VNX Gold (VNXAU) sustainability report

VNX Gold is present on the following networks: Base, Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, Tezos.

Base operates as a Layer-2 (L2) scaling solution built on the Ethereum blockchain, having been developed by Coinbase using Optimism's OP Stack. Critically, Base L2 transactions do not possess an independent consensus mechanism. Instead, their validation is directly linked to and secured by the underlying Ethereum Layer-1 (L1) network. This is achieved through a specialized component known as a sequencer. The sequencer's role is to aggregate multiple L2 transactions into bundles, which are then regularly published to the Ethereum mainnet as a single L1 transaction.

Consequently, all transactions processed on the Base network are indirectly secured by Ethereum's robust Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism once they are recorded on L1. Ethereum's PoS system, established with "The Merge" in 2022, moves away from energy-intensive mining by requiring validators to stake at least 32 ETH. In this system, a validator is randomly selected every 12 seconds to propose a new block, while other validators on the network are responsible for verifying its integrity. The network employs a sophisticated slot and epoch system, with transaction finality typically occurring after two epochs, which translates to approximately 12.8 minutes, utilizing the Casper-FFG protocol. The Beacon Chain is central to coordinating validators, and the LMD-GHOST fork-choice rule ensures the chain adheres to the path with the most accumulated validator votes. Validators are incentivized with rewards for their participation in proposing and verifying blocks, but face stringent penalties, known as slashing, for any malicious actions or prolonged inactivity. This design choice by Ethereum aims to significantly enhance energy efficiency, security, and scalability, with ongoing and future upgrades, such as Proto-Danksharding, further targeting improvements in transaction processing efficiency, thereby benefiting Base as its foundational security layer. Base specifically leverages Optimistic Rollups as part of the OP Stack, meaning transactions are presumed valid unless challenged within a specified period via fault proofs.

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.

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.

The Solana blockchain architecture operates through a hybrid consensus model that integrates Proof of History (PoH) with Proof of Stake (PoS). This combination is designed to optimize transaction throughput and reduce network latency while maintaining a high degree of security. Proof of History functions as a decentralized clock, using a Verifiable Delay Function (VDF) to create a permanent, timestamped record of events. This cryptographic sequence allows the network to agree on the chronological order of transactions without requiring nodes to communicate extensively, thereby solving traditional synchronization bottlenecks found in other distributed ledgers. Parallel to PoH, the Proof of Stake component manages the selection of validators and the finalization of the ledger state. Validators are chosen to act as leaders for specific blocks based on the total quantity of the native network assets they have staked. Users who do not run their own hardware can participate in network security by delegating their assets to existing validators, sharing in the rewards generated by successful block production. The consensus process begins when transactions are broadcast and collected for validation. A designated leader then generates a PoH sequence to order these transactions within a block. Subsequently, other validators in the network verify the integrity of the PoH hashes and the validity of the transactions. Once a sufficient number of signatures are collected, the block is finalized and appended to the blockchain. This dual approach ensures that the network remains resilient against attacks; validators must provide collateral through staking, and any malicious activity, such as producing invalid blocks or double-signing, can result in the loss of staked assets through a process known as slashing. This economic deterrent ensures that participants remain aligned with the network's health and operational standards.

The Tezos blockchain network operates on a Liquid Proof of Stake (LPoS) consensus mechanism, a sophisticated design that integrates flexible staking participation with an innovative on-chain governance model. This core mechanism allows XTZ token holders to contribute to network security by either directly staking their tokens or delegating them to a validator, commonly known as a baker, without transferring ownership of their assets. This delegation feature significantly broadens participation, making network security more accessible. Bakers are central to the network's operations, responsible for creating new blocks (baking) and validating other blocks through endorsement. Their selection is directly proportional to the amount of XTZ staked or delegated to them; a higher stake increases their probability of being chosen for these critical tasks. To bolster network security further, endorsers are randomly selected from the pool of active bakers to validate and approve blocks proposed by other bakers. A distinctive characteristic of Tezos is its self-amendment protocol, which underpins its adaptive on-chain governance. This system empowers XTZ token holders to propose, vote on, and implement network upgrades directly on the blockchain, bypassing the need for disruptive hard forks. This capacity for self-evolution ensures that the Tezos network can continuously adapt and enhance its functionalities based on community and developer input, fostering a highly flexible and resilient blockchain environment that maintains decentralization while enabling consistent improvement.

VNX Gold is present on the following networks: Base, Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, Tezos.

The Base blockchain, as an Ethereum Layer-2 solution utilizing Optimistic Rollups from the OP Stack, implements incentive mechanisms primarily focused on optimizing transaction costs and ensuring secure asset transfers, leveraging the economic security of its underlying Ethereum L1. A core incentive to use Base is its efficiency in reducing transaction expenses. This is achieved by a sequencer that bundles numerous L2 transactions together, submitting them as a single, consolidated L1 transaction to Ethereum. This process significantly lowers the average transaction cost for individual L2 operations, as the collective L2 transactions share the cost of the single L1 transaction fee, thereby making Base a more economically attractive option compared to direct L1 usage.

For the secure movement of crypto-assets between Base and Ethereum, a specialized smart contract on the Ethereum network is employed. Since Base, as an L2, does not manage its own consensus for fund withdrawals, an additional mechanism is in place to guarantee that only legitimate funds can be moved off the L2. When a user initiates a withdrawal request on Ethereum's L1, a predetermined challenge period begins. During this window, any other network participant has the opportunity to submit a "fault proof" if they detect a fraudulent withdrawal attempt, triggering a dispute resolution process. This entire system is strategically designed with economic incentives to encourage honest behavior and deter malicious activities, although specific details of these economic incentives for fault proof submission are not explicitly outlined beyond the general principle.

Furthermore, Base inherits and benefits from the robust incentive structure of Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) system, which indirectly secures Base transactions. Ethereum validators, by staking a minimum of 32 ETH, are rewarded for proposing and attesting to valid blocks, as well as for participating in sync committees. These rewards are distributed through newly issued ETH and a portion of transaction fees. Under the EIP-1559 fee model, transaction fees comprise a base fee, which is algorithmically burned to manage supply, and an optional priority fee (or 'tip') paid directly to validators. To maintain network integrity, validators face economic penalties, known as slashing, if they engage in malicious conduct or fail to perform their duties. This comprehensive incentive framework ensures strong security alignment for Base by reinforcing reliable validator behavior on its underlying L1.

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.

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.

Incentives within the Solana blockchain network are structured to ensure high performance and decentralized security. The primary participants are validators and delegators, both of whom receive financial compensation for their roles in maintaining the ledger. Validators are rewarded for successfully producing and verifying blocks. These rewards are distributed in the network's native asset and are determined by the validator's overall stake and historical performance. Furthermore, validators receive a portion of the transaction fees associated with the data processed in their blocks, which encourages them to maximize efficiency and maintain uptime. Token holders who prefer not to operate complex infrastructure can delegate their stake to professional validators. This delegation model facilitates a more inclusive security environment, as delegators earn a percentage of the rewards proportional to their contribution, thereby decentralizing the control of the network. Security is further enforced through economic penalties. The network employs a slashing mechanism where a portion of a validator's staked assets is confiscated if they engage in dishonest behavior or fail to meet network requirements, such as remaining offline for extended periods. This introduces an opportunity cost for all participants, ensuring they remain committed to honest operations. Regarding the cost of using the network, the fee structure is designed to be highly competitive and predictable. Users pay transaction fees to compensate for the computational power and bandwidth consumed by nodes. These fees are notably low, facilitating high-volume usage. In addition to transaction costs, the network implements rent fees for data storage. This unique mechanism charges for the persistence of data on the blockchain, discouraging the inefficient use of state storage and prompting developers to prune unnecessary data. Finally, smart contract execution fees are calculated based on the specific resource intensity of the code, ensuring that participants pay a fair rate for the network resources they utilize.

The Tezos network is designed with a comprehensive set of incentive mechanisms and fee structures aimed at promoting active participation, ensuring robust security, and supporting the network's long-term sustainability. Key among these incentives are the rewards provided for baking and endorsing. Bakers, who perform the essential function of creating new blocks, receive XTZ tokens as compensation for their efforts. Similarly, endorsers, tasked with validating and approving blocks proposed by others, are also rewarded in XTZ. This dual reward system encourages consistent and honest engagement from all network participants. To further enhance inclusivity, Tezos offers delegation incentives, allowing XTZ holders who prefer not to run a full validator node to delegate their tokens to an active baker. In return, these delegators earn a share of the baker’s rewards, democratizing access to network participation and strengthening overall security. To safeguard network integrity, bakers are required to post a security deposit, or bond, in XTZ. This collateral is subject to forfeiture if a baker engages in malicious activities, thereby creating a strong financial deterrent against dishonest behavior and aligning bakers' interests with the health of the network. Regarding fees, users initiating transactions, such as transferring funds or interacting with smart contracts, pay transaction fees in XTZ. These fees are then distributed to bakers and endorsers, providing additional economic motivation for their critical validation and security services. The network also employs an inflationary reward model, periodically creating and distributing new XTZ tokens to bakers and endorsers. This model fosters continuous participation and network security while managing token availability over time through a gradual increase in supply.

VNX Gold is present on the following networks: Base, Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, Tezos.

The energy consumption calculation for the Base blockchain network is meticulously performed using a "bottom-up" approach, where individual nodes are identified as the primary contributors to the network's overall energy footprint. This methodology is based on empirical data collected from a variety of sources, including publicly available information sites, dedicated open-source crawlers, and proprietary in-house crawling tools. The fundamental aspect of estimating hardware usage within the network involves determining the minimum requirements necessary to operate the client software. The energy consumption profiles of the specific hardware devices identified are obtained from measurements conducted in certified test laboratories, ensuring a high degree of accuracy in these foundational figures.

In the process of calculating network energy consumption, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is utilized when available, serving to identify and encompass all relevant implementations of a crypto-asset within the scope of analysis. These mappings are regularly updated, drawing on data provided by the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. However, the source documents do not provide specific URLs for the public information sites, open-source crawlers, or the Digital Token Identifier Foundation, preventing direct external linking within this summary.

The methodology also incorporates assumptions regarding the hardware deployed and the number of participants operating within the network. These assumptions are rigorously verified with "best effort" against empirical data to ensure their realism and accuracy. A key underlying principle is the assumption that network participants generally act in a "largely economically rational" manner. Furthermore, to adhere to a precautionary principle, conservative estimates are applied in situations of uncertainty, leading to higher projected impacts to mitigate underestimation risks. For a specific token on Base, a fraction of the network’s total energy consumption is attributed, based on the token's activity within the network.

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 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.

To calculate the energy consumption of the Solana blockchain network, a "bottom-up" methodology is utilized, placing the network nodes at the center of the analysis. This approach relies on identifying the number of active participants and the specific hardware requirements necessary to run the network's client software. Data collection involves a variety of sources, including open-source web crawlers, internal monitoring tools developed by the legal entities, and public information websites. By analyzing these data points, researchers can estimate the hardware profiles of the various nodes operating globally. To ensure accuracy, the energy consumption of typical hardware devices is measured within certified laboratory environments, providing a baseline for the power usage of each node. Furthermore, the methodology incorporates data from the Digital Token Identifier Foundation to map all implementations of the assets within the network's scope. When specific hardware data is not directly observable, assumptions are made based on the principle of economic rationality, assuming participants optimize their setups for cost-efficiency while meeting software specifications. In instances of uncertainty, a precautionary principle is applied, favoring conservative estimates that likely overstate the environmental impact rather than underestimating it. This ensures that the reported energy footprint represents a credible upper bound of actual consumption. The total network consumption is determined by aggregating the energy needs of all identified nodes, accounting for both the computational requirements of processing transactions and the energy consumed by hardware in an idle or supportive state. This rigorous framework allows for a comprehensive assessment of the network’s total power requirements over a defined reporting period, providing a transparent view of the operational costs associated with maintaining the distributed ledger's infrastructure.

The energy consumption of the Tezos blockchain network is quantified through a comprehensive "bottom-up" methodology that aggregates energy usage across its various operational components. This approach identifies individual nodes as the primary contributors to the network's overall energy footprint. The foundational assumptions for these calculations are derived from empirical data, which is gathered using a combination of public information sources, open-source crawlers, and specialized in-house crawling technologies. A critical step in estimating the hardware used within the network involves determining the technical specifications required to operate the Tezos client software. The energy consumption profiles of these identified hardware devices are then precisely measured in certified test laboratories to ensure accuracy. To achieve a holistic scope, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is utilized, when available, to identify all relevant implementations of the crypto-asset. These mappings are consistently updated based on data from the Digital Token Identifier Foundation, reflecting the dynamic evolution of the network. Information concerning the hardware deployed and the number of participants in the network is based on assumptions rigorously verified with empirical data. Participants are generally presumed to act with economic rationality. As a precautionary principle, in situations of uncertainty, estimates for potential adverse impacts are conservatively adjusted upwards. When determining the energy consumption of a token present on networks like Tezos, the energy consumption of each relevant network is calculated first. A fraction of this network energy is then attributed to the specific token based on its activity within that network. One of the sources utilized for these calculations is tzStats.

VNX Gold is present on the following networks: Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, Tezos.

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.

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.

The determination of energy sources for the Solana blockchain network involves a sophisticated geolocation mapping of the global node infrastructure. By utilizing internal and open-source crawlers, the physical locations of validator nodes are identified. Once the geographic distribution is established, this information is cross-referenced with regional energy data to calculate the percentage of renewable energy utilized by the network. For regions where specific node data is unavailable, researchers utilize reference networks that share similar consensus mechanisms and incentive structures as proxies to estimate the geographic spread of the infrastructure. The primary data source for these regional energy profiles is the Share of electricity generated by renewables dataset provided by Our World in Data, which incorporates research from Ember and the Energy Institute. This dataset provides yearly electricity data that allows for a granular assessment of how much of the network's power is derived from wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable sources. In addition to the total percentage of green energy, the methodology focuses on energy intensity, which is defined as the marginal energy cost required to process a single additional transaction on the network. This figure helps quantify the efficiency of the blockchain's resource usage relative to its utility. By integrating global energy statistics with real-time node distribution data, the network can report a more accurate picture of its sustainability, currently indicating that a significant portion of its operational energy comes from renewable sources, reflecting the broader global transition toward cleaner power grids.

The methodology for assessing the key energy sources and the proportion of renewable energy contributing to the Tezos network's operation involves a multi-faceted data collection and analytical process. To determine the extent of renewable energy utilization, the geographical locations of the network's nodes are first pinpointed. This identification relies on an analysis of public information sources, alongside the application of both open-source and proprietary in-house crawlers. In scenarios where direct geographical distribution data for nodes is not available, the methodology employs reference networks. These reference networks are carefully chosen for their structural similarities to Tezos, especially in terms of their incentivization frameworks and consensus mechanisms, ensuring that their energy consumption characteristics serve as a comparable proxy. The gathered geographical information is then integrated with extensive public datasets provided by "Our World in Data," a recognized source for global statistical and environmental information. This data integration facilitates a thorough evaluation of the energy mix powering the nodes. Furthermore, the energy intensity of the Tezos network is quantified, calculated as the marginal energy cost associated with processing each additional transaction. The foundational data for this analysis is drawn from reports such as Ember (2025) and the Energy Institute's Statistical Review of World Energy (2024), with significant data processing contributed by Our World in Data. Specifically, the "Share of electricity generated by renewables" dataset from these sources is instrumental in assessing Tezos's reliance on sustainable energy options. More details can be found via Share of electricity generated by renewables - Ember and Energy Institute.

VNX Gold is present on the following networks: Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, Tezos.

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.

Quantifying the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the Solana blockchain network requires a methodology focused on carbon intensity and the geographic footprint of its decentralized nodes. Similar to the energy source analysis, the process begins by locating active nodes using a combination of public data and specialized web crawling technology. This geographic information is critical because the carbon footprint of electricity varies significantly between different jurisdictions depending on their local power generation mix. For nodes that cannot be precisely located, the analysis uses data from comparable blockchain networks to ensure the estimation remains as complete as possible. The carbon intensity of the electricity used by these nodes is derived from the Carbon intensity of electricity generation dataset, accessible via Our World in Data. This dataset, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0, provides essential metrics on the amount of CO2 equivalent emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced in various countries. By merging node locations with these carbon intensity values, the network can calculate its Scope 2 emissions, which represent the indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity. The methodology also focuses on GHG intensity, measuring the marginal emissions generated by one additional transaction on the blockchain. This allows for a performance-based assessment of the network's environmental impact. The results are typically reported in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e), providing a standardized metric that allows for comparison with other industries and financial systems. This data-driven approach ensures that the network’s environmental disclosures are rooted in empirical global energy statistics and verifiable infrastructure data.

The quantification of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the Tezos network employs a systematic methodology, akin to the approach for energy consumption analysis. This process begins by identifying the geographical locations of the operational nodes within the Tezos network. This crucial geographical intelligence is compiled through diligent scrutiny of public information, supplemented by the deployment of open-source and internally developed crawlers designed to gather precise location data. In situations where specific geographical distribution data for nodes cannot be obtained, the methodology resorts to a comparative analysis, substituting the missing information with data from carefully selected reference networks. These reference networks are chosen based on their structural and operational similarities to Tezos, particularly in their incentive frameworks and consensus mechanisms, ensuring the relevance of their environmental impact profiles. The collected geographical insights are then thoroughly integrated with publicly accessible environmental data from "Our World in Data." This integration is vital for correlating node locations with regional electricity generation characteristics, which directly influence GHG emission calculations. A key metric in this assessment is the GHG intensity, which is defined as the marginal emission produced per additional transaction processed on the Tezos blockchain, offering insight into the environmental impact on a per-transaction basis. The primary data sources underpinning these calculations are significant reports from Ember (2025) and the Energy Institute's Statistical Review of World Energy (2024), with extensive data processing conducted by "Our World in Data." Notably, the "Carbon intensity of electricity generation" dataset from these sources is pivotal for determining the emissions factor associated with the electricity consumed by the network, and it is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Further information is available through Carbon intensity of electricity generation - Ember and Energy Institute.