Cena za Internet Computer (ICP)

Bitpanda Asset Management GmbH, Bitpanda GmbH

9845005X9B7N610K0093, 5493007WZ7IFULIL8G21

Internet Computer Token

The Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) uses a unique consensus mechanism called Threshold Relay combined with Chain Key Technology to ensure decentralized, scalable, and secure operations for its network. Core Components of ICP’s Consensus Mechanism: 1. Threshold Relay: Threshold Relay is a consensus protocol that enables the network to achieve finality without a traditional Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake mechanism. It leverages a group of nodes called "the committee" to generate a random beacon that is used for the selection of the next block producer. The protocol is designed to provide scalability and speed while maintaining decentralization by allowing any node to join the consensus process. The key feature of Threshold Relay is that it utilizes a threshold signature scheme, where a group of nodes must collaborate to create a valid signature, ensuring that consensus is achieved even in the presence of faulty or malicious nodes. 2. Chain Key Technology: Chain Key Technology is used to manage the state of the Internet Computer, allowing it to scale effectively across a vast number of nodes while still providing fast and secure transaction finality. This technology enables the creation and management of many independent blockchains (also known as subnet blockchains), each with its own set of validators. Chain Key Technology allows the Internet Computer to support billions of smart contracts without compromising speed, as it facilitates quick communication between the subnets and enables cross-chain interoperability. 3. Canister Smart Contracts: The Internet Computer utilizes a decentralized model where the computation of canister smart contracts (which hold the application logic) occurs across different nodes in the network. These canisters can run autonomously and scale with the network’s growth. Finality and Security: • The consensus mechanism ensures finality once a transaction is validated, meaning that once a block is added, it cannot be reverted, providing the security required for high-stakes applications. • The use of Threshold Relay provides robust Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT), enabling the network to tolerate faulty or malicious behavior without compromising network integrity.

The Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) incentivizes network participants (validators, node operators, and canister developers) through various reward mechanisms and transaction fees. Here's a breakdown of the incentive mechanisms and applicable fees related to ICP: Incentive Mechanism: 1. Network Participation and Rewards: Validators: Validators are crucial for maintaining the integrity and security of the network. They stake ICP tokens to participate in consensus and are rewarded for validating blocks, maintaining the integrity of the decentralized network, and ensuring its performance. Rewards for validators are based on their participation in the consensus mechanism and their stake in the network. Node Operators: Node operators who maintain the physical infrastructure of the network (such as hardware and server resources) are also rewarded. These operators run the nodes that participate in the Threshold Relay and provide computational power to the network. 2. Canister Developers and Network Participants: Canister Smart Contracts: Developers of canisters (smart contracts) on the Internet Computer are incentivized through the creation of decentralized applications (dApps). Developers may also benefit from transaction fees generated by the usage of their dApps and the deployment of smart contracts on the network. Usage Fees: Users of decentralized applications (dApps) or canisters are incentivized to pay for their usage through fees. These fees are often paid in ICP tokens, and developers can receive a share of these fees based on the usage of their deployed applications. 3. Governance: The ICP Token is used for governance via the Network Nervous System (NNS), where holders of ICP tokens participate in decisions regarding the protocol, such as network upgrades, incentive adjustments, and the allocation of funds. Token holders are rewarded with the ability to influence the future of the network. 4. Staking Rewards: Staking: ICP token holders can participate in staking their tokens in the NNS, which influences network consensus and governance. By participating in staking, they help secure the network and are rewarded with staking rewards (a form of passive income). The staking rewards are given to token holders who participate in securing the network via the NNS. Applicable Fees: 1. Transaction Fees: Canister Calls: Every interaction with a canister (smart contract) on the Internet Computer incurs a transaction fee. These fees are typically paid in ICP tokens and are used to cover the computational resources required to process requests, store data, and manage execution. Fee Structure: Transaction fees depend on the complexity and resources consumed by the canister call or network operation. For example, operations that require more computational power or data storage may incur higher fees. 2. Storage Fees: Canister Data Storage: Developers and users who deploy applications on the Internet Computer are required to pay fees for storing data. These fees ensure that network resources are used efficiently and that canisters do not waste storage space. The cost of storage is typically paid in ICP tokens. 3. Governance Participation Fees: Voting and Proposal Fees: Participation in the governance process via the NNS (Network Nervous System) may require a small fee, depending on the type of governance action (such as submitting a proposal or voting). These fees ensure that governance is distributed and prevent spam attacks on the governance system. 4. Node and Validator Fees: Fees for Node Operations: Node operators who provide computational power to the network may incur costs related to maintaining hardware and operating nodes. These fees are partially offset by rewards for providing network resources.

2024-12-09

2025-12-09

5834160.00000 (kWh/a)

The energy consumption of this asset is aggregated across multiple components: For the calculation of energy consumptions, the so called 'bottom-up' approach is being used. The nodes are considered to be the central factor for the energy consumption of the network. These assumptions are made on the basis of empirical findings through the use of public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. The main determinants for estimating the hardware used within the network are the requirements for operating the client software. The energy consumption of the hardware devices was measured in certified test laboratories. When calculating the energy consumption, we used - if available - the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) to determine all implementations of the asset of question in scope and we update the mappings regulary, based on data of the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. The information regarding the hardware used and the number of participants in the network is based on assumptions that are verified with best effort using empirical data. In general, participants are assumed to be largely economically rational. As a precautionary principle, we make assumptions on the conservative side when in doubt, i.e. making higher estimates for the adverse impacts. To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the network(s) internet_computer is calculated first. For the energy consumption of the token, a fraction of the energy consumption of the network is attributed to the token, which is determined based on the activity of the crypto-asset within the network. When calculating the energy consumption, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is used - if available - to determine all implementations of the asset in scope. The mappings are updated regularly, based on data of the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. The information regarding the hardware used and the number of participants in the network is based on assumptions that are verified with best effort using empirical data. In general, participants are assumed to be largely economically rational. As a precautionary principle, we make assumptions on the conservative side when in doubt, i.e. making higher estimates for the adverse impacts.

35.900000000 (%)

0.00720 (kWh)

0.00000 (tCO2e/a)

2047.79016 (tCO2e/a)

0.00253 (kgCO2e)

To determine the proportion of renewable energy usage, the locations of the nodes are to be determined using public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. If no information is available on the geographic distribution of the nodes, reference networks are used which are comparable in terms of their incentivization structure and consensus mechanism. This geo-information is merged with public information from Our World in Data, see citation. The intensity is calculated as the marginal energy cost wrt. one more transaction. Ember (2025); Energy Institute - Statistical Review of World Energy (2024) - with major processing by Our World in Data. “Share of electricity generated by renewables - Ember and Energy Institute” [dataset]. Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data Europe”; Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data”; Energy Institute, “Statistical Review of World Energy” [original data]. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewables.

To determine the GHG Emissions, the locations of the nodes are to be determined using public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. If no information is available on the geographic distribution of the nodes, reference networks are used which are comparable in terms of their incentivization structure and consensus mechanism. This geo-information is merged with public information from Our World in Data, see citation. The intensity is calculated as the marginal emission wrt. one more transaction. Ember (2025); Energy Institute - Statistical Review of World Energy (2024) - with major processing by Our World in Data. “Carbon intensity of electricity generation - Ember and Energy Institute” [dataset]. Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data Europe”; Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data”; Energy Institute, “Statistical Review of World Energy” [original data]. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity Licenced under CC BY 4.0.