Version 1

White paper drafted under the European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 for FFG 6V2VLBJV9

https://xbrl.org/2024/iso3166#KY false false Nicholas Emmons https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#OtherPersonInvolvedInImplementation https://xbrl.org/2024/iso3166#KY Luke Pearson https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#OtherPersonInvolvedInImplementation https://xbrl.org/2024/iso3166#KY Tekin Salimi https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#OtherPersonInvolvedInImplementation https://xbrl.org/2024/iso3166#KY Allora Services, Ltd. https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#OtherPersonInvolvedInImplementation https://xbrl.org/2024/iso3166#VG false https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#AdmissionToTrading 1000000000 Payward Global Solutions LTD PGSL The crypto-asset described in the white paper is classified as a crypto-asset under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) but is neither classified as an electronic money token (EMT) or an asset-referenced token (ART). It is a digital representation of value that can be stored and transferred using distributed ledger technology (DLT) or similar technology, without embodying or conferring any rights to its holder. The asset does not aim to maintain a stable value by referencing an official currency, a basket of assets, or any other underlying rights. Instead, its valuation is entirely market-driven, based on supply and demand dynamics, and not governed by a stabilisation mechanism. It is neither pegged to any fiat currency nor backed by any external assets, thereby clearly distinguishing it from EMTs and ARTs. Furthermore, the crypto-asset is not categorised as a financial instrument, deposit, insurance product, pension product, or any other regulated financial product under EU law. It does not grant financial rights, voting rights, or any contractual claims to its holders, ensuring that it remains outside the scope of regulatory frameworks applicable to traditional financial instruments. https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#OtherCryptoassetWhitePaper https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#NewTypeOfSubmission false true true https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#IrelandMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#AustriaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#BelgiumMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#BulgariaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#CroatiaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#CyprusMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#CzechiaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#DenmarkMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#EstoniaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#FinlandMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#FranceMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#GermanyMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#GreeceMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#HungaryMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#IcelandMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#ItalyMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#LatviaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#LiechtensteinMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#LithuaniaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#LuxembourgMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#MaltaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#NetherlandsMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#NorwayMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#PolandMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#PortugalMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#RomaniaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#SlovakiaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#SloveniaMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#SpainMemberState https://www.esma.europa.eu/taxonomy/2025-03-31/mica/#SwedenMemberState 357000000 false true false false false true false 32867.43156 33.1320248670 0.00007 0.00000 10.93871 0.00000 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-05 2026-01-19 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-05 2026-01-19 1 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-05 2026-01-19 0 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-05 2026-01-19 3 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-05 2026-01-19 1 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-19 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-05 2026-01-19 0 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-05 2026-01-19 2 635400YCITOZYZNKEE31 2026-01-05 2026-01-19 2 iso4217:EUR utr:kWh utr:tCO2e xbrli:pure

Preamble

00. Table of Content

  1. Preamble
  2. Part A – Information about the offeror or the person seeking admission to trading
  3. Part B – Information about the issuer, if different from the offeror or person seeking admission to trading
  4. Part C – Information about the operator of the trading platform in cases where it draws up the crypto-asset white paper and information about other persons drawing the crypto-asset white paper pursuant to Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114
  5. Part D – Information about the crypto-asset project
  6. Part E – Information about the offer to the public of crypto-assets or their admission to trading
  7. Part F – Information about the crypto-assets
  8. Part G – Information on the rights and obligations attached to the crypto-assets
  9. Part H – information on the underlying technology
  10. Part I – Information on risks
  11. Part J – Information on the sustainability indicators in relation to adverse impact on the climate and other environment-related adverse impacts

01. Date of notification

2026-01-19

02. Statement in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

This crypto-asset white paper has not been approved by any competent authority in any Member State of the European Union. The person seeking admission to trading of the crypto-asset is solely responsible for the content of this crypto-asset white paper.

03. Compliance statement in accordance with Article 6(6) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

This crypto-asset white paper complies with Title II of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council and, to the best of the knowledge of the management body, the information presented in the crypto-asset white paper is fair, clear and not misleading and the crypto-asset white paper makes no omission likely to affect its import.

04. Statement in accordance with Article 6(5), points (a), (b), (c), of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

The crypto-asset referred to in this crypto-asset white paper may lose its value in part or in full, may not always be transferable and may not be liquid.

05. Statement in accordance with Article 6(5), point (d), of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

Since the token has multiple functions (hybrid token), these are already conceptually not utility tokens within the meaning of the MiCAR within the definition of Article 3, 1. (9), due to the necessity “exclusively” being intended to provide access to a good or a service supplied by its issuer only.

06. Statement in accordance with Article 6(5), points (e) and (f), of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

The crypto-asset referred to in this white paper is not covered by the investor compensation schemes under Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council or the deposit guarantee schemes under Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Summary

07. Warning in accordance with Article 6(7), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

Warning: This summary should be read as an introduction to the crypto-asset white paper. The prospective holder should base any decision to purchase this crypto–asset on the content of the crypto-asset white paper as a whole and not on the summary alone. The offer to the public of this crypto-asset does not constitute an offer or solicitation to purchase financial instruments and any such offer or solicitation can be made only by means of a prospectus or other offer documents pursuant to the applicable national law. This crypto-asset white paper does not constitute a prospectus as referred to in Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council or any other offer document pursuant to union or national law.

08. Characteristics of the crypto-asset

The ALLO tokens referred to in this white paper are crypto-assets other than EMTs and ARTs, and are issued on the Allora, Ethereum, Base and BNB Smart Chain blockchain (2025-11-20 and according to DTI FFG shown in F.14) with a total number of 1,000,000,000 token. The first activity on Allora can be viewed on 2024-12-23 (see https://explorer.allora.network/explorer/blocks/1), on Ethereum on 2025-10-14 (see https://etherscan.io/tx/0x19843542542e4ce2bd04fa93b3dd3e4b76f96a2579bc47ee3be9872a051d32c3), on Base 2025-10-28 (see https://basescan.org/tx/0x01bff9b9903f7afb0492e20332824002aac4908a5f5d4b7226f5b82ce1418437) and on BNB Smart Chain on 2025-10-27 (see https://bscscan.com/tx/0x2c71c843143f86003a107c9f352a64802dff920efb3bf6a57cb55fffb77049f4).

Allora Network is a decentralised infrastructure designed to coordinate machine-learning models, data and computational resources within an open, permissionless environment. The project positions itself as an “intelligence layer” intended to facilitate the development and operation of AI-driven applications by connecting independent contributors who provide predictions, evaluations and related computational outputs across various domains.

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.

09. Information about the quality and quantity of goods or services to which the utility tokens give access and restrictions on the transferability

Not applicable.

10. Key information about the offer to the public or admission to trading

ALLORA FOUNDATION is seeking admission to trading on Payward Global Solutions LTD ("Kraken") platform in the European Union in accordance with 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 admission to trading is not accompanied by a public offer of the crypto-asset.

Part A – Information about the offeror or the person seeking admission to trading

A.1 Name

ALLORA FOUNDATION

A.2 Legal form

4XP8

A.3 Registered address

ALLORA FOUNDATION, Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square

CAYMAN ISLANDS

KY1-9010

A.4 Head office

Not applicable.

A.5 Registration date

2024-05-12

A.6 Legal entity identifier

635400YCITOZYZNKEE31

A.7 Another identifier required pursuant to applicable national law

Not applicable.

A.8 Contact telephone number

929 613 0607

A.9 E-mail address

legal@allora.network

A.10 Response time (Days)

030

A.11 Parent company

Not applicable.

A.12 Members of the management body

Identity Function Business Address
Tekin Salimi Supervisor & Director Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square, Grand Cayman, KY1-9010, CAYMAN ISLANDS
Nicholas Emmons Director Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square, Grand Cayman, KY1-9010, CAYMAN ISLANDS
Luke Pearson Director Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square, Grand Cayman, KY1-9010, CAYMAN ISLANDS

A.13 Business activity

The Allora Foundation is a steward of the Allora Network. Our mission is to expand the network’s reach, support developers and researchers, and ensure Allora remains the intelligence layer of the future. The Foundation Company is a holding company for two BVI sub entities that engage in contracts, holding assets, developing code, etc. on it’s behalf.

A.14 Parent company business activity

Not applicable.

A.15 Newly established

No

A.16 Financial condition for the past three years

Not applicable.

A.17 Financial condition since registration

The Allora Foundation is a pure holding company with correspondingly limited financial resources. Due to its recent establishment, there is no significant financial history available. The company has limited share capital and does not generate any material revenues, nor does it maintain significant cost structures. No financing rounds, external funding, or public grants have been conducted or received to date.

Part B – Information about the issuer, if different from the offeror or person seeking admission to trading

B.1 Issuer different from offeror or person seeking admission to trading

No

B.2 Name

Not applicable.

B.3 Legal form

Not applicable.

B4. Registered address

Not applicable.

B.5 Head office

Not applicable.

B.6 Registration date

Not applicable.

B.7 Legal entity identifier

Not applicable.

B.8 Another identifier required pursuant to applicable national law

Not applicable.

B.9 Parent company

Not applicable.

B.10 Members of the management body

Not applicable.

B.11 Business activity

Not applicable.

B.12 Parent company business activity

Not applicable.

Part C – Information about the operator of the trading platform in cases where it draws up the crypto-asset white paper and information about other persons drawing the crypto-asset white paper pursuant to Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

C.1 Name

Not applicable.

C.2 Legal form

Not applicable.

C.3 Registered address

Not applicable.

C.4 Head office

Not applicable.

C.5 Registration date

Not applicable.

C.6 Legal entity identifier

Not applicable.

C.7 Another identifier required pursuant to applicable national law

Not applicable.

C.8 Parent company

Not applicable.

C.9 Reason for crypto-Asset white paper Preparation

Not applicable.

C.10 Members of the Management body

Not applicable.

C.11 Operator business activity

Not applicable.

C.12 Parent company business activity

Not applicable.

C.13 Other persons drawing up the crypto-asset white paper according to Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

Not applicable.

C.14 Reason for drawing the white paper by persons referred to in Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114

Not applicable.

Part D – Information about the crypto-asset project

D.1 Crypto-asset project name

Long Name: "Allora", Short Name: "ALLO" according to the Digital Token Identifier Foundation (www.dtif.org, DTI see F.13, FFG DTI see F.14 as of 2026-01-16).

D.2 Crypto-assets name

Long Name: "Allora", according to the Digital Token Identifier Foundation (www.dtif.org, DTI see F.13, FFG DTI see F.14 as of 2026-01-16).

D.3 Abbreviation

Short Name: "ALLO" according to the Digital Token Identifier Foundation (www.dtif.org, DTI see F.13, FFG DTI see F.14 as of 2026-01-16).

D.4 Crypto-asset project description

Allora Network is a decentralised technological infrastructure designed to facilitate the coordination of machine-learning models, data inputs and computational resources within an open and permissionless environment. The network provides a framework in which independent participants can contribute predictive outputs, assess the quality of such outputs and engage in processes that support the generation, evaluation and aggregation of model-driven information.

The architectural structure of the network is modular and distinguishes between different functional participant roles. Entities that generate model-based predictions or other inference outputs (“workers”) provide computational results within specific subject domains referred to as “topics”. Parallel to this, entities that assess the validity, accuracy and relevance of these outputs (“reputers”) contribute evaluation data that influences the standing and weighting of worker contributions within each topic. These mechanisms are collectively intended to support a feedback loop in which the aggregated outputs evolve over time, informed by performance assessments and topic-level evaluation processes.

Topics operate as defined domains in which model outputs, evaluations and weighting processes take place. Participants engage by producing predictions, validating output quality or providing delegated support to topic-level activities. The network applies reputation and weighting mechanisms that adjust dynamically based on observed performance indicators. These processes form the basis for the continuous refinement of aggregated predictions and other inference-based outputs.

The network includes an economic layer in which the native crypto-asset ALLO functions as a medium of exchange within network activities. The crypto-asset is used for accessing inference outputs, participating in topic activities and engaging in certain staking-based mechanisms linked to network operation. Transfers of the crypto-asset are facilitated across multiple blockchain networks through interoperability standards that enable cross-chain movement.

The Allora Network ecosystem comprises software infrastructure, contributing entities engaged in development and maintenance activities, external participants providing computational resources and model outputs, and individuals or organisations interacting with the network’s inference services. The system’s functioning depends on ongoing contributions, operational reliability and the sustained participation of independent actors. As with emerging decentralised infrastructures, the long-term performance, adoption and governance of the network are subject to technical, market-related, operational and regulatory uncertainties.

D.5 Details of all natural or legal persons involved in the implementation of the crypto-asset project

Type of person Name of person Business address of person Domicile of company

Other person involved in implementation

Nicholas Emmons

Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square, Grand Cayman, KY1-9010

Cayman Islands

Other person involved in implementation

Luke Pearson

Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square, Grand Cayman, KY1-9010

Cayman Islands

Other person involved in implementation

Tekin Salimi

Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square, Grand Cayman, KY1-9010

Cayman Islands

Other person involved in implementation

Allora Services, Ltd.

Floor 4, Banco Popular Building, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110

British Virgin Islands

D.6 Utility Token Classification

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 service supplied solely by the issuer.

D.7 Key Features of Goods/Services for Utility Token Projects

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 service supplied solely by the issuer.

D.8 Plans for the token

The development of the Allora Network follows a phased roadmap that outlines the technical progression of the network, the expansion of topic categories, and the growth of the surrounding ecosystem. The roadmap represents the intended sequencing of functionalities, integrations and infrastructure enhancements that form part of the broader development trajectory of the project. The milestones described below represent completed or ongoing activities as well as planned developments that are intended to be implemented across successive phases of the network.

Historical Milestones:

Earlier development activities focused on establishing core machine-learning and inference capabilities within the network, including classification tasks, prediction-related outputs and the introduction of multi-domain topics such as financial markets, real-world assets and gaming. The network expanded to support multichain transfers of the crypto-asset and introduced staking-related reward mechanisms. Initial ecosystem integrations were implemented, including the incorporation of the crypto-asset into decentralised finance environments and the provision of developer tooling for AI/ML contributors. Early enterprise integrations and private inference functions were also introduced, accompanied by the expansion of topic categories into areas such as commodities, fiat-currency-related modelling and event-probability estimation.

Future Milestones:

Planned developments include the introduction of mechanisms intended to broaden participation by removing whitelisting requirements for contributors, the addition of unsupervised learning capabilities such as anomaly detection and clustering, and the extension of the network into request/response-based topic structures. Future work also includes multi-functional topic formats, enhanced data-availability layers based on cryptographic proofs and mechanisms designed to detect irregular or abusive behaviour within network participation. Additional areas of planned development include the integration of large language models, generative-AI functionalities and robotics-related inference capabilities.

D.9 Resource allocation

The total supply of the ALLO crypto-asset is divided across several predefined categories that structure the intended distribution of resources within the Allora Network ecosystem. The allocation framework is designed to support network participation, operational activities, ecosystem development and contributions from early stakeholders.

A total of 31.05 % of the supply is allocated to Early Backers. This category encompasses entities that provided early-stage support to the development of the network. These allocations are generally associated with vesting or lock-up arrangements intended to align long-term incentives and mitigate concentration risks at the outset of network operation.

An additional 21.45 % of the supply is assigned to Network Emissions. This category represents the portion intended to support ongoing network participation, including rewards associated with the operation of the network’s mechanisms for contribution, evaluation and staking-related activities. The size of this allocation reflects the aim of ensuring continued participation in the network over an extended period.

Allocations to Core Contributors amount to 17.50 % of the total supply. This portion is intended to compensate individuals and entities contributing to the development, maintenance and long-term operation of the network infrastructure. Vesting schedules or similar mechanisms may apply to ensure alignment between contributor compensation and the sustained development of the protocol.

A combined 9.35 % of the supply is allocated to the Foundation. This portion is intended to support governance, operational stability, administrative functions and long-term strategic planning connected to the network. The Foundation allocation plays a structural role in maintaining organisational continuity and supporting non-commercial activities relevant to the ecosystem.

Allocations to the Community represent 9.30 % of the total supply. This portion includes resources intended for programmes designed to foster community participation, engagement, education and other community-oriented activities. The allocation may also be used to support initiatives that broaden access to the network or incentivise early participation from network users.

A further 8.85 % is attributed to Ecosystem & Partnerships, which covers resources intended to support integrations, external collaborations, ecosystem expansion initiatives and partnerships with third parties. This allocation is structured to facilitate the development of complementary services and infrastructure that may contribute to the network’s broader functionality and reach.

The Allora Prime Program, including staking-related rewards, accounts for 2.50 % of the total supply. This category supports participation in the Prime Program and is intended to incentivise sustained involvement in the network’s extended participation mechanisms.

D.10 Planned use of Collected funds or crypto-Assets

Not applicable, as this white paper was drawn up for the admission to trading and not for collecting funds for the crypto-asset-project.

Part E – Information about the offer to the public of crypto-assets or their admission to trading

E.1 Public offering or admission to trading

The white paper concerns the admission to trading (i. e. ATTR).

E.2 Reasons for public offer or admission to trading

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.

E.3 Fundraising target

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

E.4 Minimum subscription goals

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

E.5 Maximum subscription goals

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.

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

E.6 Oversubscription acceptance

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

E.7 Oversubscription allocation

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

E.8 Issue price

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

E.9 Official currency or any other crypto-assets determining the issue price

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

E.10 Subscription fee

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.

E.11 Offer price determination method

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

E.12 Total number of offered/traded crypto-assets

The total supply of the crypto-asset is set at 1,000,000,000 units. Investors should note that changes in the token supply can have a negative impact. The effective amount of tokens available on the market depends on the number of tokens released by the issuer or other parties at any given time, as well as potential reductions through token “burning.” As a result, the circulating supply may differ from the total supply.

E.13 Targeted holders

The admission of the crypto-asset to trading is open to all types of investors.

E.14 Holder restrictions

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

E.15 Reimbursement notice

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

E.16 Refund mechanism

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

E.17 Refund timeline

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

E.18 Offer phases

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

E.19 Early purchase discount

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

E.20 Time-limited offer

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

E.21 Subscription period beginning

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

E.22 Subscription period end

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

E.23 Safeguarding arrangements for offered funds/crypto- Assets

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

E.24 Payment methods for crypto-asset purchase

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

E.25 Value transfer methods for reimbursement

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

E.26 Right of withdrawal

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

E.27 Transfer of purchased crypto-assets

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

E.28 Transfer time schedule

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

E.29 Purchaser's technical requirements

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

E.30 Crypto-asset service provider (CASP) name

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

E.31 CASP identifier

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

E.32 Placement form

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

E.33 Trading platforms name

The admission to trading is sought on Payward Global Solutions LTD ("Kraken").

E.34 Trading platforms Market identifier code (MIC)

The Market Identifier Code (MIC) of Payward Global Solutions LTD ("Kraken") is PGSL.

E.35 Trading platforms access

The token is intended to be listed on the trading platform operated by Payward Global Solutions LTD ("Kraken"). Access to this platform depends on regional availability and user eligibility under Kraken’s terms and conditions. Investors should consult Kraken’s official documentation to determine whether they meet the requirements for account creation and token trading.

E.36 Involved costs

The costs involved in accessing the trading platform depend on the specific fee structure and terms of the respective crypto-asset service provider. These may include trading fees, deposit or withdrawal charges, and network-related gas fees. Investors are advised to consult the applicable fee schedule of the chosen platform before engaging in trading activities.

E.37 Offer expenses

Not applicable, as this crypto-asset white paper concerns the admission to trading and not the offer of the token to the public.

E.38 Conflicts of interest

MiCAR-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 adressing, potential investors should always check the conflicts of Interest policy of their respective counterparty.

E.39 Applicable law

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

E.40 Competent court

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

Part F – Information about the crypto-assets

F.1 Crypto-asset type

The crypto-asset described in the white paper is classified as a crypto-asset under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) but does not qualify as an electronic money token (EMT) or an asset-referenced token (ART). It is a digital representation of value that can be stored and transferred using distributed ledger technology (DLT) or similar technology, without embodying or conferring any rights to its holder.

The asset does not aim to maintain a stable value by referencing an official currency, a basket of assets, or any other underlying rights. Instead, its valuation is entirely market-driven, based on supply and demand dynamics, and not supported by a stabilization mechanism. It is neither pegged to any fiat currency nor backed by any external assets, distinguishing it clearly from EMTs and ARTs.

Furthermore, the crypto-asset is not categorized as a financial instrument, deposit, insurance product, pension product, or any other regulated financial product under EU law. It does not grant financial rights, voting rights, or any contractual claims to its holders, ensuring that it remains outside the scope of regulatory frameworks applicable to traditional financial instruments.

F.2 Crypto-asset functionality

The ALLO crypto-asset is used within the Allora Network as the medium through which interactions between participants and network mechanisms are facilitated. Its functionality is tied to processes that involve accessing inference outputs, participating in topic-level activities, and engaging with mechanisms related to contribution, evaluation and staking within the network.

Participants may use the crypto-asset to access predictive or inference outputs generated by workers operating across various topics. Engagement in topic-level activities - such as contributing model outputs, providing evaluations or supporting specific topic domains - requires the use of the crypto-asset as part of the network’s internal coordination process. Staking mechanisms also involve the crypto-asset, enabling participants to support topic operation or contribute to processes connected to network reliability and participation incentives.

The crypto-asset is transferable across multiple supported blockchain networks through interoperability standards applied by the project, allowing holders to move the asset between environments in which the network operates. The functionality of the crypto-asset is therefore linked to (i) participation in the network’s inference and evaluation mechanisms, (ii) access to topic-level outputs and (iii) the broader operation of staking-related and cross-chain transfer processes within the ecosystem.

There is no guarantee that all functionalities will be available or remain unchanged over time.

F.3 Planned application of functionalities

The functionalities associated with the ALLO crypto-asset are planned to apply progressively as additional components of the Allora Network are implemented. Core functions - such as the use of the crypto-asset for accessing inference outputs, participating in topic-level activities and engaging in staking-related mechanisms - are intended to apply as soon as the corresponding network modules become operational. Further functionalities linked to expanded topic types, enhanced machine-learning capabilities and broader interoperability are planned to apply in line with future development stages outlined in the network roadmap. The timing of applicability may vary depending on technical deployment, integration processes and the activation of individual network features.

A description of the characteristics of the crypto asset, including the data necessary for classification of the crypto-asset white paper in the register referred to in Article 109 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, as specified in accordance with paragraph 8 of that Article

F.4 Type of crypto-asset white paper

The white paper type is "other crypto-assets" (i. e. "OTHR").

F.5 The type of submission

The white paper submission type is "NEWT", which stands for new token.

F.6 Crypto-asset characteristics

The tokens are crypto-assets other than EMTs and ARTs, which are available on the Ethereum, Allora, Base 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.

F.7 Commercial name or trading name

Allora

F.8 Website of the issuer

https://www.allora.network/

F.9 Starting date of offer to the public or admission to trading

2026-02-18

F.10 Publication date

2026-02-18

F.11 Any other services provided by the issuer

No such services are currently known to be provided by the issuer. However, it cannot be excluded that additional services exist or may be offered in the future outside the scope of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.

F.12 Language or languages of the crypto-asset white paper

EN

F.13 Digital token identifier code used to uniquely identify the crypto-asset or each of the several crypto assets to which the white paper relates

4K443Q4XJ; 38X7QXMPW; 9LBVSLGHZ; D5VND56R1

F.14 Functionally fungible group digital token identifier

6V2VLBJV9

F.15 Voluntary data flag

This white paper has been submitted as mandatory under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.

F.16 Personal data flag

The white paper does contain personal data.

F.17 LEI eligibility

The issuer is eligible for a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI).

F.18 Home Member State

Ireland

F.19 Host Member States

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway

Part G – Information on the rights and obligations attached to the crypto-assets

G.1 Purchaser rights and obligations

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 claim capable of legal enforcement against the issuer or any third party.

G.2 Exercise of rights and obligations

As the crypto-asset does not establish 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 technical infrastructure of the project - such as participation mechanisms or protocol-level features - serves an operational purpose only and does not create or evidence a contractual or statutory entitlement.

G.3 Conditions for modifications of rights and obligations

Because the crypto-asset does not confer legally enforceable rights or obligations, there are no conditions or mechanisms under which such rights could be modified.

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 any legal position of holders, as no contractual or regulatory rights exist. Holders should not interpret technical updates or governance-related changes as amendments to legally binding entitlements.

G.4 Future public offers

Information on the future offers to the public of crypto-assets were not available at the time of writing this white paper (2026-01-08).

G.5 Issuer retained crypto-assets

The total supply of the ALLO crypto-asset is divided across several predefined categories that structure the intended distribution of resources within the Allora Network ecosystem. The allocation framework is designed to support network participation, operational activities, ecosystem development and contributions from early stakeholders.

A total of 31.05 % of the supply is allocated to Early Backers. This category encompasses entities that provided early-stage support to the development of the network. These allocations are generally associated with vesting or lock-up arrangements intended to align long-term incentives and mitigate concentration risks at the outset of network operation.

An additional 21.45 % of the supply is assigned to Network Emissions. This category represents the portion intended to support ongoing network participation, including rewards associated with the operation of the network’s mechanisms for contribution, evaluation and staking-related activities. The size of this allocation reflects the aim of ensuring continued participation in the network over an extended period.

Allocations to Core Contributors amount to 17.50 % of the total supply. This portion is intended to compensate individuals and entities contributing to the development, maintenance and long-term operation of the network infrastructure. Vesting schedules or similar mechanisms may apply to ensure alignment between contributor compensation and the sustained development of the protocol.

A combined 9.35 % of the supply is allocated to the Foundation. This portion is intended to support governance, operational stability, administrative functions and long-term strategic planning connected to the network. The Foundation allocation plays a structural role in maintaining organisational continuity and supporting non-commercial activities relevant to the ecosystem.

Allocations to the Community represent 9.30 % of the total supply. This portion includes resources intended for programmes designed to foster community participation, engagement, education and other community-oriented activities. The allocation may also be used to support initiatives that broaden access to the network or incentivise early participation from network users.

A further 8.85 % is attributed to Ecosystem & Partnerships, which covers resources intended to support integrations, external collaborations, ecosystem expansion initiatives and partnerships with third parties. This allocation is structured to facilitate the development of complementary services and infrastructure that may contribute to the network’s broader functionality and reach.

The Allora Prime Program, including staking-related rewards, accounts for 2.50 % of the total supply. This category supports participation in the Prime Program and is intended to incentivise sustained involvement in the network’s extended participation mechanisms.

A portion of the allocations - specifically the categories Foundation (9.35 %), Core Contributors (17.50 %), and Ecosystem & Partnerships (8.85 %) - may, in a broader sense, be regarded as allocations that remain under the control or influence of entities involved in the ongoing development, operation, or governance of the network, and can therefore be considered issuer-retained in an extended interpretation.

G.6 Utility token classification

No – the crypto-asset project does not concern utility tokens as defined in Article 3(9) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.

G.7 Key features of goods/services of utility tokens

Not applicable, as the crypto-asset described herein is not a utility token.

G.8 Utility tokens redemption

Not applicable, as the crypto-asset described herein is not a utility token.

G.9 Non-trading request

The admission to trading is sought.

G.10 Crypto-assets purchase or sale modalities

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

G.11 Crypto-assets transfer restrictions

The crypto-assets as such do not have any transfer restrictions and are generally freely transferable. The Crypto Asset Service Providers can impose their own restrictions in agreements they enter with their clients. The Crypto Asset Service Providers may impose restrictions to buyers and sellers in accordance with applicable laws and internal policies and terms.

G.12 Supply adjustment protocols

No, there are no fixed protocols that can increase or decrease the supply implemented as of 2025-10-17. Also, it is possible to decrease the circulating supply, by transferring crypto-assets to so called "burn-addresses", which are addresses that render the crypto-asset "non-transferable" after sent to those addresses.

G.13 Supply adjustment mechanisms

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

G.14 Token value protection schemes

No – the crypto-asset does not have any mechanisms or schemes in place that aim to stabilise or protect its market value. Its value is determined solely by market supply and demand, and may be subject to significant volatility.

G.15 Token value protection schemes description

Not applicable, as the crypto-asset in scope does not have any value protection scheme in place.

G.16 Compensation schemes

No – the crypto-asset does not have any compensation scheme.

G.17 Compensation schemes description

Not applicable, as the crypto-asset in scope does not have any compensation scheme in place.

G.18 Applicable law

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

G.19 Competent court

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

Part H – information on the underlying technology

H.1 Distributed ledger technology (DTL)

The crypto asset in scope will be implemented on the DLT network Ethereum, Allora, Base and BNB Smart Chain as a token, following the standards described below.

H.2 Protocols and technical standards

he crypto asset that is the subject of this white paper is available on multiple DLT networks. These include: Ethereum, Allora, Base and BNB Smart Chain. In general, when evaluating crypto assets, the total number of tokens issued across different networks must always be taken into account, as spillover effects can be adverse for investors.

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. It is running on the Ethereum blockchain. 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 following applies to Allora:

The Allora Network operates as a hub chain within the Cosmos ecosystem and therefore relies on the protocol stack and interoperability standards that form part of the Cosmos architecture. The network makes use of CometBFT as the underlying consensus engine, which serves as the transaction ordering and block production layer within the network. Cross-chain functionality is supported through interoperability standards that enable movement of the crypto-asset between multiple blockchain environments. These standards allow the network to interact with external ecosystems while maintaining compatibility with the technical requirements of the Cosmos framework.

The following applies to Base:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that was introduced by Coinbase and developed using Optimism's OP Stack. L2 transactions do not have their own consensus mechanism and are only validated by the execution clients. The so-called sequencer regularly bundles stacks of L2 transactions and publishes them on the L1 network, i.e. Ethereum. Ethereum's consensus mechanism (Proof-of-stake) thus indirectly secures all L2 transactions as soon as they are written to L1.

The following applies to BNB Smart Chain:

Binance Smart Chain (BSC) is a Layer-1 blockchain that utilizes a Proof-of-Staked Authority (PoSA) consensus mechanism. This mechanism combines elements of Proof-of-Authority (PoA) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) 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.

H.3 Technology used

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

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 following applies to Allora:

The technological foundation of the Allora Network combines machine-learning inference infrastructure with blockchain-based coordination mechanisms. The network incorporates components for processing model outputs, evaluating the accuracy of those outputs and aggregating quality-weighted results across defined topics. These processes are embedded into a blockchain environment that manages participation, staking and topic-level interactions. The combination of AI-related computation and distributed ledger infrastructure forms the operational basis through which inference, evaluation and reward mechanisms are executed. Validators maintain the underlying chain using Cosmos-based technology, while workers and reputers interact with the machine-learning layers through the participation rules defined by the network.

The following applies to Base:

1. Base-Compatible Wallets:The tokens are supported by all wallets compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), such as MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet, and Trust Wallet. These wallets interact with Base in the same way as with other EVM-compatible chains, using standard Web3 interfaces.

2. Decentralized Ledger:Base operates as a Layer-2 blockchain on Ethereum and maintains its own decentralized ledger for recording token transactions. Final transaction data is periodically posted to Ethereum Layer 1, ensuring long-term availability and resistance to tampering.

3. ERC-20 Token Standard:The Base network supports tokens implemented under the ERC-20 standard, the same as on Ethereum.

4. Scalability and Transaction Efficiency:

As a rollup-based Layer-2, Base is intended to handle high volumes of transactions with lower fees compared to Ethereum Layer 1. This is enabled by off-chain execution and on-chain data posting via optimistic rollup architecture"

The following applies to BNB 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. Ledger

BSC maintains its own decentralized 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.

H.4 Consensus mechanism

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

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 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.

The following applies to Allora:

The Allora Network uses CometBFT Proof-of-Stake as its consensus mechanism. Under this model, network validators maintain the blockchain by validating transactions and producing blocks according to the stake delegated to them. The mechanism operates in line with the standard characteristics of Proof-of-Stake within the Cosmos environment, with validator participation determining the security and liveness of the chain. Stake delegation influences validator selection, and consensus finality is achieved through the CometBFT engine that the network incorporates as part of its core infrastructure.

The following applies to Base:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that was introduced by Coinbase and developed using Optimism's OP Stack. L2 transactions do not have their own consensus mechanism and are only validated by the execution clients. The so-called sequencer regularly bundles stacks of L2 transactions and publishes them on the L1 network, i.e. Ethereum. Ethereum's consensus mechanism (Proof-of-stake) thus indirectly secures all L2 transactions as soon as they are written to L1.

The following applies to BNB 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 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.

H.5 Incentive mechanisms and applicable fees

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

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 following applies to Allora:

Incentive mechanisms within the Allora Network apply to different participant groups and operate through reward structures tied to their respective roles. Workers receive rewards based on the quality of the inferences they provide within specific topics, while reputers receive rewards that reflect the accuracy of their evaluation activities and their stake within the network. Validators receive rewards determined by the amount of stake associated with their validator position. Consumers of inference outputs pay fees in the native crypto-asset, and these fees are distributed across supply-side participants in connection with their contributions. The incentive mechanisms therefore link inference production, evaluation accuracy and validator staking to the distribution of rewards and fees within the network.

The following applies to Base:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that uses optimistic rollups provided by the OP Stack on which it was developed. Transaction on base are bundled by a, so called, sequencer and the result is regularly submitted as an Layer-1 (L1) transactions. This way many L2 transactions get combined into a single L1 transaction. This lowers the average transaction cost per transaction, because many L2 transactions together fund the transaction cost for the single L1 transaction. This creates incentives to use base rather than the L1, i.e. Ethereum, itself. To get crypto-assets in and out of base, a special smart contract on Ethereum is used. Since there is no consensus mechanism on L2 an additional mechanism ensures that only existing funds can be withdrawn from L2. When a user wants to withdraw funds, that user needs to submit a withdrawal request on L1. If this request remains unchallenged for a period of time the funds can be withdrawn. During this time period any other user can submit a fault proof, which will start a dispute resolution process. This process is designed with economic incentives for correct behaviour.

The following applies to BNB Smart Chain:

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.

H.6 Use of distributed ledger technology

Yes, DLT operated by the issuer, offeror, a person seeking admission to trading or a third-party acting on the issuer’s their behalf. This applies only to implementationsAllora network.

The following applies to implementations on Ethereum, Base and BNB Smart Chain:

No, DLT not operated by the issuer, offeror, a person seeking admission to trading or a third-party acting on the issuer’s their behalf.

H.7 DLT functionality description

The following applies to Allora:

The Allora Network operates on distributed ledger technology implemented as a hub chain within the Cosmos ecosystem. The underlying ledger is maintained through the CometBFT Proof-of-Stake framework, which provides transaction ordering, block production and consensus finality. Validators maintain the state of the ledger by validating transactions and producing blocks according to the delegated-stake model embedded in the Cosmos environment.

The DLT functions as the coordination layer for interactions among participants, including the recording of inference submissions, evaluation activities, staking positions and reward distributions. The ledger ensures that contributions by workers, reputers and validators are recorded in a verifiable and tamper-resistant manner. Transactions, fee payments and staking operations are processed through the same consensus-secured infrastructure, enabling consistent state updates across the network.

The DLT additionally supports cross-chain functionality through interoperability standards associated with Cosmos-based infrastructure, allowing the network to interface with external chains and enabling the transfer of the crypto-asset across multiple blockchain environments. These functionalities form the basis through which participation, network security and state transitions are executed.

The following applies to Ethereum, Base and BNB Smart Chain: Not applicable.

H.8 Audit

As the term “technology” encompasses a broad range of components, it cannot be confirmed that all elements or aspects of the technology employed have undergone a comprehensive and systematic technical examination. Accordingly, the answer to whether an audit of the technology used has been conducted must be no. This white paper focuses primarily on risk-related aspects and therefore does not imply, nor should it be interpreted as implying, that a full assessment or audit of all technological elements has been conducted.

H.9 Audit outcome

Not applicable.

Part I – Information on risks

I.1 Offer-related risks

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 platform admitting it 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 centralized exchanges (CEXs) or decentralized 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 favorable 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 though 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 centralized or decentralized 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 admitting 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-type 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 recognized in the counterparty’s jurisdiction.

5. Operational and information risks

Due to the irrevocability of blockchain transactions, incorrect 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.

I.2 Issuer-related risks

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, wars). 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.

I.3 Crypto-assets-related risks

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 – such as meme coins or purely speculative tokens – 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. 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, report 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.

I.4 Project implementation-related risks

As this white paper relates to the admission to trading of the crypto-asset, the following risk description reflects general implementation risks on the crypto-asset service provider's side typically associated with crypto-asset projects. The party admitting the 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 token’s practical utility.

I.5 Technology-related risks

As this white paper relates to the 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 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.

Centralization 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.

I.6 Mitigation measures

None.

Part J – Information on the sustainability indicators in relation to adverse impact on the climate and other environment-related adverse impacts

J.1 Adverse impacts on climate and other environment-related adverse impacts

S.1 Name

ALLORA FOUNDATION

S.2 Relevant legal entity identifier

635400YCITOZYZNKEE31

S.3 Name of the cryptoasset

Allora

S.4 Consensus Mechanism

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

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 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.

The following applies to Allora:

The Allora Network uses CometBFT Proof-of-Stake as its consensus mechanism. Under this model, network validators maintain the blockchain by validating transactions and producing blocks according to the stake delegated to them. The mechanism operates in line with the standard characteristics of Proof-of-Stake within the Cosmos environment, with validator participation determining the security and liveness of the chain. Stake delegation influences validator selection, and consensus finality is achieved through the CometBFT engine that the network incorporates as part of its core infrastructure.

The following applies to Base:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that was introduced by Coinbase and developed using Optimism's OP Stack. L2 transactions do not have their own consensus mechanism and are only validated by the execution clients. The so-called sequencer regularly bundles stacks of L2 transactions and publishes them on the L1 network, i.e. Ethereum. Ethereum's consensus mechanism (Proof-of-stake) thus indirectly secures all L2 transactions as soon as they are written to L1.

The following applies to BNB 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 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.

S.5 Incentive Mechanisms and Applicable Fees

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

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 following applies to Allora:

Incentive mechanisms within the Allora Network apply to different participant groups and operate through reward structures tied to their respective roles. Workers receive rewards based on the quality of the inferences they provide within specific topics, while reputers receive rewards that reflect the accuracy of their evaluation activities and their stake within the network. Validators receive rewards determined by the amount of stake associated with their validator position. Consumers of inference outputs pay fees in the native crypto-asset, and these fees are distributed across supply-side participants in connection with their contributions. The incentive mechanisms therefore link inference production, evaluation accuracy and validator staking to the distribution of rewards and fees within the network.

The following applies to Base:

Base is a Layer-2 (L2) solution on Ethereum that uses optimistic rollups provided by the OP Stack on which it was developed. Transaction on base are bundled by a, so called, sequencer and the result is regularly submitted as an Layer-1 (L1) transactions. This way many L2 transactions get combined into a single L1 transaction. This lowers the average transaction cost per transaction, because many L2 transactions together fund the transaction cost for the single L1 transaction. This creates incentives to use base rather than the L1, i.e. Ethereum, itself. To get crypto-assets in and out of base, a special smart contract on Ethereum is used. Since there is no consensus mechanism on L2 an additional mechanism ensures that only existing funds can be withdrawn from L2. When a user wants to withdraw funds, that user needs to submit a withdrawal request on L1. If this request remains unchallenged for a period of time the funds can be withdrawn. During this time period any other user can submit a fault proof, which will start a dispute resolution process. This process is designed with economic incentives for correct behaviour.

The following applies to BNB Smart Chain:

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.

S.6 Beginning of the period to which the disclosure relates

2025-01-16

S.7 End of the period to which the disclosure relates

2026-01-16

S.8 Energy consumption

32867.43156 kWh/a

S.9 Energy consumption sources 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. Due to the structure of this network, it is not only the mainnet that is responsible for energy consumption. In order to calculate the structure adequately, a proportion of the energy consumption of the connected network, ethereum, must also be taken into account, because the connected network is also responsible for security. This proportion is determined on the basis of gas consumption. 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.

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.

S.10 Renewable energy consumption

33.1320248670 %

S.11 Energy intensity

0.00007 kWh

S.12 Scope 1 DLT GHG emissions – Controlled

0.00000 tCO2e/a

S.13 Scope 2 DLT GHG emissions – Purchased

10.93871 tCO2e/a

S.14 GHG intensity

0.00002 kgCO2e

S.15 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.

S.16 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.