White paper drafted under the European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 for FFG 91K5D3RNW

The PIEVERSE tokens referred to in this white paper are crypto-assets other than EMTs and ARTs, and are issued on the Ethereum and BNB Smart Chain network (2025-10-30

and according to DTI FFG shown in F.14) with a total number of 1,000,000,000 token. The first activity on Ethereum can be viewed on 2025-10-29 (see https://etherscan.io/tx/0x3346b556cd7e70820e7838e06f683d34f43c7f383c14f75b67601720ca99345a) and on BNB Smart Chain on 2025-10-28 (https://bscscan.com/tx/0xfdcf13c110069883b6daf0d3eb2b495a16d8ca270b0794835a1d020bd97f25ce).

The crypto-asset associated with the Pieverse project is designed to serve as a functional unit within the platform’s ecosystem. It is intended to facilitate access to on-chain services such as time-based engagements, task execution, and other interactions recorded through the Pieverse protocol.

As defined in Article 3(9) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on Markets in Crypto-Assets – amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937 – a utility token is “a type of crypto-asset that is only intended to provide access to a good or a service supplied by its issuer”. This crypto-asset does not qualify as a utility token, as its intended use goes beyond providing access to a good or a service supplied solely by the issuer.

This white paper concerns the admission to trading of the crypto-asset "Pieverse" by "Pieverse Collective Limited" in accordance to Article 5 of REGULATION (EU) 2023/1114 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937. The following platforms are in scope for this while drafting up this white paper: Payward Global Solutions Limited. Further platforms are also being sought for this purpose in the future.

The entity operates as a foundation company established to support and oversee the development of the Pieverse Web3 project. Its activities include maintaining the project’s technological infrastructure, managing community and ecosystem initiatives, and ensuring the transparent and compliant evolution of the Pieverse network.

Pieverse Collective Limited does not have a parent company. Accordingly, no business activity of a parent company is to be reported in this section.

Not applicable.

Pieverse Collective Limited was incorporated on 6 October 2025 and has not yet commenced its planned principal activities. Its financial condition is limited to its initial formation and setup. The foundation was established with an initial capital contribution of $50,000 USD from its founding member to cover formation costs and initial operational expenses. The company has no registered charges and no known liabilities.

The crypto-asset associated with the Pieverse project is designed to serve as a functional unit within the platform’s ecosystem. It is intended to facilitate access to on-chain services such as time-based engagements, task execution, and other interactions recorded through the Pieverse protocol. The asset may also be used to settle transactions, record service receipts, or enable participation in governance mechanisms once introduced. At the current stage, the functionality of the token remains limited and subject to further development. The exact use cases, rights, and potential governance roles of the crypto-asset are expected to evolve alongside the technical and regulatory progress of the Pieverse platform.

Pieverse is a Web3-based project that aims to establish a decentralized “time economy” where human time and interaction are represented as tradable digital assets. The platform provides an infrastructure for recording, exchanging, and verifying time-based engagements through blockchain technology, enabling users to create and manage verifiable records of services, appointments, or interactions. The project is developed and supported by a dedicated foundation company, which oversees its governance and ecosystem development. As a technological initiative still in an early stage, Pieverse focuses on building a compliant and transparent environment for time tokenization and associated digital services. The framework does not guarantee future performance or adoption, and its ongoing development remains subject to technical, regulatory, and market risks.

Future milestones include the launch of the Pieverse Timestamping MVP with multi-jurisdiction invoicing and receipt generation on BNB Chain (Q4 2025), expansion of the

x402b protocol for broader adoption, and the planned integration of compliance tools and Web2 partnerships (Q1 2026). Further developments are anticipated to include the

introduction of the Pieverse DAO for community-led governance and the integration of the TimeFi layer into external financial platforms (Q2 2026). These milestones represent forward-looking plans and are subject to technical, regulatory, and market risks. There is no assurance that the outlined activities will be completed as scheduled, or that the platform will achieve the expected adoption levels or functional outcomes.

The total supply of the Pieverse token is fixed 1,000,000,000 units. The token distribution is structured to support the sustainable development of the Pieverse ecosystem, with allocations defined across several primary categories. A total of 15 % of the supply is designated for strategic investors, subject to defined vesting schedules intended to align long-term incentives and project stability. 27.6 % of the supply is allocated to community growth, which includes rewards, airdrops, and user participation initiatives aimed at fostering adoption and engagement within the ecosystem. The foundation reserve accounts for 10 % of the total supply and is intended to fund long-term ecosystem development and maintain strategic reserves for future project requirements. An additional 27.4 % of the tokens are allocated to ecosystem and marketing activities, supporting platform development, partnership building, and communication initiatives. The remaining 20 % are assigned to the core team and advisors, with vesting conditions designed to promote sustained contribution and alignment with the project’s long-term objectives.

- The temporary token distribution can be traced on-chain on Ethereum: https://etherscan.io/token/0x0e63b9c287e32a05e6b9ab8ee8df88a2760225a9#balances

- On BNB Smart Chain: https://bscscan.com/token/0x0e63b9c287e32a05e6b9ab8ee8df88a2760225a9#balances

Investors must be aware that a public blockchain address cannot necessarily be attributed to a single natural or legal person, which limits the ability to determine exact economic influence or future actions. Changes in escrow releases or market-level redistributions may affect the circulating supply and could have an impact on the token’s market value.

Not applicable, as this white paper serves the purpose of admission to trading and is not associated with any fundraising activity for the crypto-asset project.

The purpose of seeking admission to trading is to enable the crypto-asset to be listed on a regulated platform in accordance with the applicable provisions of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2984. The white paper has been drawn up to comply with the transparency requirements applicable to trading venues.

Holder restrictions are subject to the rules applicable to the crypto-asset service provider, as well as any additional restrictions that provider may impose.

This depends on the trading platform listing the asset.

This depends on the trading platform listing the asset. Furthermore, costs may occur for making transfers out of the platform (i. e. "gas costs" for blockchain network use that may exceed the value of the crypto-asset itself).

Not applicable, as this white paper is written to seek admission to trading, not for the initial offer to the public.

MiCA-compliant Crypto Asset Service Providers shall have strong measurements in place in order to manage conflicts of interests. Due to the broad audience this white-paper is addressing, potential investors should always check the conflicts of Interest policy of their respective counterparty.

Not applicable, as this white paper is written to seek admission to trading, not for the initial offer to the public.

Not applicable, as this white paper is written to seek admission to trading, not for the initial offer to the public.

The crypto-asset associated with the Pieverse project is designed to serve as a functional unit within the platform’s ecosystem. It is intended to facilitate access to on-chain services such as time-based engagements, task execution, and other interactions recorded through the Pieverse protocol. The asset may also be used to settle transactions, record service receipts, or enable participation in governance mechanisms once introduced. At the current stage, the functionality of the token remains limited and subject to further development. The exact use cases, rights, and potential governance roles of the crypto-asset are expected to evolve alongside the technical and regulatory progress of the Pieverse platform.

Future milestones include the launch of the Pieverse Timestamping MVP with multi-jurisdiction invoicing and receipt generation on BNB Chain (Q4 2025), expansion of the

x402b protocol for broader adoption, and the planned integration of compliance tools and Web2 partnerships (Q1 2026). Further developments are anticipated to include the

introduction of the Pieverse DAO for community-led governance and the integration of the TimeFi layer into external financial platforms (Q2 2026). These milestones represent forward-looking plans and are subject to technical, regulatory, and market risks. There is no assurance that the outlined activities will be completed as scheduled, or that the platform will achieve the expected adoption levels or functional outcomes.

The tokens are crypto-assets other than EMTs and ARTs, which are available on the Ethereum and BNB Smart Chain network. The tokens are fungible (up to 18 digits after the decimal point). The tokens are a digital representation of value, and have no inherent rights attached as well as no intrinsic utility.

It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the issuer of the token provides or will provide other services not covered by Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCAR).

The crypto-asset does not grant any legally enforceable or contractual rights or obligations to its holders or purchasers. Any functionalities accessible through the underlying technology are of a purely technical or operational nature and do not constitute rights comparable to ownership, profit participation, governance, or similar entitlements known from traditional financial instruments. Accordingly, holders do not acquire any legally enforceable claim against the issuer of the crypto-asset or any third party.

As the crypto-asset does not confer any legally enforceable rights or obligations, there are no applicable procedures or conditions for their exercise. Any interaction or functionality that may be available within the project’s technical infrastructure – such as participation mechanisms or protocol-level features – serves operational purposes only and does not create, evidence, or constitute any contractual or statutory entitlement.

As the crypto-asset does not confer any legally enforceable rights or obligations, there are no conditions or mechanisms for modifying such rights or obligations. Adjustments to the technical protocol, smart contract logic, or related systems may occur in the ordinary course of development or maintenance. Such changes do not alter the legal position of holders, as no contractual rights exist and no rights arise under applicable law or regulation. Holders should not interpret technical updates or governance-related changes as amendments to legally binding entitlements.

This white paper refers to admission to trading. The issuer reserves the right to make further offers in the future. This means that future public offers cannot be ruled out, although there are no current plans to do so.

The crypto-assets themselves are not subject to any technical or contractual transfer restrictions and are generally freely transferable. However, crypto-asset service providers may impose restrictions on buyers or sellers in accordance with applicable laws, internal policies or contractual terms agreed with their clients.

For the crypto-asset in scope, the supply is limited to 1,000,000,000 tokens. Investors should note that changes in the supply of the crypto-asset can have a negative impact.

Applicable law likely depends on the location of any particular transaction with the token.

Competent court likely depends on the location of any particular transaction with the token.

The crypto-asset in scope is implemented on the Binance Smart Chain and Ethereum networks following the standards described below.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Binance Smart Chain and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto-assets, all implementations across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to Binance Smart Chain:

Binance Smart Chain (BSC) is a Layer-1 blockchain that utilises a Proof-of-Staked-Authority (PoSA) consensus mechanism. This mechanism combines elements of Proof-of-Authority (PoA) and Delegated-Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) and is intended to secure the network and validate transactions. In PoSA, validators are selected based on their stake and authority, with the goal of providing fast transaction times and low fees while maintaining network security through staking.

The following applies to Ethereum:

The crypto-asset operates on a well-defined set of protocols and technical standards that are intended to ensure its security, decentralization, and functionality. Below are some of the key ones:

1. Network Protocols

The crypto-asset follows a decentralized, peer-to-peer (P2P) protocol where nodes communicate over the crypto-asset's DevP2P protocol using RLPx for data encoding.

- Transactions and smart contract execution are secured through Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus.

- Validators propose and attest blocks in Ethereum’s Beacon Chain, finalized through Casper FFG.

- The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) executes smart contracts using Turing-complete bytecode.

2. Transaction and Address Standards

crypto-asset Address Format: 20-byte addresses derived from Keccak-256 hashing of public keys.

Transaction Types:

- Legacy Transactions (pre-EIP-1559)

- Type 0 (Pre-EIP-1559 transactions)

- Type 1 (EIP-2930: Access list transactions)

- Type 2 (EIP-1559: Dynamic fee transactions with base fee burning)

The Pectra upgrade introduces EIP-7702, a transformative improvement to account abstraction. This allows externally owned accounts (EOAs) to temporarily act as smart contract wallets during a transaction. It provides significant flexibility, enabling functionality such as sponsored gas payments and batched operations without changing the underlying account model permanently.

3. Blockchain Data Structure & Block Standards

- the crypto-asset's blockchain consists of accounts, smart contracts, and storage states, maintained through Merkle Patricia Trees for efficient verification.

Each block contains:

- Block Header: Parent hash, state root, transactions root, receipts root, timestamp, gas limit, gas used, proposer signature.

- Transactions: Smart contract executions and token transfers.

- Block Size: No fixed limit; constrained by the gas limit per block (variable over time). In line with Ethereum’s scalability roadmap, Pectra includes EIP-7691, which increases the maximum number of "blobs" (data chunks introduced with EIP-4844) per block. This change significantly boosts the data availability layer used by rollups, supporting cheaper and more efficient Layer 2 scalability.

4. Upgrade & Improvement Standards

Ethereum follows the Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) process for upgrades.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Binance Smart Chain and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto-assets, all implementations across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to Binance Smart Chain:

1. BSC-compatible wallets

Tokens on BSC are supported by wallets compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), such as MetaMask. These wallets can be configured to connect to the BSC network and are designed to interact with BSC using standard Web3 interfaces.

2. Decentralised Ledger

BSC maintains its own decentralised ledger for recording token transactions. This ledger is intended to ensure transparency and security, providing a verifiable record of all activities on the network.

3. BEP-20 token standard

BSC supports tokens implemented under the BEP-20 standard, which is tailored for the BSC ecosystem. This standard is designed to facilitate the creation and management of tokens on the network.

4. Scalability and transaction efficiency

BSC is designed to handle high volumes of transactions with low fees. It leverages its PoSA consensus mechanism to achieve fast transaction times and efficient network performance, making it suitable for applications requiring high throughput.

The following applies to Ethereum:

1. Decentralized Ledger: The Ethereum blockchain acts as a decentralized ledger for all token transactions, with the intention to preserving an unalterable record of token transfers and ownership to ensure both transparency and security.

2. Private Key Management: To safeguard their token holdings, users must securely store their wallet’s private keys and recovery phrases.

3. Cryptographic Integrity: Ethereum employs elliptic curve cryptography to validate and execute transactions securely, intended to ensure the integrity of all transfers. The Keccak-256 (SHA-3 variant) Hashing Algorithm is used for hashing and address generation. The crypto-asset uses ECDSA with secp256k1 curve for key generation and digital signatures. Next to that, BLS (Boneh-Lynn-Shacham) signatures are used for validator aggregation in PoS.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Binance Smart Chain and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto-assets, all implementations across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to Binance Smart Chain:

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 is intended to support fast block times and low fees while maintaining a level of decentralisation 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 support decentralisation 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, incentivising 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 help ensure there is a sufficient pool of nodes ready to take on validation tasks, supporting network resilience and decentralisation.

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, supporting a dynamic 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 PoSA mechanism, which allows validators to reach consensus efficiently.

Security and economic incentives

7. Staking: Validators are required to stake a substantial amount of BNB, which acts as collateral to support honest behaviour. This staked amount can be slashed if validators act maliciously.

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 economic incentives to maintain network security and performance.

9. Transaction fees: BSC employs low transaction fees, paid in BNB. These fees are collected by validators as part of their rewards, incentivising them to validate transactions accurately and efficiently.

The following applies to Ethereum:

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, and a validator is randomly selected to propose each new 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.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Binance Smart Chain and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto-assets, all implementations across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to Binance Smart Chain:

Binance Smart Chain (BSC) uses the Proof of Staked Authority (PoSA) consensus mechanism to support network security and incentivise 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 chance 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 incentivises token holders to participate in the network’s security and decentralisation 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 help ensure there is a sufficient pool of nodes ready to take on validation tasks, supporting network resilience.

4. Economic Security: Slashing: Validators can be penalised for malicious behaviour or failure to perform their duties. Penalties can include slashing a portion of their staked tokens. Opportunity cost: Staking requires validators and delegators to lock up their BNB tokens, providing an economic incentive to act honestly to avoid losing 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 used to compensate validators. Dynamic fee structure: Transaction fees can vary based on network congestion and the complexity of transactions. However, BSC aims to keep fees significantly lower than those on the Ethereum mainnet.

6. Block rewards: Incentivising 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 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.

The following applies to Ethereum:

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.

1. Regulatory and Compliance

Regulatory frameworks applicable to crypto-asset services in the European Union and in third countries are evolving. Supervisory authorities may introduce, interpret, or enforce rules that affect (i) the eligibility of this crypto-asset for admission to trading, (ii) the conditions under which a crypto-asset service provider may offer trading, custody, or transfer services for it, or (iii) the persons or jurisdictions to which such services may be provided. As a result, the crypto-asset service provider admitting this crypto-asset to trading may be required to suspend, restrict, or terminate trading or withdrawals for regulatory reasons, even if the crypto-asset itself continues to function on its underlying network.

2. Trading venue and connection risk

Trading in the crypto-asset depends on the uninterrupted operation of the trading venues on which it is listed and, where applicable, on its technical connections to external liquidity sources or venues. Interruptions such as system downtime, maintenance, faulty integrations, API changes, or failures at an external venue can temporarily prevent order placement, execution, deposits, or withdrawals, even when the underlying blockchain is functioning. In addition, trading platforms in emerging markets may operate under differing governance, compliance, and oversight standards, which can increase the risk of operational failures or disorderly market conditions.

3. Market formation and liquidity conditions

The price and tradability of the crypto-asset depend on actual trading activity on the venues to which the service provider is connected, whether centralised exchanges (CEXs) or decentralised exchanges (DEXs). Trading volumes may at times be low, order books thin, or liquidity concentrated on a single venue. In such conditions, buy or sell orders may not be executed in full or may be executed only at a less favourable price, resulting in slippage.

Volatility: The market price of the crypto-asset may fluctuate significantly over short periods, including for reasons that are not linked to changes in the underlying project or protocol. Periods of limited liquidity, shifts in overall market sentiment, or trading on only a small number of CEXs or DEXs can amplify these movements and lead to higher slippage when orders are executed. As a result, investors may be unable to sell the crypto-asset at or close to a previously observed price, even where no negative project-specific event has occurred.

4. Counterparty and service provider dependence

The admission of the crypto-asset to trading may rely on several external parties, such as connected centralised or decentralised trading venues, liquidity providers, brokers, custodians, or technical integrators. If any of these counterparties fail to perform, suspend their services, or apply internal restrictions, the trading, deposit, or withdrawal of the crypto-asset on the listing crypto-asset service provider can be interrupted or halted.

Quality of counterparties: Trading venues and service providers in certain jurisdictions may operate under regulatory or supervisory standards that are lower or differently enforced than those applicable in the European Union. In such environments, deficiencies in governance, risk management, or compliance may remain undetected, which increases the probability of abrupt service interruptions, investigations, or forced wind-downs.

Delisting and service suspension: The crypto-asset’s availability may depend on the internal listing decisions of these counterparties. A delisting or suspension on a key connected venue can materially reduce liquidity or make trading temporarily impossible on the admitting service provider, even if the underlying crypto-asset continues to function.

Insolvency of counterparties: If a counterparty involved in holding, routing, or settling the crypto-asset becomes insolvent, enters restructuring, or is otherwise subject to resolution measures, assets held or processed by that counterparty may be frozen, become temporarily unavailable, or be recoverable only in part or not at all, which can result in losses for clients whose positions were maintained through that counterparty. This risk applies in particular where client assets are held on an omnibus basis or where segregation is not fully recognised in the counterparty’s jurisdiction.

5. Operational and information risks

Due to the irrevocability of blockchain transactions, incorrect transaction approvals or the use of wrong networks or addresses will typically make the transferred funds irrecoverable. Because trading may also rely on technical connections to other venues or service providers, downtime or faulty code in these connections can temporarily block trading, deposits, or withdrawals even when the underlying blockchain is functioning. In addition, different groups of market participants may have unequal access to technical, governance, or project-related information, which can lead to information asymmetry and place less informed investors at a disadvantage when making trading decisions.

6. Market access and liquidity concentration risk

If the crypto-asset is only available on a limited number of trading platforms or through a single market-making entity, this may result in reduced liquidity, greater price volatility, or periods of inaccessibility for retail holders.

1. Insolvency of the issuer

As with any commercial entity, the issuer may face insolvency risks. These may result from insufficient funding, low market interest, mismanagement, or external shocks (e.g. pandemics, armed conflicts). In such a case, ongoing development, support, and governance of the project may cease, potentially affecting the viability and tradability of the crypto-asset.

2. Legal and regulatory risks

The issuer operates in a dynamic and evolving regulatory environment. Failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations in relevant jurisdictions may result in enforcement actions, penalties, or restrictions on the project’s operations. These may negatively impact the crypto-asset’s availability, market acceptance, or legal status.

3. Operational risks

The issuer may fail to implement adequate internal controls, risk management, or governance processes. This can result in operational disruptions, financial losses, delays in updating the white paper, or reputational damage.

4. Governance and decision-making

The issuer’s management body is responsible for key strategic, operational, and disclosure decisions. Ineffective governance, delays in decision-making, or lack of resources may compromise the stability of the project and its compliance with MiCA requirements. High concentration of decision-making authority or changes in ownership/control can amplify these risks.

5. Reputational risks

The issuer’s reputation may be harmed by internal failures, external accusations, or association with illicit activity. Negative publicity can reduce trust in the issuer and impact the perceived legitimacy or value of the crypto-asset.

6. Counterparty dependence

The issuer may depend on third-party providers for certain core functions, such as technology development, marketing, legal advice, or infrastructure. If these partners discontinue their services, change ownership, or underperform, the issuer’s ability to operate the project or maintain investor communication may be impaired. This could disrupt project continuity or undermine market confidence, ultimately affecting the crypto-asset’s value.

1. Valuation risk

The crypto-asset does not represent a claim, nor is it backed by physical assets or legal entitlements. Its market value is driven solely by supply and demand dynamics and may fluctuate significantly. In the absence of fundamental value anchors, such assets can lose their entire market value within a very short time. Historical market behaviour has shown that some types of crypto-assets have become worthless. Investors should be aware that this crypto-asset may lose all of its value.

2. Market volatility risk

Crypto-asset prices can fluctuate sharply due to changes in market sentiment, macroeconomic conditions, regulatory developments, or technology trends. Such volatility may result in rapid and significant losses. Holders should be prepared for the possibility of losing the full amount invested.

3. Liquidity and price-determination risk

Low trading volumes, fragmented trading across venues, or the absence of active market makers can restrict the ability to buy or sell the crypto-asset. In such situations, it is not guaranteed that an observable market price will exist at all times. Spreads may widen materially, and orders may only be executable under unfavourable conditions, which can make liquidation costly or temporarily impossible.

4. Crypto-asset security risk

Loss or theft of private keys, unauthorised access to wallets, or failures of custodial or exchange service providers can result in the irreversible loss of assets. Because blockchain transactions are final, recovery of funds after a compromise is generally impossible.

5. Fraud and scam risk

The pseudonymous and irreversible nature of blockchain transactions can attract fraudulent schemes. Typical forms include fake or unauthorised crypto-assets imitating established ones, phishing attempts, deceptive airdrops, or social-engineering attacks. Investors should exercise caution and verify the authenticity of counterparties and information sources.

6. Legal and regulatory reclassification risk

Legislative or regulatory changes in the European Union or in the Member State where the crypto-asset is admitted to trading may alter its legal classification, permitted uses, or tradability. In third countries, the crypto-asset may be treated as a financial instrument or security, which can restrict its offering, trading, or custody.

7. Absence of investor protection

The crypto-asset is not covered by investor-compensation or deposit-guarantee schemes. In the event of loss, fraud, or insolvency of a service provider, holders may have no access to recourse mechanisms typically available in regulated financial markets.

8. Counterparty risk

Reliance on third-party exchanges, custodians, or intermediaries exposes holders to operational failures, insolvency, or fraud of these parties. Investors should conduct due diligence on service providers, as their failure may lead to the partial or total loss of held assets.

9. Reputational risk

Negative publicity related to security incidents, misuse of blockchain technology, or associations with illicit activity can damage public confidence and reduce the crypto-asset’s market value.

10. Community and sentiment risk

Because the crypto-asset’s perceived relevance and expected future use depend largely on community engagement and the prevailing sentiment, a loss of public interest, negative coverage or reduced activity of key contributors can materially reduce market demand.

11. Macroeconomic and interest-rate risk

Fluctuations in interest rates, exchange rates, general market conditions, or overall market volatility can influence investor sentiment towards digital assets and affect the crypto-asset’s market value.

12. Taxation risk

Tax treatment varies across jurisdictions. Holders are individually responsible for complying with all applicable tax laws, including the reporting and payment of taxes arising from the acquisition, holding, or disposal of the crypto-asset.

13. Anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist financing risk

Wallet addresses or transactions connected to the crypto-asset may be linked to sanctioned or illicit activity. Regulatory responses to such findings may include transfer restrictions, reporting obligations, or the freezing of assets on certain venues.

14. Market-abuse risk

Due to limited oversight and transparency, crypto-assets may be vulnerable to market-abuse practices such as spoofing, pump-and-dump schemes, or insider trading. Such activities can distort prices and expose holders to sudden losses.

15. Legal ownership and jurisdictional risk

Depending on the applicable law, holders of the crypto-asset may not have enforceable ownership rights or effective legal remedies in cases of disputes, fraud, or service failure. In certain jurisdictions, access to exchanges or interfaces may be restricted by regulatory measures, even if on-chain transfer remains technically possible.

16. Concentration risk

A large proportion of the total supply may be held by a small number of holders. This can enable market manipulation, governance dominance, or sudden large-scale liquidations that adversely affect market stability, price levels, and investor confidence.

As this white paper relates to admission to trading of the crypto-asset, the risk description below reflects general implementation risks typically associated with crypto-asset projects and relevant for the crypto-asset service provider. The party admitting the crypto-asset to trading is not involved in the project’s implementation and does not assume responsibility for its governance, funding, or execution.

Delays, failures, or changes in the implementation of the project as outlined in its public roadmap or technical documentation may negatively impact the perceived credibility or usability of the crypto-asset. This includes risks related to project governance, resource allocation, technical delivery, and team continuity.

Key-person risk: The project may rely on a limited number of individuals for development, maintenance, or strategic direction. The departure, incapacity, or misalignment of these individuals may delay or derail the implementation.

Timeline and milestone risk: Project milestones may not be met as announced. Delays in feature releases, protocol upgrades, or external integrations can undermine market confidence and affect the adoption, use, or value of the crypto-asset.

Delivery risk: Even if implemented on time, certain functionalities or integrations may not perform as intended or may be scaled back during execution, limiting the crypto-asset’s practical utility.

As this white paper relates to admission to trading of the crypto-asset, the following risks concern the underlying distributed ledger technology (DLT), its supporting infrastructure, and related technical dependencies. Failures or vulnerabilities in these systems may affect the availability, integrity, or transferability of the crypto-asset.

1. Blockchain dependency risk

The functionality of the crypto-asset depends on the continuous and stable operation of the blockchain(s) on which it is issued. Network congestion, outages, or protocol errors may temporarily or permanently disrupt on-chain transactions. Extended downtime or degradation in network performance can affect trading, settlement, or the usability of the crypto-asset.

2. Smart contract vulnerability risk

The smart contract that defines the crypto-asset’s parameters or governs its transfers may contain coding errors or security vulnerabilities. Exploitation of such weaknesses can result in unintended token minting, permanent loss of funds, or disruption of token functionality. Even after external audits, undetected vulnerabilities may persist due to the immutable nature of deployed code.

3. Wallet and key-management risk

The custody of crypto-assets relies on secure private key management. Loss, theft, or compromise of private keys results in irreversible loss of access. Custodians, trading venues, or wallet providers may be targeted by cyberattacks. Compatibility issues between wallet software and changes to the blockchain protocol (e.g. network upgrades) can further limit user access or the ability to transfer the crypto-asset.

Outdated or vulnerable wallet software:

Users relying on outdated, unaudited, or unsupported wallet software may face compatibility issues, security vulnerabilities, or failures when interacting with the blockchain. Failure to update wallet software in line with protocol developments can result in transaction errors, loss of access, or exposure to known exploits.

4. Network security risks

Attack risks: Blockchains may be subject to denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, 51% attacks, or other exploits targeting the consensus mechanism. These can delay transactions, compromise finality, or disrupt the accurate recording of transfers.

Centralisation concerns: Despite claims of decentralisation, a relatively small number of validators or a high concentration of stake may increase the risk of collusion, censorship, or coordinated network downtime, which can affect the resilience and operational reliability of the crypto-asset.

5. Bridge and interoperability risk

Where tokens can be bridged or wrapped across multiple blockchains, vulnerabilities in bridge protocols, validator sets, or locking mechanisms may result in loss, duplication, or misrepresentation of assets. Exploits or technical failures in these systems can instantly impact circulating supply, ownership claims, or token fungibility across chains.

6. Forking and protocol-upgrade risk

Network upgrades or disagreements among node operators or validators can result in blockchain “forks”, where the blockchain splits into two or more incompatible versions that continue separately from a shared past. This may lead to duplicate token representations or incompatibilities between exchanges and wallets. Until consensus stabilises, trading or transfers may be disrupted or misaligned. Such situations may be difficult for retail holders to navigate, particularly when trading platforms or wallets display inconsistent token information.

7. Economic-layer and abstraction risk

Mechanisms such as gas relayers, wrapped tokens, or synthetic representations may alter the transaction economics of the underlying token. Changes in transaction costs, token demand, or utility may reduce its usage and weaken both its economic function and perceived value within its ecosystem.

8. Spam and network-efficiency risk

High volumes of low-value (“dust”) or automated transactions may congest the network, slow validation times, inflate ledger size, and raise transaction costs. This can impair performance, reduce throughput, and expose address patterns to analysis, thereby reducing network efficiency and privacy.

9. Front-end and access-interface risk

If users rely on centralised web interfaces or hosted wallets to interact with the blockchain, service outages, malicious compromises, or domain expiries affecting these interfaces may block access to the crypto-asset, even while the blockchain itself remains fully functional. Dependence on single web portals introduces a critical point of failure outside the DLT layer.

10. Decentralisation claim risk

While the technical infrastructure may appear distributed, the actual governance or economic control of the project may lie with a small set of actors. This disconnect between marketing claims and structural reality can lead to regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage, or legal uncertainty – especially if the project is presented as ‘community-governed’ without substantiation.

None.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Binance Smart Chain and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto-assets, all implementations across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to Binance Smart Chain:

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 is intended to support fast block times and low fees while maintaining a level of decentralisation 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 support decentralisation 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, incentivising 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 help ensure there is a sufficient pool of nodes ready to take on validation tasks, supporting network resilience and decentralisation.

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, supporting a dynamic 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 PoSA mechanism, which allows validators to reach consensus efficiently.

Security and economic incentives

7. Staking: Validators are required to stake a substantial amount of BNB, which acts as collateral to support honest behaviour. This staked amount can be slashed if validators act maliciously.

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 economic incentives to maintain network security and performance.

9. Transaction fees: BSC employs low transaction fees, paid in BNB. These fees are collected by validators as part of their rewards, incentivising them to validate transactions accurately and efficiently.

The following applies to Ethereum:

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, and a validator is randomly selected to propose each new 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.

The crypto-asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Binance Smart Chain and Ethereum. In general, when evaluating crypto-assets, all implementations across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

The following applies to Binance Smart Chain:

Binance Smart Chain (BSC) uses the Proof of Staked Authority (PoSA) consensus mechanism to support network security and incentivise 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 chance 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 incentivises token holders to participate in the network’s security and decentralisation 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 help ensure there is a sufficient pool of nodes ready to take on validation tasks, supporting network resilience.

4. Economic Security: Slashing: Validators can be penalised for malicious behaviour or failure to perform their duties. Penalties can include slashing a portion of their staked tokens. Opportunity cost: Staking requires validators and delegators to lock up their BNB tokens, providing an economic incentive to act honestly to avoid losing 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 used to compensate validators. Dynamic fee structure: Transaction fees can vary based on network congestion and the complexity of transactions. However, BSC aims to keep fees significantly lower than those on the Ethereum mainnet.

6. Block rewards: Incentivising 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 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.

The following applies to Ethereum:

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.

The energy consumption of this asset is aggregated across multiple components: To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the networks BNB Smart Chain and 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.

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.