While Bitflow Lab s.r.o. does not issue any digital assets, we recognise our obligation as a crypto asset service provider to disclose information related to the principal climate and other environment-related adverse impacts of the consensus mechanisms used for the crypto assets that we make available to our clients.

• High Energy Consumption: Consensus mechanisms such as 'Proof of Work' (e.g., Bitcoin) require miners to perform complex computational tasks to validate transactions and secure the network. These tasks are computationally intensive, leading to enormous energy demands. As the network grows and more miners compete for rewards, the difficulty of these tasks increases, further raising energy consumption far exceeding 500,000 kWh. Consensus mechanisms using 'Proof of Stake' (e.g., Ethereum, Tron, Solana, FTN), consume far less energy and consume under 500,000 kWh.
• Carbon Emissions: The environmental impact of PoW is directly linked to the energy sources used by miners. In regions where coal or other fossil fuels dominate the energy grid, PoW mining leads to high carbon dioxide emissions. Even in areas with renewable energy, miners often use mixed grids that still include non-renewable sources, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
• E-Waste Generation: Mining requires specialized hardware that becomes obsolete as more efficient models are developed or as mining difficulty increases. Obsolete hardware contributes to electronic waste (e-waste), which is difficult to recycle and often ends up in landfills.

As the cryptocurrency industry continues to evolve, understanding the environmental impact of different consensus mechanisms is crucial for fostering a more sustainable future for blockchain technologies.

While Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work mechanism remains energy-intensive, newer systems like FastToken's Proof-of-Authority, Tron's Delegated Proof-of-Stake, and Solana's hybrid Proof-of-History model offer promising solutions with significantly lower energy consumption and carbon footprints.

However, no blockchain is entirely free from environmental challenges, and the responsibility lies with developers, miners, and the broader crypto community to adopt more energy-efficient practices.

As blockchain technology matures, efforts to minimize the ecological footprint - whether through renewable energy integration, protocol optimizations, or better governance - will be essential in ensuring that crypto assets contribute positively to the global economy without compromising the planet's well-being.

By continuing to innovate with sustainability in mind, the cryptocurrency ecosystem can lead the way toward a greener and more sustainable future, balancing technological advancements with environmental stewardship.

Environmental Impact of Used Cryptoassets

Cryptoasset	Consensus Mechanism	Energy Consumption	Carbon Footprint	Notes on Environmental Impact
Polygon (MATIC)	Proof of Stake (via Ethereum, + own PoS chain)	Low	Low	Polygon’s PoS chain is highly energy-efficient. Ethereum’s post-Merge energy consumption is about 0.01 TWh/year.
Tron (TRX)	Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS)	Very Low	Very Low	Uses 27 elected Super Representatives. Low hardware requirements and efficient validation.
The Open Network (TON)	Proof of Stake (via BFT-style consensus)	Very Low	Low	Validator-based PoS similar to Cosmos/Tendermint. Minimal energy use and carbon emissions.
Solana (SOL)	Proof of History + Delegated Proof of Stake	Low	Low	Energy-efficient hybrid mechanism. Estimated at about 0.01–0.05 TWh/year. Uses tower BFT for fast finality.
USDC (on Solana, Polygon)	Same as underlying chain	Low	Low	USDC is a token — its environmental impact is determined by the blockchain it operates on.

Detailed Notes by Crypto-Assets

Polygon (MATIC)

• Mechanism: PoS + Ethereum Layer 2 + zkEVM rollups (varies by implementation)
• Energy Use: less 0.0001 TWh/year (Polygon PoS chain)
• Source: Polygon Green Manifesto
• Note: Polygon claims carbon neutrality and offsets its emissions through verified carbon credits.

Tron (TRX)

• Mechanism: Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS)
• Energy Use: Minimal, as only a small number of Super Representatives validate transactions.
• Note: No official carbon report, but DPoS systems are widely accepted as being very low in emissions and energy.

TON (The Open Network)

• Mechanism: Byzantine Fault Tolerant PoS
• Energy Use: Not precisely reported, but consistent with other modern PoS blockchains.
• Note: TON’s consensus involves a small set of validators and was designed for mobile-first efficiency.

Solana (SOL)

• Mechanism: Proof of History + DPoS
• Energy Use: Estimated at ~0.01 TWh/year for the entire network (2022 data)
• Carbon Report: Solana Foundation Energy Report
• Note: Average energy per Solana transaction: ~0.9 kJ (less than two Google searches)

USDC (Solana, Polygon)

• Mechanism: Token on host blockchain (Solana or Polygon)
• Energy Use & Impact: Inherits the environmental footprint of its host blockchain.
• Note: USDC itself has no mining/validation footprint.

Annual Disclosure Commitment

Bitflow Lab s.r.o. continues to monitor and report the environmental footprint of supported cryptoassets. This information is reviewed and updated annually or upon major protocol changes.