Lido DAO (LDO) sustainability report

Lido DAO is present on the following networks: Arbitrum, Ethereum, Optimism, Polygon.

Arbitrum, an innovative Layer 2 scaling solution built on top of Ethereum, utilizes an Optimistic Rollup consensus mechanism to significantly enhance transaction scalability and reduce operational costs. This optimistic approach operates on the fundamental assumption that all transactions processed off-chain are valid by default. Consequently, transactions only undergo a rigorous verification process if their validity is explicitly challenged during a specific time window.

The core architecture of the Arbitrum network integrates several key components essential for its functionality. The Sequencer plays a pivotal role by efficiently ordering user transactions and aggregating them into batches, which are then processed off-chain. This mechanism is critical for achieving high transaction throughput and maintaining network efficiency. A Bridge facilitates secure and seamless transfers of assets between the Arbitrum Layer 2 environment and the underlying Ethereum Layer 1 mainnet, ensuring interoperability and leveraging Ethereum's robust security. Safeguarding the network from malicious activities are Fraud Proofs, an interactive verification system designed to detect and invalidate fraudulent transactions.

The transaction verification process unfolds as follows: users first submit their transactions to the Arbitrum Sequencer. The Sequencer orders these transactions, bundles them into batches, and subsequently submits these batches along with a cryptographic "state commitment" to the Ethereum mainnet. A crucial "challenge period" then commences, during which any network validator can initiate a fraud proof if they suspect an invalid state transition. Should a challenge be raised, an iterative dispute resolution protocol is activated to pinpoint the exact fraudulent step. If fraud is confirmed, the system rolls back the incorrect state, and the dishonest party is subjected to penalties. The final, validated state is then executed on the Ethereum blockchain, preserving the rollup's integrity. This combination of off-chain computation, batching, and on-chain fraud detection, as seen in networks built on the Arbitrum Nitro stack like Kinto, enables high transaction volumes at considerably lower fees.

The Ethereum blockchain network, following "The Merge" in 2022, operates on a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, a significant departure from its previous Proof of Work system. This transition replaced energy-intensive mining with validator staking, aiming to enhance energy efficiency, security, and scalability. In this model, participants willing to secure the network act as validators by staking a minimum of 32 units of the network's native asset (Ether). The network organizes its operations around a precise slot and epoch system. Every 12 seconds, a validator is randomly selected to propose a new block. Following this proposal, other validators on the network verify the integrity and validity of the block. Finalization of transactions, meaning they become irreversible, occurs after approximately two epochs, which translates to about 12.8 minutes, utilizing the Casper-FFG (Friendly Finality Gadget) protocol. The Beacon Chain plays a central role in coordinating the activities of these validators, while the LMD-GHOST (Latest Message Driven-Greedy Heaviest Observed SubTree) fork-choice rule is employed to ensure all network participants agree on the canonical chain, following the branch with the heaviest accumulated validator votes. Validators are economically incentivized for their honest participation in proposing and verifying blocks, but they also face severe penalties, known as slashing, for malicious actions or prolonged inactivity. This PoS framework is designed not only to reduce the network's environmental footprint but also to lay the groundwork for future upgrades, such as Proto-Danksharding, which are intended to further improve transaction efficiency and overall network throughput. The core components like validator selection, block production, and transaction finality are intrinsically tied to the amount of Ether staked, ensuring that participants have a vested interest in the network's security and stability.

Optimism operates as a Layer 2 scaling solution for the Ethereum network, designed to boost transaction throughput and minimize costs by utilizing Optimistic Rollups while inheriting the robust security features of the underlying Ethereum main chain. The system is built upon several core components. At its heart are Optimistic Rollups, where transactions are batched into "rollup blocks" and processed off-chain. The resulting state commitments, which represent the collective outcome of these off-chain operations, are then periodically committed to the Ethereum main chain.

Key to Optimism's functionality are the "Sequencers." These entities are tasked with collecting and ordering transactions into batches. Following processing, sequencers update the Layer 2 state and transmit these updates to Ethereum. Specifically, they construct and execute Layer 2 blocks, which are subsequently posted as calldata on the Ethereum mainnet. This involves publishing a cryptographic hash of the state root and the associated transaction data. This aggregation method efficiently combines numerous Layer 2 transactions into a single Layer 1 transaction, significantly reducing the average cost per transaction.

A defining characteristic of Optimistic Rollups is its "Fraud Proof" mechanism. Transactions are initially presumed valid, facilitating rapid finality. However, a critical "challenge period" allows any network participant to submit a fraud proof if they detect an invalid transaction. If a challenge is initiated, an "interactive verification game" unfolds, meticulously breaking down the disputed transaction into granular steps to pinpoint any fraudulent activity. Should fraud be conclusively proven, the invalid state is reverted, and the dishonest sequencer or actor is penalized, typically by forfeiting their staked collateral. A batch achieves finality and its state updates become permanent only after the challenge period expires without any successful fraud proofs. This design ensures that Optimism leverages Ethereum's underlying Proof-of-Stake consensus, thereby securing all Layer 2 transactions once they are enshrined on the Layer 1 network.

The Polygon blockchain network, originally known as Matic Network, operates as a Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, leveraging a sophisticated hybrid consensus mechanism to enhance scalability, ensure security, and maintain decentralization. The foundational elements of its consensus protocol are built upon a combination of Proof of Stake (PoS) and Plasma Chains. Within the PoS framework, validators are selected based on the number of MATIC tokens they have staked, with a larger stake increasing their probability of being chosen to validate transactions and produce new blocks. This system also allows MATIC token holders who prefer not to run their own validator nodes to delegate their tokens to trusted validators, thereby earning a share of the rewards and actively contributing to the network's overall security and decentralization.

Supplementing PoS, Polygon utilizes Plasma Chains, which serve as a framework for establishing child chains that run in parallel with the main Ethereum chain. These child chains facilitate off-chain transaction processing, significantly improving transaction throughput and reducing congestion on the Ethereum mainnet by committing only the final, aggregated state back to Ethereum. To uphold the integrity and security of these off-chain transactions, Plasma Chains incorporate a robust fraud-proof mechanism, enabling the challenging and potential reversion of any detected fraudulent activity.

The consensus process on Polygon begins with validators confirming the validity of transactions and subsequently integrating them into blocks. Validators then propose new blocks, with their staked tokens influencing their voting power, and engage in a collective voting process to reach consensus. A new block is officially added to the blockchain upon receiving a majority of votes. A critical security measure is the periodic checkpointing system, where snapshots of the Polygon sidechain's state are regularly submitted to the Ethereum main chain, thereby leveraging Ethereum's inherent security for the finality of Polygon's transactions. The Plasma framework further enables off-chain validation of transactions on child chains, with their final states eventually submitted to the Ethereum main chain, and fraud proofs ready to challenge any suspicious transactions within a specified period, collectively reinforcing Polygon's operational integrity and security.

Lido DAO is present on the following networks: Arbitrum, Ethereum, Optimism, Polygon.

Arbitrum One, serving as a Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, incorporates a sophisticated array of incentive mechanisms to guarantee the ongoing security and integrity of its network. Central to this framework are the Validators and Sequencers. Sequencers are entrusted with the vital task of ordering user transactions and compiling them into batches for efficient off-chain processing, playing a critical role in optimizing network throughput and speed. Validators, conversely, actively monitor the Sequencers' activities, meticulously verifying state transitions and ensuring that only valid transactions are included in the batches. Both Sequencers and Validators are motivated through economic rewards, primarily derived from collected transaction fees and potentially other protocol-specific incentives, contingent on their honest and efficient performance.

Arbitrum’s security model is heavily reliant on its Fraud Proofs system. Transactions processed off-chain are initially given an "assumption of validity," which enables swift transaction finality and higher throughput. However, a predefined "challenge period" is established, during which any network participant can submit a fraud proof to contest the validity of a transaction. This acts as a powerful deterrent against malicious behavior. If a challenge is successfully brought forward, an interactive verification process is initiated to precisely identify and confirm any fraudulent activity. In instances where fraud is proven, the invalid transaction is reversed, and the dishonest actor faces economic penalties, which may include the slashing of staked tokens or other forms of financial disincentive. This balanced system of rewards for honest participation and strict penalties for malicious actions aligns participants' interests with the overall health and security of the Arbitrum network.

The Applicable Fees on the Arbitrum One blockchain are structured to be cost-effective. Users pay Layer 2 Fees for transactions executed on the Arbitrum network, which are typically significantly lower than those on the Ethereum mainnet due to reduced computational load. A specific "Arbitrum Transaction Fee" is applied to each transaction processed by the sequencer, covering the costs of processing and batch inclusion. Additionally, L1 Data Fees are incurred when batches of Layer 2 state updates are periodically posted as calldata to the Ethereum mainnet. This fee covers the requisite gas costs on Ethereum. A key economic benefit is "cost sharing," where the fixed expenses of submitting these state updates to Ethereum are distributed across multiple transactions within a batch, substantially lowering the per-transaction cost for users. For example, protocols leveraging the Arbitrum stack, such as Kinto, utilize ETH for transaction fee payments.

The Ethereum network's Proof-of-Stake (PoS) system is underpinned by a robust framework of incentive mechanisms and applicable fees, meticulously designed to secure transactions and encourage active, honest participation from validators. Validators, who are essential for the network's operation, commit at least 32 units of the network's native asset (Ether) to secure their role. Their primary incentives include rewards for successfully proposing new blocks, attesting to the validity of other blocks, and participating in sync committees, all of which contribute to the network's integrity and consensus. These rewards are distributed in newly issued Ether, alongside a portion of the transaction fees generated on the network. A key feature of Ethereum's fee structure is the implementation of EIP-1559, which divides transaction fees into two main components. The first is a base fee, which is automatically burned, effectively reducing the overall supply of Ether over time and potentially introducing a deflationary aspect, especially during periods of high network activity. The second is an optional priority fee, also known as a "tip," which users can choose to pay directly to validators to incentivize faster inclusion of their transactions into a block. This dual-fee structure aims to make transaction costs more predictable for users. To enforce honest behavior and prevent malicious activities, the network employs a strict system of economic penalties, including slashing. Validators who engage in dishonest acts or demonstrate extended periods of inactivity risk losing a portion of their staked Ether, providing a powerful deterrent against misconduct and ensuring the long-term security and reliability of the network. This comprehensive system aligns the economic interests of validators with the overall health and security of the Ethereum blockchain.

Optimism, functioning as an Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solution, employs Optimistic Rollups to implement a sophisticated array of incentive mechanisms and fee structures. These are meticulously designed to guarantee network security, operational efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, with a primary objective to significantly increase transaction throughput and lower costs compared to the Ethereum mainnet, all while preserving decentralization and robust security.

Sequencers are central to this model, responsible for collecting, ordering, and batching transactions off-chain, thereby optimizing the processing flow. Their economic incentive stems directly from the transaction fees they accrue from users, which drives them to process transactions swiftly and accurately. This expedited processing is crucial for the network’s overall speed and responsiveness.

A pivotal incentive mechanism is embedded within the validator and "Fraud Proofs" system. Transactions on Optimism are optimistically assumed to be valid, which inherently allows for quicker confirmation times. To prevent and address potential malicious activities, a "challenge mechanism" is in place. During a predefined challenge window, any network participant, including designated validators, can submit a fraud proof if an invalid transaction is detected. Successful challengers are rewarded for their diligence in identifying and substantiating fraudulent transactions. This reward system economically encourages active and continuous network monitoring, thus bolstering the overall security posture of the rollup. Conversely, "Economic Penalties" serve as a powerful deterrent. If a sequencer includes an invalid transaction that is subsequently and successfully challenged, they face financial repercussions, such as the loss of a portion of their staked collateral. Similarly, any form of inactivity or misbehavior by sequencers or validators can lead to penalties and the forfeiture of potential rewards, aligning participant actions with the network's best interests.

Optimism’s fee structure encompasses several categories. "Layer 2 Transaction Fees," paid by users for transactions processed on the Layer 2 network, are notably lower than those on the Ethereum mainnet due to the reduced computational load. The bundling of multiple transactions into a single batch significantly enhances this cost efficiency. Additionally, "L1 Data Fees" are incurred when state updates from Layer 2 transactions are periodically posted to the Ethereum mainnet as calldata. This fee covers the underlying gas costs on Ethereum, but these expenses are distributed across numerous transactions within a batch, further reducing individual transaction burdens. Lastly, "Smart Contract Fees" apply to the deployment and interaction with smart contracts on Optimism, calculated based on the computational resources consumed, ensuring charges are proportional to resource usage.

The Polygon network employs a robust set of incentive mechanisms and a distinct fee structure, combining its Proof of Stake (PoS) consensus with the Plasma framework to ensure network security, encourage active participation, and maintain transaction integrity. Validators play a crucial role, securing the network by staking MATIC tokens. Their selection for validating transactions and producing new blocks is directly influenced by the quantity of tokens they have staked. In exchange for their services, validators receive rewards in the form of newly minted MATIC tokens and a portion of the transaction fees. They are responsible for proposing and voting on new blocks, with incentives structured to promote honest and efficient operation, while also deterring misconduct through potential penalties. A key security feature involves validators periodically submitting checkpoints of the Polygon sidechain to the Ethereum main chain, which leverages Ethereum's established robustness to guarantee the finality of Polygon's transactions.

Delegators, who are token holders opting not to operate their own validator nodes, can delegate their MATIC tokens to trusted validators. This delegation allows them to earn a share of the rewards distributed to their chosen validators, fostering broader community participation in securing the network and enhancing its decentralization. The economic security of Polygon is further reinforced by a slashing mechanism, which penalizes validators for malicious actions, such as double-signing transactions or extended periods of inactivity. Slashing entails the forfeiture of a portion of their staked tokens, serving as a powerful deterrent against dishonest behavior. Additionally, validators are required to bond a substantial amount of MATIC, ensuring they have a significant financial interest in upholding the network's integrity.

Regarding the fee structure, one of Polygon's significant advantages is its remarkably low transaction fees compared to the Ethereum main chain. These fees, paid in MATIC tokens, are designed to be affordable, thereby encouraging high transaction throughput and widespread user adoption. While fees on Polygon can exhibit dynamic variations based on network congestion and transaction complexity, they consistently remain considerably lower than those on Ethereum, making Polygon an attractive option for users and developers. Deploying and interacting with smart contracts on Polygon also incurs fees, which are determined by the computational resources required. These smart contract fees are also paid in MATIC and are substantially lower than on Ethereum, offering a cost-effective environment for developing and maintaining decentralized applications (dApps). Furthermore, the Plasma framework facilitates off-chain processing for state transfers and withdrawals, with associated fees also paid in MATIC, collectively contributing to a reduced overall cost of utilizing the network.

Lido DAO is present on the following networks: Arbitrum, Ethereum, Optimism, Polygon.

The methodology employed for calculating the energy consumption attributed to the Arbitrum network adopts a "bottom-up" approach, systematically assessing individual operational components to arrive at an aggregate consumption figure. Within this framework, network nodes are identified as the central and most significant contributors to the network's overall energy footprint. The foundational assumptions underpinning these calculations are derived from empirical findings, which are compiled through the extensive use of publicly available information sites, proprietary in-house crawlers developed by the assessors, and various open-source data collection tools.

A crucial step in estimating energy consumption involves accurately determining the specific hardware devices utilized within the network. This determination is made by evaluating the technical requirements necessary for operating the client software pertinent to the Arbitrum network. Once these hardware profiles are established, their corresponding energy consumption rates are precisely measured under controlled conditions in certified test laboratories, ensuring a high degree of accuracy and reliability for the baseline data. To ensure a comprehensive and accurate scope, particularly when accounting for diverse implementations of crypto-assets across different networks, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is employed whenever such an identifier is available. This tool assists in clearly delineating all relevant instances of an asset, with these mappings consistently updated based on data provided by the Digital Token Identifier Foundation.

Furthermore, the methodology relies on specific assumptions regarding the type of hardware deployed and the estimated number of active participants within the network. These assumptions are subjected to continuous validation using best-effort empirical data. A general guiding principle in these estimations is the presumption that network participants act in a largely economically rational manner. In accordance with a precautionary principle, conservative estimates are applied whenever there is uncertainty, typically resulting in higher assessments of potential adverse environmental impacts. When quantifying the energy consumption for a particular crypto-asset operating on Arbitrum, a proportionate fraction of the overall network's energy consumption is allocated to that asset, based on its observed activity within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The source documents do not provide any direct external links related to this methodology.

The methodology for calculating the Ethereum network's energy consumption primarily employs a "bottom-up" approach, which focuses on the energy demands of individual nodes that are central to the network's operation. These nodes are considered the fundamental factor driving the network's overall energy use. The assumptions underpinning these calculations are derived from empirical data gathered through a variety of sources, including public information sites, open-source crawlers, and proprietary in-house crawlers developed for this purpose. A critical step in this methodology involves determining the hardware used within the network, primarily by assessing the computational and other requirements necessary to run the client software. The energy consumption characteristics of these identified hardware devices are then rigorously measured in certified test laboratories to ensure accuracy. When quantifying the energy consumption for the network, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is utilized, when available, to identify all implementations of the asset in scope, with mappings regularly updated based on data from the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. The information regarding the specific hardware deployed and the total number of participants in the network relies on assumptions that are diligently verified using empirical data whenever possible. Generally, participants are presumed to act in an economically rational manner. Furthermore, adhering to a precautionary principle, if there is any doubt in estimations, conservative assumptions are made, meaning higher estimates are used for potential adverse impacts to ensure a comprehensive and cautious assessment of energy consumption.

The energy consumption profile of the Optimism blockchain network, being a Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, is not isolated but rather intricately integrated with and aggregated within the broader Ethereum ecosystem. Its energy usage also includes the demands of its own specialized operational components. The general approach for calculating the energy consumption of such networks, including Optimism, typically involves a "bottom-up" methodology. This method primarily identifies network nodes—which, in Optimism’s context, encompass sequencers and any participants involved in the fraud proof mechanisms—as the principal contributors to the network's energy footprint.

Energy consumption estimations are built upon empirical data gathered from diverse sources, including publicly available information, open-source crawling tools, and internal proprietary crawlers. A key determinant in these calculations is the hardware used across the network, with particular emphasis on the specific requirements for running the client software on participating nodes. The energy consumption of these hardware devices is precisely measured in certified testing laboratories. To ensure a comprehensive assessment, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is utilized, where applicable, to identify all implementations of a given asset across various networks, with these mappings consistently updated using data from the Digital Token Identifier Foundation.

Moreover, data pertaining to the deployed hardware configurations and the number of active participants in the network relies on certain assumptions. These assumptions undergo rigorous verification through empirical data whenever possible. A general tenet guiding these assumptions is the presumption of economically rational behavior among network participants. As a precautionary measure, especially in instances of data ambiguity or incompleteness, estimates for adverse impacts, such as energy consumption, are deliberately made on the conservative side, meaning higher values are chosen to account for potential underestimations. For any specific crypto-asset operating on Optimism, its allocated energy consumption is determined as a fraction of the network’s total energy, proportional to that asset's activity within the network, thereby providing a robust, albeit estimated, understanding of its energy demands.

The methodology for assessing the Polygon network's energy consumption is primarily based on a comprehensive "bottom-up" approach, which identifies the various nodes as the fundamental contributors to the network's overall energy footprint. This detailed calculation relies on empirical data collected from diverse sources, including publicly available information platforms, open-source crawlers, and proprietary in-house developed crawlers. The key factors for estimating the hardware utilized across the network are determined by the specific requirements for operating the client software. To ensure the accuracy of these estimations, the energy consumption of the identified hardware devices is precisely measured in certified test laboratories.

An integral part of this energy accounting involves the use of the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI). This identifier is employed to accurately determine and encompass all implementations of the crypto-asset relevant to the scope of analysis. The mappings derived from the FFG DTI are regularly updated, drawing upon data from the Digital Token Identifier Foundation to maintain their currency and reliability. Information concerning the specific hardware deployed and the total number of participants within the network is based on assumptions that undergo rigorous, best-effort verification using available empirical data. It is generally assumed that participants in the network behave in a largely economically rational manner. Adhering to a precautionary principle, in situations where uncertainties exist, estimates for potential adverse impacts are conservatively adjusted upwards, ensuring a robust and cautious assessment.

Crucially, due to Polygon's architectural design as a Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, its energy consumption calculation incorporates a shared security model. Consequently, a proportional share of the Ethereum network's energy consumption is also attributed to Polygon, acknowledging Ethereum's foundational role in providing security to the Layer 2 solution. This specific proportion of Ethereum's energy usage is quantitatively determined based on the gas consumption on the Ethereum network. While the documents mention reliance on "public information sites" and the "Digital Token Identifier Foundation" for data, they do not provide specific URLs for these external resources.

Lido DAO is present on the following networks: Ethereum, Optimism, Polygon.

To ascertain the proportion of renewable energy utilized by the Ethereum network, a specific set of methodologies is applied. The initial step involves pinpointing the geographical locations of the network's nodes. This crucial geo-information is gathered through various means, including publicly available information sites, as well as both open-source and internally developed crawlers designed to scan the network. In instances where comprehensive geographical data for nodes is not directly accessible, the analysis resorts to leveraging "reference networks." These are comparable networks chosen for their similar incentivization structures and consensus mechanisms, providing a proxy for node distribution. Once the geo-information is established, it is then integrated and cross-referenced with public data obtained from "Our World in Data." This comprehensive dataset offers insights into the energy mixes and renewable energy penetration across different regions globally. The final calculation of energy intensity is defined as the marginal energy cost incurred for processing one additional transaction on the network. This approach allows for an estimation of the energy footprint associated with scaling the network's transactional volume. For detailed information and the underlying data sources on the share of electricity generated by renewables, relevant information can be found through sources such as Ember (2025) and the Energy Institute - Statistical Review of World Energy (2024), with further processing by Our World in Data, accessible via Share of electricity generated by renewables – Ember and Energy Institute.

For the Optimism blockchain network, the notion of "key energy sources" primarily refers to the specific operational components that draw electrical power, consistent with its design as a Layer 2 solution built atop Ethereum. Optimism's energy requirements are inherently linked to the power needed to operate the hardware and infrastructure that support its sequencers. These sequencers are critical for processing and batching transactions off-chain. Additionally, the network of participants, including validators and challengers involved in the fraud proof mechanism, also contribute to the energy expenditure. Since Optimism derives its ultimate security from the Ethereum main chain, the energy consumption associated with Ethereum's underlying Proof-of-Stake validators also indirectly feeds into Optimism's overall energy footprint. While the provided documents do not specify the precise geographical locations or the specific types of power grids (e.g., renewable versus fossil fuel sources) that supply energy to these components, the functional "sources" of energy consumption are fundamentally the computational resources and networking equipment that constitute these operational nodes.

The methodology for quantifying this energy consumption adheres to a meticulous "bottom-up" approach. This process begins by identifying the exact hardware components, such as servers, processors, and associated networking gear, necessary to run the Optimism network's client software. The power draw of these individual hardware devices is typically ascertained through precise measurements conducted in certified test laboratories. The total estimated energy expenditure is then derived by multiplying the measured power consumption of these devices by their estimated operational duration and the assumed number of active participating nodes or sequencers. The Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is employed to ensure that all relevant instances and implementations of crypto-assets within the network are accurately identified for a comprehensive measurement. Data concerning hardware utilization and the number of network participants are based on empirically verified assumptions, generally assuming economically rational behavior among participants. In situations where data is uncertain, a conservative estimation approach is applied, resulting in higher reported energy impact figures to mitigate any potential underestimations. This framework systematically accounts for the energy consumed by Optimism's operational infrastructure and its interaction with Ethereum's Layer 1, even in the absence of granular details about specific energy grid mixes.

The available documentation details the methodologies for calculating the Polygon network's energy consumption, but it does not explicitly identify the key energy sources (e.g., renewable vs. non-renewable electricity, specific grid mixes) that power its underlying infrastructure. Instead, the focus is on the methodology of consumption assessment. The energy calculation employs a "bottom-up" approach, which considers individual nodes as the primary units of energy consumption within the network. This methodology draws on empirical findings from various data points, including public information sites, open-source crawlers, and proprietary in-house developed crawlers, to estimate the hardware utilized across the network.

The primary determinants for estimating the hardware's energy usage are the computational requirements for running the client software. The energy consumption of these specific hardware devices is meticulously measured and verified in certified test laboratories to ensure precise data collection. To accurately scope all relevant implementations of the crypto-asset for energy calculation, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is utilized, with its mappings regularly updated through data from the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. Assumptions regarding the hardware in operation and the total count of network participants are diligently verified against empirical data, operating under the premise that participants are largely economically rational. In line with a precautionary principle, any uncertainties default to conservative estimates, leaning towards higher figures for potential adverse impacts.

Significantly, as Polygon functions as a Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, its energy consumption calculation also integrates a portion of the Ethereum network's energy usage. This inclusion acknowledges Ethereum's fundamental role in providing security to Polygon. The specific proportion attributed is determined by the gas consumption on the Ethereum network, ensuring a comprehensive view of Polygon's energy demand, considering its reliance on the main Layer 1 chain. While these methodologies provide a clear framework for quantifying energy use, specific details regarding the actual sources of this energy are not elaborated upon in the provided documents, nor are any direct links to external documents specifying these sources or methodologies furnished.

Lido DAO is present on the following networks: Ethereum, Polygon.

The methodology for determining the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of the Ethereum network closely mirrors the approach used for energy consumption, focusing on identifying emission sources and their quantification. The initial and fundamental step involves precisely identifying the geographical locations of the network's operational nodes. This data collection is facilitated through a combination of publicly available information, as well as specialized open-source and proprietary crawlers designed to actively discover and map node distributions across the globe. Should there be an absence of specific geographic information for the nodes, the analysis intelligently defaults to utilizing "reference networks." These are carefully selected networks that exhibit comparable characteristics in terms of their incentivization structures and consensus mechanisms, providing a basis for estimating the geographic spread when direct data is unavailable. This collected geo-information is then meticulously integrated with publicly accessible data from "Our World in Data." This integration allows for the application of regional carbon intensity factors to the estimated energy consumption, thereby enabling the calculation of associated GHG emissions. The overall GHG intensity is quantified as the marginal emission generated per additional transaction processed on the network, offering a metric for the environmental impact of increased network activity. For detailed information and original data regarding the carbon intensity of electricity generation, sources include Ember (2025) and the Energy Institute - Statistical Review of World Energy (2024), processed by Our World in Data, available at Carbon intensity of electricity generation – Ember and Energy Institute. This resource is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

The provided documents offer comprehensive details regarding the methodologies for calculating the energy consumption of the Polygon blockchain network, which are predicated on a "bottom-up" approach focusing on node energy demand, hardware requirements, and the integration of a proportion of Ethereum's energy consumption due to Polygon's Layer 2 architecture. This framework is robust for quantifying electrical energy usage. However, when addressing the topic of key Greenhouse Gas (GHG) sources and their associated methodologies, the provided information is notably insufficient. The documents do not contain any specific data or discussions pertaining to the direct or indirect GHG emissions generated by the Polygon network's operations.

Crucially, there is no mention of the types of emissions (e.g., Scope 1 for direct emissions, Scope 2 for indirect emissions from purchased electricity, or Scope 3 for other indirect emissions within the value chain), nor any dedicated methodologies for calculating, monitoring, or reporting these GHG emissions. The absence of information on the energy mix that powers the network's validators and underlying infrastructure – whether it is predominantly from renewable sources, fossil fuels, or a specific national grid mix – makes it impossible to determine the carbon intensity of the energy consumed. Without such details, a comprehensive assessment of GHG sources cannot be made.

While the methodology for energy consumption includes a "precautionary principle" to make higher estimates for "adverse impacts," these impacts are not explicitly defined or quantified in terms of GHG emissions. There is no information provided on specific conversion factors used to translate energy consumption into carbon dioxide equivalents or other greenhouse gases. The documents do not offer any external links or references to dedicated environmental impact assessments or GHG reporting standards followed by the Polygon network. Consequently, based solely on the provided information, it is not possible to identify the key GHG sources or the specific methodologies employed for their quantification within the Polygon ecosystem.