocol positions itself at the convergence of Web3 and agentic AI, aspiring to establish an “economy of agents” where both humans and autonomous digital actors can interact, transact, and create value within a shared ecosystem.

The project operates in a competitive landscape, with approximately 40 other entities targeting similar verticals, including notable names such as Campfire, ThankyouAge, and WaveMining.

Disclaimer: The project is still evolving and subject to technological, regulatory, and market uncertainties. No guarantees are made.

Sources for the information above: https://tracxn.com/d/companies/virtuals-protocol/__inUmNSNZKdv6daxl2MUvXhLHGvKKvhM_YTwQyZZPyyw#about-the-company; https://www.analyse.asia/virtuals-protocol-and-the-intersection-of-agentic-ai-web3-with-jansen-teng/ ; https://whitepaper.virtuals.io/, all accessed 2025-07-03)

The following roadmap for the "Agent Commerce Protocol (ACP)" was condensed out of an official X article that was referred to in the official documentation of the project (https://whitepaper.virtuals.io/info-hub/important-links-and-resources/further-reading). The full article can be found here: https://x.com/virtuals_io/status/1899838132343972019, accessed 2025-07-03.

ACP is framed as a protocol that empowers AI agents to coordinate, collaborate, and transact trustlessly. More details can be found in the ACP research white paper (https://s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/virtualprotocolcdn/Agent_Commerce_Protocol_Virtuals_0759d11d1d.pdf, accessed 2025-07-07).

Three Core Components of ACP:

Index Registry ("Yelp for AI agents")

Commerce Interactions (including Evaluator agents, trustless negotiation)

Monetary Transactions (smart contract-based escrow & payment)

Note that the article's contents and the implied roadmap are subject to change at any given time. They are not binding and no guarantees can be made about it. Past roadmap points are not necessarily implemented. Changes and developments can negatively impact the investors.

Future milestones:

As of the date of drafting this white paper, no official documentation or public statements outlining future milestones or concrete development plans for the protocol could be identified. The absence of such information does not preclude the possibility that the protocol’s future roadmap or related disclosures may be published or updated at a later stage.

According to the project's official documentation (https://whitepaper.virtuals.io/info-hub/usdvirtual/token-distribution, accessed 2025-07-03):

"All tokens are fully unlocked and vested.

The distribution plan for the total supply of 1,000,000,000 $VIRTUAL tokens, which are to be minted without any future inflation, is allocated among different stakeholders within the DAO. Here's a breakdown of the allocation:

Public Distribution: 60% (600,000,000 tokens) are now in public circulation.

Liquidity Pool: 5% (50,000,000 tokens) are set aside for the liquidity pool.

Ecosystem: 35% (350,000,000 tokens) is dedicated to the ecosystem treasury.

This allocation is earmarked for community incentives and initiatives that drive growth within the VIRTUAL protocol ecosystem. This will sit in a DAO-controlled multi-sig wallet and will not have more than 10% emission per year for the next 3 years, subject to deployment only after receiving governance approval."

Note that this allocation can be subject to change and is to be considered non-binding. Changes can negatively impact the investor. The "live" distribution of tokens can be traced on the respective ecosystems:

Ethereum: https://etherscan.io/token/0x44ff8620b8ca30902395a7bd3f2407e1a091bf73#balances

Base: https://basescan.org/token/0x0b3e328455c4059eeb9e3f84b5543f74e24e7e1b#balances

Solana: https://solscan.io/token/3iQL8BFS2vE7mww4ehAqQHAsbmRNCrPxizWAT2Zfyr9y#holders

Not applicable, as this white paper was drawn up for the admission to trading and not for collecting funds for the crypto-asset-project.

Bitstamp Europe S.A. has admitted the token to trading based on its market considerations.

Investors can access the trading platform through https://www.bitstamp.net or via the Bitstamp applications.

There are no costs involved in creating an account on the trading platform, however trading fees and other costs apply in accordance with the fee schedule available at https://www.bitstamp.net/fee-schedule.

Not applicable, as Bitstamp Europe S.A. has only admitted token to trading on its platform on its own initiative and has not been involved in offering the token to the public.

There are no conflicts of interest of the persons involved in the admission to trading. Bitstamp Group has a strict Code of Conduct and Trading Policy in place. They both mitigate the possibility of conflicts of interest.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct all officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, contractors and consultants (and other persons, regardless of job or position), are required to report any situation where there is the potential for conflict of interest between their interests and interests of Bitstamp. The Trading Policy that is in place within the Bitstamp Group prohibits all forms of market manipulation and has been designed to prevent insider trading.

Not applicable, as this point pertains to an "offer to the public," whereas this white paper relates to admission to trading.

Not applicable, as this point pertains to an "offer to the public," whereas this white paper relates to admission to trading.

The project specifies various functionalities of the crypto asset in the official documentation (https://whitepaper.virtuals.io/info-hub/usdvirtual, accessed at 2025-07-07):

Liquidity Pairing: Each agent token is intended to be paired with the $VIRTUAL token in its respective liquidity pool. The creation of a new agent typically requires a defined amount of $VIRTUAL, which is intended to be allocated to establish this pool. As these pools are designed to be locked, the mechanism is intended to introduce deflationary pressure on $VIRTUAL by reducing its active circulating supply.

Routing Currency: $VIRTUAL is intended to serve as a routing or intermediary currency within the system. When users seek to acquire agent tokens, they are generally required to first exchange assets into $VIRTUAL. This model is designed to create consistent transactional demand for $VIRTUAL.

Agent Economy Utility: Within the Agentic Commerce Protocol (ACP), $VIRTUAL is intended to function as the principal medium of exchange. Agents are designed to use $VIRTUAL to operate, transact, and coordinate with other agents. As the number of active agents increases, the system anticipates a corresponding rise in the volume of transactions and utility involving the token.

This information is subject to change and can negatively impact investors. DAO decisions can negatively impact the investors at any time.

See D.8. for a conjecture of future features. The features in F.2 are cited by the project or visible in community activity; however, their actual implementation status may vary over time and is partly not clearly established at the time of writing (2025-07-03). No guarantees are made regarding functionality, availability, or future developments.

The overview in F.2 is based on project communications and observed functionalities but does not constitute a definitive or contractual description of the token’s current or future utility.

The tokens are crypto-assets other than EMTs and ARTs, which are available on the Base network, the Ethereum blockchain and the Solana blockchain (see, accessed 2025-07-04). The tokens are fungible (up to 18 digits after the decimal point on Ethereum and Base, up to 9 digits after the decimal point on Solana). The tokens are a digital representation of value. A total of 1,000,000,000 tokens have been initially minted on Ethereum (see https://etherscan.io/tx/0x95ea29a4755202c2245fd554f7661b802ebff02ed208fdde766a15ad45bee7ec, accessed 2025-07-04) on 2023-12-23. The migration to Base occurred on 2024-03-14 (see https://basescan.org/tx/0x3a352d6f45fa896e3af94a0dfd761e6676e6ea007687244290d6d78181eb93ce, accessed 2025-07-04) and to Solana on 2025-01-28 (see https://solscan.io/token/3iQL8BFS2vE7mww4ehAqQHAsbmRNCrPxizWAT2Zfyr9y, accessed 2025-07-04).

Any user can burn tokens by sending them to a burn address. Anyone with an internet connection can send and receive the crypto-asset without intermediaries. Note that the maximum supply on the originating blockchain can not be feasibly increased as the ownership of the token contract was renounced (see https://etherscan.io/address/0x44ff8620b8cA30902395A7bD3F2407e1A091BF73#readContract, accessed 2025-07-04).

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. MiCAR).

No legally binding real or contractual obligations are linked to the crypto-asset. The technically possible governance participations and functionalities described in F.2 cannot be independently verified and it cannot be guaranteed that these promises have legal binding force that an investor can enforce.

As the token grants no legal binding rights nor obligations, there are no procedures and conditions for the exercise of these rights applicable.

The promise of governance participation is based on technical circumstances and relies on smart contract functionalities and voting platforms. It is not certain whether this infrastructure will be available for use of these governance functions on a permanent basis.

As the token grants no legal binding rights nor obligations, there are no procedures and conditions for the exercise of these rights applicable.

An adjustment of the technical infrastructure necessary to exercise the promised governance rights, declining functionality due to dilution, changing rights within the voting platforms, and all other adverse effects for investors may occur at any time.

Information on the future offers to the public of crypto-assets were not available at the time of writing this white paper (2025-07-07).

Not applicable, as the token is admitted to trading on the trading platform operated by Bitstamp Europe S.A.

The crypto-assets as such do not have any transfer restrictions and are generally freely transferable. Bitstamp will employ the same restrictions to the token as to the other crypto-assets listed on their trading platform and strictly abide by the applicable laws in the European Union.

The ownership of the token contract has been renounced (handed over to a burn address). See https://etherscan.io/address/0x44ff8620b8cA30902395A7bD3F2407e1A091BF73#readContract (accessed 2025-06-12). While some discussions suggest that, in theory, a private key could exist for them, the chance of anyone discovering such a key is computationally infeasible with current and foreseeable technology. (see https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/52908/who-has-access-to-ethereum-0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000-address, accessed 2025-06-23).

Arguably, with multi-chain tokens it is possible that the respective bridge contracts can emit more tokens than originally exist. This is a theoretical possibility and can negatively impact the investor. Ethereum is the only blockchain this token natively exists on and tokens held on Ethereum are therefore not as affected by bridge technology failure. However, investors holding the token on Ethereum can still negatively impacted by bridge failures.

Investors must expect the amount in circulation to change at any time.

The token is not subject to any predetermined applicable law. Applicable law likely depends on the location of any particular party and/or the location of any particular transaction with the token.

The token is not subject to any predetermined court jurisdiction. Competent court likely depends on the location of any particular party and/or the location of any particular transaction with the token.

Bitstamp Europe S.A. is not involved either in maintenance or in development of the distributed ledger technology used to issue the token or to validate its transfers. The description below is based on information publicly available at the time of preparation of this white paper.

The crypto asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base, Solana and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto assets, the total number of tokens issued across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies for the Base blockchain:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that was introduced by Coinbase and developed using Optimism's OP Stack. L2 transactions do not have their own consensus mechanism and are only validated by the execution clients. The so-called sequencer regularly bundles stacks of L2 transactions and publishes them on the L1 network, i.e. Ethereum. Ethereum's consensus mechanism (Proof-of-stake) thus indirectly secures all L2 transactions as soon as they are written to L1.

The following applies for the Ethereum blockchain:

The crypto-asset operates on a well-defined set of protocols and technical standards that are intended to ensure its security, decentralization, and functionality. Below are some of the key ones:

1. Network Protocols

The crypto-asset follows a decentralized, peer-to-peer (P2P) protocol where nodes communicate over the crypto-asset's DevP2P protocol using RLPx for data encoding.

- Transactions and smart contract execution are secured through Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus.

- Validators propose and attest blocks in Ethereum’s Beacon Chain, finalized through Casper FFG.

- The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) executes smart contracts using Turing-complete bytecode.

2. Transaction and Address Standards

crypto-asset Address Format: 20-byte addresses derived from Keccak-256 hashing of public keys.

Transaction Types:

- Legacy Transactions (pre-EIP-1559)

- Type 0 (Pre-EIP-1559 transactions)

- Type 1 (EIP-2930: Access list transactions)

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

The Pectra upgrade introduces EIP-7702, a transformative improvement to account abstraction. This allows externally owned accounts (EOAs) to temporarily act as smart contract wallets during a transaction. It provides significant flexibility, enabling functionality such as sponsored gas payments and batched operations without changing the underlying account model permanently.

3. Blockchain Data Structure & Block Standards

- the crypto-asset's blockchain consists of accounts, smart contracts, and storage states, maintained through Merkle Patricia Trees for efficient verification.

Each block contains:

- Block Header: Parent hash, state root, transactions root, receipts root, timestamp, gas limit, gas used, proposer signature.

- Transactions: Smart contract executions and token transfers.

- Block Size: No fixed limit; constrained by the gas limit per block (variable over time). In line with Ethereum’s scalability roadmap, Pectra includes EIP-7691, which increases the maximum number of ""blobs"" (data chunks introduced with EIP-4844) per block. This change significantly boosts the data availability layer used by rollups, supporting cheaper and more efficient Layer 2 scalability.

4. Upgrade & Improvement Standards

Ethereum follows the Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) process for upgrades.

The following applies for the Solana blockchain:

The tokens were created with Solana’s Token Program, a smart contract that is part of the Solana Program Library (SPL). Such tokens are commonly referred to as SPL-token. The token itself is not an additional smart contract, but what is called a data account on Solana. As the name suggests data accounts store data on the blockchain. However, unlike smart contracts, they cannot be executed and cannot perform any operations. Since one cannot interact with data accounts directly, any interaction with an SPL-token is done via Solana’s Token Program. The source code of this smart contract can be found here https://github.com/solana-program/token.

The Token Program is developed in Rust, a memory-safe, high-performance programming language designed for secure and efficient development. On Solana, Rust is said to be the primary language used for developing on-chain programs (smart contracts), intended to ensure safety and reliability in decentralized applications (dApps).

Core functions of the Token Program:

initialize_mint() → Create a new type of token, called a mint

mint_to() → Mints new tokens of a specific type to a specified account

burn() → Burns tokens from a specified account, reducing total supply

transfer() → Transfers tokens between accounts

approve() → Approves a delegate to spend tokens on behalf of the owner

set_authority() → Updates authorities (mint, freeze, or transfer authority)

These functions ensure basic operations like transfers, and minting/burning can be performed within the Solana ecosystem.

In addition to the Token Program, another smart contract, the Metaplex Token Metadata Program is commonly used to store name, symbol, and URI information for better ecosystem compatibility. This additional metadata has no effect on the token’s functionality.

The crypto assets are transferred between the ecosystems using the so-called Bridge. Bridges have, in the past, been very sensitive to malfunctions and hacks. Their usage is connected to additional technical risk. The bridge poses an additional source for adverse effects on the investor as it retains the right to release, burn and mint portions of the token supply. More information can be found on https://wormhole.com/, accessed 2025-06-30.

The crypto asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base, Solana and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto assets, the total number of tokens issued across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies for the Base blockchain:

1. Base-Compatible Wallets: The tokens are supported by all wallets compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), such as MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet, and Trust Wallet. These wallets interact with Base in the same way as with other EVM-compatible chains, using standard Web3 interfaces.

2. Decentralized Ledger:Base operates as a Layer-2 blockchain on Ethereum and maintains its own decentralized ledger for recording token transactions. Final transaction data is periodically posted to Ethereum Layer 1, ensuring long-term availability and resistance to tampering.

3. ERC-20 Token Standard:The Base network supports tokens implemented under the ERC-20 standard, the same as on Ethereum.

4. Scalability and Transaction Efficiency:

As a rollup-based Layer-2, Base is intended to handle high volumes of transactions with lower fees compared to Ethereum Layer 1. This is enabled by off-chain execution and on-chain data posting via optimistic rollup architecture

The following applies for the Ethereum blockchain:

1. Decentralized Ledger: The Ethereum blockchain acts as a decentralized ledger for all token transactions, with the intention to preserving an unalterable record of token transfers and ownership to ensure both transparency and security.

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

3. Cryptographic Integrity: Ethereum employs elliptic curve cryptography to validate and execute transactions securely, intended to ensure the integrity of all transfers. The Keccak-256 (SHA-3 variant) Hashing Algorithm is used for hashing and address generation. The crypto-asset uses ECDSA with secp256k1 curve for key generation and digital signatures. Next to that, BLS (Boneh-Lynn-Shacham) signatures are used for validator aggregation in PoS.

The following applies to the Solana network:

1. Solana-Compatible Wallets: The tokens are supported by all wallets compatible with Solana’s Token Program

2. Decentralized Ledger: The Solana blockchain acts as a decentralized ledger for all token transactions, with the intention to preserving an unalterable record of token transfers and ownership to ensure both transparency and security.

3. SPL Token Program: The SPL (Solana Program Library) Token Program is an inherent Solana smart contract built to create and manage new types of tokens (so called mints). This is significantly different from ERC-20 on Ethereum, because a single smart contract that is part of Solana’s core functionality and as such is open source, is responsible for all the tokens. This ensures a high uniformity across tokens at the cost of flexibility.

4. Blockchain Scalability: With its intended capacity for processing a lot of transactions per second and in most cases low fees, Solana is intended to enable efficient token transactions, maintaining high performance even during peak network usage.

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 employs elliptic curve cryptography to validate and execute transactions securely, intended to ensure the integrity of all transfers.

The crypto asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base, Solana and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto assets, the total number of tokens issued across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to the Base network:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that was introduced by Coinbase and developed using Optimism's OP Stack. L2 transactions do not have their own consensus mechanism and are only validated by the execution clients. The so-called sequencer regularly bundles stacks of L2 transactions and publishes them on the L1 network, i.e. Ethereum. Ethereum's consensus mechanism (Proof-of-stake) thus indirectly secures all L2 transactions as soon as they are written to L1.

The following applies to the Ethereum blockchain:

The crypto-asset's Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, introduced with The Merge in 2022, replaces mining with validator staking. Validators must stake at least 32 ETH every block a validator is randomly chosen to propose the next block. Once proposed the other validators verify the blocks integrity. The network operates on a slot and epoch system, where a new block is proposed every 12 seconds, and finalization occurs after two epochs (~12.8 minutes) using Casper-FFG. The Beacon Chain coordinates validators, while the fork-choice rule (LMD-GHOST) ensures the chain follows the heaviest accumulated validator votes. Validators earn rewards for proposing and verifying blocks, but face slashing for malicious behavior or inactivity. PoS aims to improve energy efficiency, security, and scalability, with future upgrades like Proto-Danksharding enhancing transaction efficiency.

The following applies to the Solana network:

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):

Time-Stamped Transactions: PoH is a cryptographic technique that timestamps transactions, intended to creating a historical record that proves that an event has occurred at a specific moment in time.

Verifiable Delay Function: PoH uses a Verifiable Delay Function (VDF) to generate a unique hash that includes the transaction and the time it was processed. This sequence of hashes provides a verifiable order of events, intended to enabling the network to efficiently agree on the sequence of transactions.

2. Proof of Stake (PoS):

Validator Selection: Validators are chosen to produce new blocks based on the number of SOL tokens they have staked. The more tokens 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 intended to enhancing 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 Finalization:

Other validators verify the block produced by the leader validator. They check the correctness of the PoH sequence and validate the transactions within the block. Once the block is verified, it is added to the blockchain. Validators sign off on the block, and it is considered finalized.

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: Validators must stake SOL tokens to participate in the consensus process. This staking acts as collateral, incentivizing validators to act honestly. If a validator behaves maliciously or fails to perform, they risk losing their staked tokens.

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

3. Economic Penalties:

Slashing: Validators can be penalized for malicious behavior, 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 crypto asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base, Ethereum and Solana. In general, when evaluating crypto assets, the total number of tokens issued across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to the Base network:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that uses optimistic rollups provided by the OP Stack on which it was developed. Transaction on base are bundled by a, so called, sequencer and the result is regularly submitted as an Layer-1 (L1) transactions. This way many L2 transactions get combined into a single L1 transaction. This lowers the average transaction cost per transaction, because many L2 transactions together fund the transaction cost for the single L1 transaction. This creates incentives to use base rather than the L1, i.e. Ethereum, itself. To get crypto-assets in and out of base, a special smart contract on Ethereum is used. Since there is no consensus mechanism on L2 an additional mechanism ensures that only existing funds can be withdrawn from L2. When a user wants to withdraw funds, that user needs to submit a withdrawal request on L1. If this request remains unchallenged for a period of time the funds can be withdrawn. During this time period any other user can submit a fault proof, which will start a dispute resolution process. This process is designed with economic incentives for correct behaviour.

The following applies to the Ethereum network:

The crypto-asset's PoS system secures transactions through validator incentives and economic penalties. Validators stake at least 32 ETH and earn rewards for proposing blocks, attesting to valid ones, and participating in sync committees. Rewards are paid in newly issued ETH and transaction fees. Under EIP-1559, transaction fees consist of a base fee, which is burned to reduce supply, and an optional priority fee (tip) paid to validators. Validators face slashing if they act maliciously and incur penalties for inactivity. This system aims to increase security by aligning incentives while making the crypto-asset's fee structure more predictable and deflationary during high network activity.

The following applies to the Solana network::

1. Validators:

Staking Rewards: Validators are chosen based on the number of SOL tokens they have staked. They earn rewards for producing and validating blocks, which are distributed in SOL. The more tokens staked, the higher the chances of being selected to validate transactions and produce new blocks.

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 ensures decentralization.

3. Economic Security:

Slashing: Validators can be penalized for malicious behavior, such as producing invalid blocks or being frequently offline. This penalty, known as slashing, involves the loss of a portion of their staked tokens. Slashing is intended to deter dishonest actions and ensures that validators act in the best interest of the network.

Opportunity Cost: By staking SOL tokens, validators and delegators lock up their tokens, which could otherwise be used or sold. This opportunity cost is intended to incentivize participants to act honestly to earn rewards and avoid penalties.

Fees Applicable on the Solana Blockchain

1. Transaction Fees:

Solana is designed to handle a high throughput of transactions, which is intended to keep the fees low and predictable.

Fee Structure: Fees are paid in SOL and are used to compensate validators for the resources they expend to process transactions. This includes computational power and network bandwidth.

2. Rent Fees:

State Storage: Solana charges so called ""rent fees"" for storing data on the blockchain. These fees are designed to discourage inefficient use of state storage and encourage developers to clean up unused state. Rent fees are intended to help maintain the efficiency and performance of the network.

3. Smart Contract Fees:

Execution Costs: Similar to transaction fees, fees for deploying and interacting with smart contracts on Solana are based on the computational resources required. This is intended to ensure that users are charged proportionally for the resources they consume.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

1. Regulatory and Jurisdictional Risks: This white paper has been prepared with utmost caution; however, future changes in regulatory frameworks could potentially impact the token's legal status and its tradability.

Jurisdictional Limitations: Investors are required to ensure that their transactions comply with the laws applicable in their jurisdictions, as the regulatory landscape for crypto-assets varies significantly across different regions.

2. Market and Liquidity Risks:

Volatility: The token will most likely be subject to high volatility and market speculation. Price fluctuations could be significant, posing a risk of substantial losses to holders.

Liquidity Risk: Low trading volumes may restrict the buying and selling capabilities of the tokens. Liquidity of the token can vary. This could result in high slippage when trading a token.

3. Operational and Technical Risks:

Blockchain Dependency: As of now, the token is entirely dependent on the blockchains described above. Any issues like downtime, congestion, or security vulnerabilities within the networks could adversely affect the token's functionality.

Smart Contract Risks: Smart contracts governing the token may contain hidden vulnerabilities or bugs that could disrupt the token offering or distribution processes.

Human errors: Due to the irrevocability of blockchain-transactions, approving wrong transactions or using incorrect networks/addresses will most likely result in funds not being accessibly anymore.

4. Lack of Intrinsic Value: The token does not possess inherent utility, functioning solely as a speculative asset. Its valuation is predominantly influenced by community engagement, speculative activities, and overall market sentiment, which presents considerable challenges to sustaining long-term value stability.

5. Delisting Risks: Bitstamp Europe S.A. might remove the token from trading in line with Bitstamp Markets Trading Rules.

1. Insolvency

As with every other commercial endeavor, the risk of insolvency of the issuer is given. This could be caused by but is not limited to lack of interest from the public, lack of funding, incapacitation of key developers and project members, force majeure (including pandemics and wars) or lack of commercial success or prospects.

2. Counterparty

In order to operate, the issuer has most likely engaged in different business relationships with one or more third parties on which it strongly depends on. Loss or changes in the leadership or key partners of the issuer and/or the respective counterparties can lead to disruptions, loss of trust, or project failure. This could result in a total loss of economic value for the crypto-asset holders.

3. Legal and Regulatory Compliance

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based technologies are subject to evolving regulatory landscapes worldwide. Regulations vary across jurisdictions and may be subject to significant changes. Non-compliance can result in investigations, enforcement actions, penalties, fines, sanctions, or the prohibition of the trading of the crypto-asset impacting its viability and market acceptance. This could also result in the issuer to be subject to private litigation. The beforementioned would most likely also lead to changes with respect to trading of the crypto-asset that may negatively impact the value, legality, or functionality of the crypto-asset.

4. Operational

Failure to develop or maintain effective internal control, or any difficulties encountered in the implementation of such controls, or their improvement could harm the issuer's business, causing disruptions, financial losses, or reputational damage.

5. Industry

The issuer is and will be subject to all of the risks and uncertainties associated with a memecoin-project, where the token issued has zero intrinsic value. History has shown that most of this projects resulted in financial losses for the investors and were only set-up to enrich a few insiders with the money from retail investors.

6. Reputational

The issuer faces the risk of negative publicity, whether due to, without limitation, operational failures, security breaches, or association with illicit activities, which can damage the issuer reputation and, by extension, the value and acceptance of the crypto-asset.

7. Competition

There are numerous other crypto-asset projects in the same realm, which could have an effect on the crypto-asset in question.

8. Unanticipated Risk

In addition to the risks included in this section, there might be other risks that cannot be foreseen. Additional risks may also materialize as unanticipated variations or combinations of the risks discussed.

1. Market Volatility Risks: High Volatility: The value of the token is expected to be highly volatile, influenced by speculation and overall market sentiment. Significant price fluctuations could lead to substantial losses for holders.

2. Speculative Nature: The token lacks intrinsic utility or underlying value, functioning solely as a speculative asset. Its valuation is wholly dependent on market demand and community interest.

3. Liquidity Risks: Some crypto-assets suffer from limited liquidity, which can present difficulties when executing large trades without significantly impacting market prices. This lack of liquidity can lead to substantial financial losses.

4. Blockchain Risks: Network Dependency: The token operates on the blockchains described above as of now. Issues such as network downtime, congestion, or security vulnerabilities could impair the token’s transferability, trading, or overall functionality. Although the networks is known for low transaction fees, network congestion or technical issues could lead to increased costs or delays.

5. Security Risks - Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: The smart contract for the token may contain vulnerabilities or exploits that jeopardize token security or distribution.

6. Security Risks - Private Key Management: It is critical for holders to secure their wallet private keys and recovery phrases. Losing wallet credentials can result in the irreversible loss of tokens.

7. Scams: The irrevocability of transactions executed using blockchain infrastructure, as well as the pseudonymous nature of blockchain ecosystems, attracts scammers. Therefore, investors in crypto-assets must proceed with a high degree of caution when investing in if they invest in crypto-assets. Typical scams include – but are not limited to – the creation of fake crypto-assets with the same name, phishing on social networks or by email, fake giveaways/airdrops, identity theft, among others.

8. Dependence on Community Interest: The success and market value of the token heavily rely on community support.

9. Evolving Legal Frameworks: Future changes in regulations or their interpretations could affect the classification, trading availability, or usability of the tokens. Jurisdictional Restrictions: Users in certain areas may encounter legal restrictions or obligations concerning the possession or trading of crypto-assets like the token in question.

10. Technological Obsolescence: The rapid evolution of the crypto-asset landscape means new technologies or platforms could make the networks or the tokens design less competitive, potentially affecting adoption and value. Participants are advised to recognize the speculative and volatile nature of the token and be prepared for these risks.

11. Reputational concerns: Crypto-assets are often subject to reputational risks stemming from associations with illegal activities, high-profile security breaches, and technological failures. Such incidents can undermine trust in the broader ecosystem, negatively affecting investor confidence and market value, thereby hindering widespread adoption and acceptance.

12. Taxation: The taxation regime that applies to the trading of the crypto-asset by individual holders or legal entities will depend on the holder’s jurisdiction. It is the holder’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable tax laws, including, but not limited to, the reporting and payment of income tax, wealth tax, or similar taxes arising in connection with the appreciation and depreciation of the crypto-asset.

13. Anti-Money Laundering/Counter-Terrorism Financing: It cannot be ruled out that crypto-asset wallet addresses interacting with the crypto-asset have been, or will be used for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes, or are identified with a person known to have committed such offenses.

14. Market Abuse: It is noteworthy that crypto-assets are potentially prone to increased market abuse risks, as the underlying infrastructure could be used to exploit arbitrage opportunities through schemes such as front-running, spoofing, pump-and-dump, and fraud across different systems, platforms, or geographic locations. This is especially true for crypto-assets with a low market capitalization and few trading venues, and potential investors should be aware that this could lead to a total loss of the funds invested in the crypto-asset.

As this white paper relates to the "Admission to trading" of the crypto-asset, the implementation risk is referring to the risks on the Crypto Asset Service Providers side. These can be, but are not limited to, typical project management risks, such as key-personal-risks, timeline-risks, and technical implementation-risks.

1. Blockchain Dependency Risks

Network Downtime: Potential outages or congestion on the blockchains could interrupt on-chain token transfers, trading, and other functions.

Scalability Challenges: Despite the blockchains comparatively high throughput design, unexpected demand or technical issues might compromise its performance.

2. Smart Contract Risks

Vulnerabilities: The smart contract governing the token could contain bugs or vulnerabilities that may be exploited, affecting token distribution or vesting schedules.

3. Wallet and Storage Risks

Private Key Management: Token holders must securely manage their private keys and recovery phrases to prevent permanent loss of access to their tokens, which includes Trading-Venues, who are a prominent target for dedicated hacks.

Compatibility Issues: The tokens require network-compatible wallets for storage and transfer. Any incompatibility or technical issues with these wallets could impact token accessibility.

4. Network Security Risks

Attack Risks: The blockchains may face threats such as denial-of-service (DoS) attacks or exploits targeting its consensus mechanism, which could compromise network integrity.

Centralization Concerns: Although claiming to be decentralized, the networks relatively smaller number of validators/concentration of stakes within the network compared to other blockchains and the influence of the Foundations (as of 2025-03-09) might pose centralization risks, potentially affecting network resilience.

5. Evolving Technology Risks: Technological Obsolescence: The fast pace of innovation in blockchain technology may make the networks and token standards appear less competitive or become outdated, potentially impacting the usability or adoption of the token.

6. Bridges: The crypto assets are transferred between the ecosystems using the so-called Bridge. Bridges have, in the past, been very sensitive to malfunctions and hacks. Their usage is connected to additional technical risk. The bridge poses an additional source for adverse effects on the investor as it retains the right to release, burn and mint portions of the token supply. More information can be found on https://wormhole.com/, accessed 2025-06-30.

None.

The crypto asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base, Solana and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto assets, the total number of tokens issued across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to the Base network:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that was introduced by Coinbase and developed using Optimism's OP Stack. L2 transactions do not have their own consensus mechanism and are only validated by the execution clients. The so-called sequencer regularly bundles stacks of L2 transactions and publishes them on the L1 network, i.e. Ethereum. Ethereum's consensus mechanism (Proof-of-stake) thus indirectly secures all L2 transactions as soon as they are written to L1.

The following applies to the Ethereum blockchain:

The crypto-asset's Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, introduced with The Merge in 2022, replaces mining with validator staking. Validators must stake at least 32 ETH every block a validator is randomly chosen to propose the next block. Once proposed the other validators verify the blocks integrity. The network operates on a slot and epoch system, where a new block is proposed every 12 seconds, and finalization occurs after two epochs (~12.8 minutes) using Casper-FFG. The Beacon Chain coordinates validators, while the fork-choice rule (LMD-GHOST) ensures the chain follows the heaviest accumulated validator votes. Validators earn rewards for proposing and verifying blocks, but face slashing for malicious behavior or inactivity. PoS aims to improve energy efficiency, security, and scalability, with future upgrades like Proto-Danksharding enhancing transaction efficiency.

The following applies to the Solana network:

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):

Time-Stamped Transactions: PoH is a cryptographic technique that timestamps transactions, intended to creating a historical record that proves that an event has occurred at a specific moment in time.

Verifiable Delay Function: PoH uses a Verifiable Delay Function (VDF) to generate a unique hash that includes the transaction and the time it was processed. This sequence of hashes provides a verifiable order of events, intended to enabling the network to efficiently agree on the sequence of transactions.

2. Proof of Stake (PoS):

Validator Selection: Validators are chosen to produce new blocks based on the number of SOL tokens they have staked. The more tokens 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 intended to enhancing 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 Finalization:

Other validators verify the block produced by the leader validator. They check the correctness of the PoH sequence and validate the transactions within the block. Once the block is verified, it is added to the blockchain. Validators sign off on the block, and it is considered finalized.

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: Validators must stake SOL tokens to participate in the consensus process. This staking acts as collateral, incentivizing validators to act honestly. If a validator behaves maliciously or fails to perform, they risk losing their staked tokens.

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

3. Economic Penalties:

Slashing: Validators can be penalized for malicious behavior, 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 crypto asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Base, Ethereum and Solana. In general, when evaluating crypto assets, the total number of tokens issued across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to the Base network:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that uses optimistic rollups provided by the OP Stack on which it was developed. Transaction on base are bundled by a, so called, sequencer and the result is regularly submitted as an Layer-1 (L1) transactions. This way many L2 transactions get combined into a single L1 transaction. This lowers the average transaction cost per transaction, because many L2 transactions together fund the transaction cost for the single L1 transaction. This creates incentives to use base rather than the L1, i.e. Ethereum, itself. To get crypto-assets in and out of base, a special smart contract on Ethereum is used. Since there is no consensus mechanism on L2 an additional mechanism ensures that only existing funds can be withdrawn from L2. When a user wants to withdraw funds, that user needs to submit a withdrawal request on L1. If this request remains unchallenged for a period of time the funds can be withdrawn. During this time period any other user can submit a fault proof, which will start a dispute resolution process. This process is designed with economic incentives for correct behavior.

The following applies to the Ethereum network:

The crypto-asset's PoS system secures transactions through validator incentives and economic penalties. Validators stake at least 32 ETH and earn rewards for proposing blocks, attesting to valid ones, and participating in sync committees. Rewards are paid in newly issued ETH and transaction fees. Under EIP-1559, transaction fees consist of a base fee, which is burned to reduce supply, and an optional priority fee (tip) paid to validators. Validators face slashing if they act maliciously and incur penalties for inactivity. This system aims to increase security by aligning incentives while making the crypto-asset's fee structure more predictable and deflationary during high network activity.

The following applies to the Solana network:

1. Validators:

Staking Rewards: Validators are chosen based on the number of SOL tokens they have staked. They earn rewards for producing and validating blocks, which are distributed in SOL. The more tokens staked, the higher the chances of being selected to validate transactions and produce new blocks.

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 ensures decentralization.

3. Economic Security:

Slashing: Validators can be penalized for malicious behavior, such as producing invalid blocks or being frequently offline. This penalty, known as slashing, involves the loss of a portion of their staked tokens. Slashing is intended to deter dishonest actions and ensures that validators act in the best interest of the network.

Opportunity Cost: By staking SOL tokens, validators and delegators lock up their tokens, which could otherwise be used or sold. This opportunity cost is intended to incentivize participants to act honestly to earn rewards and avoid penalties.

Fees Applicable on the Solana Blockchain

1. Transaction Fees:

Solana is designed to handle a high throughput of transactions, which is intended to keep the fees low and predictable.

Fee Structure: Fees are paid in SOL and are used to compensate validators for the resources they expend to process transactions. This includes computational power and network bandwidth.

2. Rent Fees:

State Storage: Solana charges so called ""rent fees"" for storing data on the blockchain. These fees are designed to discourage inefficient use of state storage and encourage developers to clean up unused state. Rent fees are intended to help maintain the efficiency and performance of the network.

3. Smart Contract Fees:

Execution Costs: Similar to transaction fees, fees for deploying and interacting with smart contracts on Solana are based on the computational resources required. This is intended to ensure that users are charged proportionally for the resources they consume.

The energy consumption associated with this crypto-asset is aggregated of multiple contributing components, primarily the underlying blockchain network and the execution of token-specific operations. To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the underlying blockchain network Solana, Ethereum and Base is calculated first. A proportionate share of that energy use is then attributed to the token based on its activity level within the network (e.g. transaction volume, contract execution).

The Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is used to determine all technically equivalent implementations of the crypto-asset in scope.

Estimates regarding hardware types, node distribution, and the number of network participants are based on informed assumptions, supported by best-effort verification against available empirical data. Unless robust evidence suggests otherwise, participants are assumed to act in an economically rational manner. In line with the precautionary principle, conservative estimates are applied where uncertainty exists – that is, estimates tend towards the higher end of potential environmental impact.

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 Our World in Data, see citation. The intensity is calculated as the marginal energy cost wrt. one more 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]. Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data Europe”; Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data”; Energy Institute, “Statistical Review of World Energy” [original data]. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewables.

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 Our World in Data, see citation. The intensity is calculated as the marginal emission wrt. one more 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]. Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data Europe”; Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data”; Energy Institute, “Statistical Review of World Energy” [original data]. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity Licenced under CC BY 4.0.