Bitpanda logo
Enterprisenew
Log in
Sign-up
Bitpanda logo

Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest. This is a high-risk investment and you should not expect to be protected if something goes wrong. Take 2 mins to learn more.

eCash

eCash price (XEC)

Buying eCash (XEC) on Bitpanda is easy, fast, and secure. Check the current XEC value and live chart in GBP and get to know more about XEC.

Buying eCash (XEC) on Bitpanda is easy, fast, and secure. Check the current XEC value and live chart in GBP and get to know more about XEC.

€0.00000643

€0.00000001+0.16 %
€0.00000001+0.16 %



This converter shows values for info only and doesn’t reflect actual transaction rates.

Last updated: 09/10/2026, 18:30:00

paypalvisamastercard

Figures shown refer to the past, and are based on gross performance. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results, and fees will reduce your net returns. Reference period: last 24 hours. Source: Bitpanda, based on prices from multiple trading venues. Please review the risk disclosure before investing.

Figures shown refer to the past, and are based on gross performance. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results, and fees will reduce your net returns. Reference period: last 24 hours. Source: Bitpanda, based on prices from multiple trading venues. Please review the risk disclosure before investing.

Price of eCash today

Review the latest eCash price movements. Here is today’s trend at a glance: +0.16 %

eCash price statistics

Loading price statistics...

eCash market stats

  • Daily high

    €0.00

  • Daily low

    €0.00

  • Volatility (1M)

    21.18%

  • 52W High

    €0.00

  • 52W Low

    €0.00

  • Market cap

    €130.32M

eCash conversion table

1 EUR

155521.00 XEC

5 EUR

777604.98 XEC

10 EUR

1555209.95 XEC

15 EUR

2332814.93 XEC

20 EUR

3110419.91 XEC

25 EUR

3888024.88 XEC

1 Ecash (XEC) to Us Dollar (USD)

USD 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Swiss Franc (CHF)

CHF 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to British Pound Sterling (GBP)

GBP 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Turkish Lira (TRY)

TRY 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Polish Zloty (PLN)

PLN 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Hungarian Forint (HUF)

HUF 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Czech Koruna (CZK)

CZK 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Norwegian Krone (NOK)

NOK 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Swedish Krona (SEK)

SEK 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Danish Krone (DKK)

DKK 0.00

1 Ecash (XEC) to Romanian Leu (RON)

RON 0.00

About eCash (XEC)

The creators of eCash (XEC) describe the coin as a cryptocurrency that’s been designed to use as electronic cash in transactions to pay for goods and services. XEC was rebranded from Bitcoin Cash ABC (BCHA), itself a fork of Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) in September 2021. eCash is built on a custom consensus layer called ‘Avalanche,’ which is unrelated to the blockchain Avalanche (AVAX).

Explore other cryptocurrencies

Highest market cap

Cryptos with the highest market capitalisation

  • 600+ cryptoassets

    Buy, sell or swap cryptoassets from the UK's widest range of cryptoassets, including crypto indices and staking.

    Learn more
  • Invest your way

    Explore our exciting features, including staking, savings plans, limit orders, and more.

    Learn more
  • Safe and secure

    Safety is at the core of Bitpanda’s identity. With cutting-edge technology and a commitment to transparency, we give you the peace of mind to invest with confidence.

    Learn more
  • ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) regulations for crypto assets aim to address their environmental impact (e.g., energy-intensive mining), promote transparency, and ensure ethical governance practices to align the crypto industry with broader sustainability and societal goals. These regulations encourage compliance with standards that mitigate risks and foster trust in digital assets.

    Name

    Bitpanda Asset Management GmbH, Bitpanda GmbH

    Relevant legal entity identifier

    9845005X9B7N610K0093, 5493007WZ7IFULIL8G21

    Name of the crypto-asset

    eCash

    Consensus Mechanism

    eCash is present on the following networks: Binance Smart Chain, Ecash. Binance Smart Chain (BSC) uses a hybrid consensus mechanism called Proof of Staked Authority (PoSA), which combines elements of Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) and Proof of Authority (PoA). This method ensures fast block times and low fees while maintaining a level of decentralization and security. Core Components 1. Validators (so-called “Cabinet Members”): Validators on BSC are responsible for producing new blocks, validating transactions, and maintaining the network’s security. To become a validator, an entity must stake a significant amount of BNB (Binance Coin). Validators are selected through staking and voting by token holders. There are 21 active validators at any given time, rotating to ensure decentralization and security. 2. Delegators: Token holders who do not wish to run validator nodes can delegate their BNB tokens to validators. This delegation helps validators increase their stake and improves their chances of being selected to produce blocks. Delegators earn a share of the rewards that validators receive, incentivizing broad participation in network security. 3. Candidates: Candidates are nodes that have staked the required amount of BNB and are in the pool waiting to become validators. They are essentially potential validators who are not currently active but can be elected to the validator set through community voting. Candidates play a crucial role in ensuring there is always a sufficient pool of nodes ready to take on validation tasks, thus maintaining network resilience and decentralization. Consensus Process 4. Validator Selection: Validators are chosen based on the amount of BNB staked and votes received from delegators. The more BNB staked and votes received, the higher the chance of being selected to validate transactions and produce new blocks. The selection process involves both the current validators and the pool of candidates, ensuring a dynamic and secure rotation of nodes. 5. Block Production: The selected validators take turns producing blocks in a PoA-like manner, ensuring that blocks are generated quickly and efficiently. Validators validate transactions, add them to new blocks, and broadcast these blocks to the network. 6. Transaction Finality: BSC achieves fast block times of around 3 seconds and quick transaction finality. This is achieved through the efficient PoSA mechanism that allows validators to rapidly reach consensus. Security and Economic Incentives 7. Staking: Validators are required to stake a substantial amount of BNB, which acts as collateral to ensure their honest behavior. This staked amount can be slashed if validators act maliciously. Staking incentivizes validators to act in the network's best interest to avoid losing their staked BNB. 8. Delegation and Rewards: Delegators earn rewards proportional to their stake in validators. This incentivizes them to choose reliable validators and participate in the network’s security. Validators and delegators share transaction fees as rewards, which provides continuous economic incentives to maintain network security and performance. 9. Transaction Fees: BSC employs low transaction fees, paid in BNB, making it cost-effective for users. These fees are collected by validators as part of their rewards, further incentivizing them to validate transactions accurately and efficiently. eCash utilizes a hybrid consensus model combining Proof of Work (PoW) with the Avalanche Post-Consensus protocol, enhancing transaction finality and security. Core Components: 1. Proof of Work with Avalanche Post-Consensus: Dual-Layer Security: Blocks are initially mined through PoW, and then finalized with Avalanche, providing rapid finality and preventing block reversals. 2. ASERT Difficulty Adjustment: Consistent Block Times: ASERT adjusts mining difficulty in real-time to maintain a 10-minute block interval, even with fluctuating network hashrate. 3. Staking for Governance: Staking Participation: XEC holders can lock tokens to participate in governance and earn rewards, adding stability and engaging the community in the consensus process.

    Incentive Mechanisms and Applicable Fees

    eCash is present on the following networks: Binance Smart Chain, Ecash. Binance Smart Chain (BSC) uses the Proof of Staked Authority (PoSA) consensus mechanism to ensure network security and incentivize participation from validators and delegators. Incentive Mechanisms 1. Validators: Staking Rewards: Validators must stake a significant amount of BNB to participate in the consensus process. They earn rewards in the form of transaction fees and block rewards. Selection Process: Validators are selected based on the amount of BNB staked and the votes received from delegators. The more BNB staked and votes received, the higher the chances of being selected to validate transactions and produce new blocks. 2. Delegators: Delegated Staking: Token holders can delegate their BNB to validators. This delegation increases the validator's total stake and improves their chances of being selected to produce blocks. Shared Rewards: Delegators earn a portion of the rewards that validators receive. This incentivizes token holders to participate in the network’s security and decentralization by choosing reliable validators. 3. Candidates: Pool of Potential Validators: Candidates are nodes that have staked the required amount of BNB and are waiting to become active validators. They ensure that there is always a sufficient pool of nodes ready to take on validation tasks, maintaining network resilience. 4. Economic Security: Slashing: Validators can be penalized for malicious behavior or failure to perform their duties. Penalties include slashing a portion of their staked tokens, ensuring that validators act in the best interest of the network. Opportunity Cost: Staking requires validators and delegators to lock up their BNB tokens, providing an economic incentive to act honestly to avoid losing their staked assets. Fees on the Binance Smart Chain 5. Transaction Fees: Low Fees: BSC is known for its low transaction fees compared to other blockchain networks. These fees are paid in BNB and are essential for maintaining network operations and compensating validators. Dynamic Fee Structure: Transaction fees can vary based on network congestion and the complexity of the transactions. However, BSC ensures that fees remain significantly lower than those on the Ethereum mainnet. 6. Block Rewards: Incentivizing Validators: Validators earn block rewards in addition to transaction fees. These rewards are distributed to validators for their role in maintaining the network and processing transactions. 7. Cross-Chain Fees: Interoperability Costs: BSC supports cross-chain compatibility, allowing assets to be transferred between Binance Chain and Binance Smart Chain. These cross-chain operations incur minimal fees, facilitating seamless asset transfers and improving user experience. 8. Smart Contract Fees: Deployment and Execution Costs: Deploying and interacting with smart contracts on BSC involves paying fees based on the computational resources required. These fees are also paid in BNB and are designed to be cost-effective, encouraging developers to build on the BSC platform. eCash incentivizes miners and stakeholders through block rewards, transaction fees, and staking rewards, supporting network security, engagement, and governance. Incentive Mechanisms: 1. Block Rewards for Miners: XEC Rewards: Miners earn block rewards in XEC, with periodic halving events to manage supply and encourage token scarcity over time. 2. Staking Rewards for XEC Holders: Passive Income for Stakers: XEC holders who lock their tokens receive rewards, promoting active governance participation and network stability. Applicable Fees: 1. Transaction Fees: User-Paid Fees in XEC: Transaction fees are paid in XEC, awarded to miners as additional compensation, and are kept low to encourage everyday use and microtransactions.

    Beginning of the period

    2024-09-14

    End of the period

    2025-09-14

    Energy consumption

    47280694.96515 (kWh/a)

    Energy consumption resources and methodologies

    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) binance_smart_chain 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.

    Renewable energy consumption

    29.306425067 (%)

    Energy intensity

    5.41604 (kWh)

    Scope 1 DLT GHG emissions - Controlled

    0.00000 (tCO2e/a)

    Scope 2 DLT GHG emissions - Purchased

    19479.46010 (tCO2e/a)

    GHG intensity

    2.23139 (kgCO2e)

    Key energy sources and methodologies

    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.

    Key GHG sources and methodologies

    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.

  • Description

    These assets function as the native currency of a Layer-1 blockchain. They were created primarily to facilitate the transfer of value across a decentralised network without the need for intermediaries such as banks or payment processors. Users typically hold these assets to store value outside of the traditional financial system, hedge against inflation, or make peer-to-peer payments.

    Risks

    Volatility and Valuation Models. The value of these assets is not derived from traditional financial metrics such as revenue, dividends, cash flow, or interest rates. Unlike equities or bonds, there is no underlying balance sheet or earnings report to anchor the valuation. Instead, value depends heavily on network adoption, security hashrate, public perception, and speculative supply and demand dynamics. Consequently, prices can be extremely volatile and may react sharply to news cycles, macroeconomic shifts, regulatory announcements, or changes in investor sentiment. It is common for these assets to experience significant percentage fluctuations within a single trading day.

    Consensus Mechanism Risks. Many payments-focused blockchains utilise a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism. While robust, these networks are susceptible to a '51% attack'. This occurs if a single malicious actor or a colluding group of miners gains control of more than half of the network's mining power. If successful, the attacker could disrupt the network, prevent new transactions from gaining confirmations, reverse transactions completed while they were in control, and double-spend tokens. Smaller PoW networks face a significantly higher probability of such attacks.

    Scaling and Transaction Costs. These networks often prioritise security and decentralisation over transaction throughput. During periods of high global demand, the network's waiting area for unconfirmed transactions (mempool) may become congested. This results in a competitive fee market where users must pay increasingly higher fees to have their transactions prioritised by miners. This congestion can lead to significant delays in transaction processing times and a sharp increase in transaction fees. Users may find it prohibitively expensive or slow to move assets when they need them most, particularly during periods of market panic.

    Environmental Impact and Regulatory Scrutiny. PoW networks consume vast amounts of electrical energy to secure the ledger. This high energy consumption has led to criticism from environmental groups and policymakers. There is a tangible risk of regulatory crackdowns, carbon taxes, or outright bans on mining operations in various jurisdictions. Such regulatory interventions could destabilise the network by reducing the security hashrate or limiting the asset's integration with the traditional financial system and ESG-focused institutional investors.

    Limited Upgradability. Due to their decentralised nature and reliance on broad consensus among thousands of independent node operators for protocol changes, these networks can be slow to upgrade. This rigidity may prevent the protocol from adapting to new technical threats or implementing desirable features found in newer, more agile blockchains. This could lead to a gradual loss of market share and value over time as users migrate to more technologically advanced alternatives.

    Finality Risk. Transactions on PoW blockchains are probabilistic rather than deterministic. While a transaction may appear confirmed after being included in a block, there is always a theoretical risk of a 'chain reorganisation' where a competing chain with more accumulated proof-of-work becomes the definitive chain. This event could result in previously confirmed transactions being reversed or erased from the ledger.