DOGS (DOGS) sustainability report

DOGS is present on the following networks: Toncoin.

TON is not a single chain but a hierarchy of them secured by one Byzantine fault tolerant proof-of-stake validator set. At the top sits the masterchain, which carries the protocol configuration, the current validator set and hash references to the latest state of everything beneath it. Below it are workchains, each able to define its own rules, of which one general-purpose chain is in operation. Each workchain is in turn divided into shardchains, and that division is dynamic: the count is always a power of two, a shardchain splits in two when its load grows and the halves merge back when it falls, and an account's address prefix decides which shard holds it at any moment. Describing this as a single-chain network would misstate it, as would treating the shards as independent chains, since the masterchain commits them all.

Agreement is reached by two layered protocols. The lower layer, Catchain, gives a validator group a signed, hash-linked message graph with dependency information, so broadcasts are reliably delivered and any attempt to fork is detectable. A block consensus protocol runs on top of it to agree the next block. Validators are partitioned into groups, each assigned to a shard or to the masterchain for a term, and a group's agreement is safe as long as fewer than a third of its members behave maliciously.

Selection runs through an election contract on the masterchain rather than a continuous ranking. Candidates submit an application carrying their keys and a stake in the native asset; applications clearing a configured minimum are ordered by stake and the set is taken down to a configured maximum, with a cap limiting how much weight any single large stake can carry relative to the smallest accepted. Terms are fixed-length rounds, after which a fresh election seats a new set, and a departing validator's stake stays frozen for a further period so that misconduct discovered late can still be answered for. Contracts interact only by asynchronous messages, which is what allows work to cross shard boundaries as they split and merge.

DOGS is present on the following networks: Toncoin.

Validators are paid from two sources. New units of the native asset are issued with each block, with a masterchain block carrying a larger subsidy than a block of the general-purpose workchain, and the subsidy for a shard is divided among the shardchains that result when it splits. On top of that, the fees collected during a validation round accumulate in the election contract. When a round closes and the frozen stakes are released, the contract distributes rewards in proportion to stake, so payment reaches a validator only after its term has ended and the window for complaints has passed. The minimum stake for a seat is high, so holders wanting to participate with less generally do so through nomination and staking pool contracts, which aggregate deposits behind an operator and return rewards after a commission.

Punishment is deliberate rather than automatic. There is no mechanism that confiscates stake the instant a fault occurs. Instead, a validator that failed to produce the blocks it was assigned can be reported by another validator, who constructs a proof of the omission, proposes a fine scaled to its severity and files it with the election contract; the validators of the current round then vote on the complaint, and if it is upheld the fine is deducted from the frozen stake of the accused. Most of what is taken is destroyed rather than redistributed.

Users pay several distinct fees rather than one. Storage is genuine rent: a contract accrues a charge for every second it occupies space, priced by the cells and bits it holds, settled whenever it is next touched, and a contract that exhausts its balance is frozen and eventually removed. Computation is metered in gas, forwarding fees pay for delivering messages between contracts and across shards with the charge split between the sending and receiving shards' validators, and further components cover inbound external messages and outbound actions. All of these prices are set in on-chain configuration parameters that validators change by vote, not by an auction among users, so costs are stable rather than demand-driven. Half of the fees collected are sent to an unspendable address and destroyed; validators keep the other half.

DOGS is present on the following networks: Toncoin.

The figure reported for this network is an estimate constructed from the machines that run it, not a metered reading. It begins with the population of participating nodes and works upward from the power each is expected to draw.

Establishing that population takes account of the network's structure. The validator set is elected on-chain for fixed terms and its size and membership can therefore be read directly from publicly observable network data at any point in a round, but validators are only part of the picture. They are partitioned into groups covering the masterchain and each shardchain, and the number of shardchains changes as load causes them to split and merge, so the work carried per machine is not constant across a reporting period. Beyond consensus, the network depends on nodes that keep full or partial history and on the query-serving infrastructure that applications rely on; those are estimated from peer discovery, published operator information and automated crawling, since they are not enumerated on-chain.

The second input is per-machine draw. A representative hardware profile is inferred from the resources the node software states it needs, covering processor, memory, disk and bandwidth, and power consumption is attributed from laboratory measurement of equipment matching that profile. The minimum stake for a seat is substantial and terms are contested, so validator infrastructure is assumed to be server-grade and continuously online; draw is counted on that basis, idle time included, and multiplied across the estimated population.

The limits are worth stating plainly. Both the count and the hardware mix are inferences from public observation and from stated requirements rather than from surveys or meters. The supporting non-consensus infrastructure is the least observable component, and the shifting shard count adds variability that a snapshot does not capture. Where evidence is missing, assumptions are chosen so that the impact is more likely to be overstated than understated, and the estimate is revised as observation of the network improves and as its topology changes.

DOGS is present on the following networks: Toncoin.

The renewable share attributed to this network is derived from where its machines physically sit, not from any claim about the electricity its operators procure. Placement is inferred from publicly observable network data: the addresses nodes announce to their peers, information operators publish about themselves, and the hosting providers and data-center address ranges those addresses belong to, gathered by automated crawling of the peer network.

Two features of this network shape that exercise. The validator set turns over at the end of each election round, so the population being located is not the same from one term to the next and has to be observed repeatedly rather than fixed once. And because validators are grouped across a masterchain and a shifting number of shardchains, the geographic weighting reflects where machines are rather than which chain a given machine happened to serve. Coverage is still incomplete, since some operators sit behind relays or cloud infrastructure that conceals the underlying site. Where the observed spread is too thin to rely on, the distribution of a structurally similar network is substituted, chosen because its participants face comparable incentives and carry comparable duties and can be expected to cluster in broadly the same regions.

Each located machine is then matched to the grid that serves it, and the renewable proportion of that grid's generation is applied, weighted by the share of estimated consumption in each region. The outcome is a consumption-weighted renewable share for the network, which changes when operators move and when national generation mixes change from year to year.

Energy intensity is reported alongside it with a narrow meaning: the marginal energy associated with one further transaction. Because almost all of the consumption is the fixed cost of keeping elected validators online, rather than anything that scales with throughput, this marginal figure falls as activity rises and should not be read as an average cost per transaction. Grid statistics come from Share of electricity generated by renewables, compiled by Our World in Data with major processing from Ember and from the Energy Institute's Statistical Review of World Energy.

DOGS is present on the following networks: Toncoin.

Emissions are derived by combining the network's estimated electricity use with the carbon content of the grids that supply it. The energy total is first apportioned geographically, using the same picture built for the energy analysis: node addresses observed on the peer network, operator information published openly, and the hosting ranges those addresses resolve to. Because the validator set is re-elected at the end of each round, that apportionment is rebuilt over the reporting period rather than taken from a single observation. Where placement cannot be resolved, the distribution of a structurally comparable network is used instead, selected for similar incentives and similar validation duties rather than for similar size.

Each portion of consumption is then multiplied by the carbon intensity of the grid serving its region, expressed as emissions per unit of electricity generated, and the parts are summed. The result therefore depends as much on where operators host as on how much electricity the network draws, and it shifts year to year as national generation mixes change and as the elected set turns over.

Two scopes are reported separately. Scope 1 covers emissions from sources the operators control directly, such as fuel burned on site; for infrastructure of this kind it is effectively nil, because the machines are commodity servers drawing grid power in facilities run by third parties. Scope 2 covers the indirect emissions embodied in the electricity purchased to run that infrastructure, and it accounts for essentially the entire footprint. Emissions from manufacturing the hardware and from building and cooling the facilities housing it fall outside both scopes and are not included.

GHG intensity is the marginal quantity: the emissions attributable to one additional transaction. As with energy, most of the total is a fixed cost incurred whether or not the network is busy, so intensity declines as usage rises and is not an average. Carbon intensity values come from Carbon intensity of electricity generation, compiled by Our World in Data with major processing from Ember and from the Energy Institute's Statistical Review of World Energy, and made available under the CC BY 4.0 license.