* Ei reaaliaikaiset tiedot.
* Mikään Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltion toimivaltainen viranomainen ei ole hyväksynyt tätä kryptovaran kuvausta. Kryptovaran tarjoaja on yksin vastuussa tämän kryptovaran kuvauksen sisällöstä.
Energiankulutus: 37.83552 kWh/a | Uusiutuva energia:
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 | Coinmotion Oy |
| Relevant legal entity identifier | 743700PZG5RRF7SA4Q58 |
| Name of the crypto-asset | MAGIC |
| Consensus Mechanism | MAGIC is present on the following networks: Arbitrum, Ethereum. Arbitrum is a Layer 2 solution on top of Ethereum that uses Optimistic Rollups to enhance scalability and reduce transaction costs. It assumes that transactions are valid by default and only verifies them if there's a challenge (optimistic): Core Components: • Sequencer: Orders transactions and creates batches for processing. • Bridge: Facilitates asset transfers between Arbitrum and Ethereum. • Fraud Proofs: Protect against invalid transactions through an interactive verification process. Verification Process: 1. Transaction Submission: Users submit transactions to the Arbitrum Sequencer, which orders and batches them. 2. State Commitment: These batches are submitted to Ethereum with a state commitment. 3. Challenge Period: Validators have a specific period to challenge the state if they suspect fraud. 4. Dispute Resolution: If a challenge occurs, the dispute is resolved through an iterative process to identify the fraudulent transaction. The final operation is executed on Ethereum to determine the correct state. 5. Rollback and Penalties: If fraud is proven, the state is rolled back, and the dishonest party is penalized. Security and Efficiency: The combination of the Sequencer, bridge, and interactive fraud proofs ensures that the system remains secure and efficient. By minimizing on-chain data and leveraging off-chain computations, Arbitrum can provide high throughput and low fees. The crypto-asset's Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, introduced with The Merge in 2022, replaces mining with validator staking. Validators must stake at least 32 ETH every block a validator is randomly chosen to propose the next block. Once proposed the other validators verify the blocks integrity. The network operates on a slot and epoch system, where a new block is proposed every 12 seconds, and finalization occurs after two epochs (~12.8 minutes) using Casper-FFG. The Beacon Chain coordinates validators, while the fork-choice rule (LMD-GHOST) ensures the chain follows the heaviest accumulated validator votes. Validators earn rewards for proposing and verifying blocks, but face slashing for malicious behavior or inactivity. PoS aims to improve energy efficiency, security, and scalability, with future upgrades like Proto-Danksharding enhancing transaction efficiency. |
| Incentive Mechanisms and Applicable Fees | MAGIC is present on the following networks: Arbitrum, Ethereum. Arbitrum One, a Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum, employs several incentive mechanisms to ensure the security and integrity of transactions on its network. The key mechanisms include: 1. Validators and Sequencers: o Sequencers are responsible for ordering transactions and creating batches that are processed off-chain. They play a critical role in maintaining the efficiency and throughput of the network. o Validators monitor the sequencers' actions and ensure that transactions are processed correctly. Validators verify the state transitions and ensure that no invalid transactions are included in the batches. 2. Fraud Proofs: o Assumption of Validity: Transactions processed off-chain are assumed to be valid. This allows for quick transaction finality and high throughput. o Challenge Period: There is a predefined period during which anyone can challenge the validity of a transaction by submitting a fraud proof. This mechanism acts as a deterrent against malicious behavior. o Dispute Resolution: If a challenge is raised, an interactive verification process is initiated to pinpoint the exact step where fraud occurred. If the challenge is valid, the fraudulent transaction is reverted, and the dishonest actor is penalized. 3. Economic Incentives: o Rewards for Honest Behavior: Participants in the network, such as validators and sequencers, are incentivized through rewards for performing their duties honestly and efficiently. These rewards come from transaction fees and potentially other protocol incentives. o Penalties for Malicious Behavior: Participants who engage in dishonest behavior or submit invalid transactions are penalized. This can include slashing of staked tokens or other forms of economic penalties, which serve to discourage malicious actions. Fees on the Arbitrum One Blockchain 1. Transaction Fees: o Layer 2 Fees: Users pay fees for transactions processed on the Layer 2 network. These fees are typically lower than Ethereum mainnet fees due to the reduced computational load on the main chain. o Arbitrum Transaction Fee: A fee is charged for each transaction processed by the sequencer. This fee covers the cost of processing the transaction and ensuring its inclusion in a batch. 2. L1 Data Fees: o Posting Batches to Ethereum: Periodically, the state updates from the Layer 2 transactions are posted to the Ethereum mainnet as calldata. This involves a fee, known as the L1 data fee, which accounts for the gas required to publish these state updates on Ethereum. o Cost Sharing: Because transactions are batched, the fixed costs of posting state updates to Ethereum are spread across multiple transactions, making it more cost-effective for users. The crypto-asset's PoS system secures transactions through validator incentives and economic penalties. Validators stake at least 32 ETH and earn rewards for proposing blocks, attesting to valid ones, and participating in sync committees. Rewards are paid in newly issued ETH and transaction fees. Under EIP-1559, transaction fees consist of a base fee, which is burned to reduce supply, and an optional priority fee (tip) paid to validators. Validators face slashing if they act maliciously and incur penalties for inactivity. This system aims to increase security by aligning incentives while making the crypto-asset's fee structure more predictable and deflationary during high network activity. |
| Beginning of the period | 2024-11-08 |
| End of the period | 2025-11-08 |
| Energy consumption | 37.83552 (kWh/a) |
| Energy consumption resources and methodologies | The energy consumption of this asset is aggregated across multiple components: To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the network(s) arbitrum, ethereum 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 | |
| Energy intensity | (kWh) |
| Scope 1 DLT GHG emissions - Controlled | (tCO2e/a) |
| Scope 2 DLT GHG emissions - Purchased | (tCO2e/a) |
| GHG intensity | (kgCO2e) |
| Key energy sources and methodologies | |
| Key GHG sources and methodologies |
Share on
