Prezzo: Cronos

OKCoin Europe Ltd

54930069NLWEIGLHXU42

Cronos

Cronos is present on the following networks: Cronos, Cronos Pos, Ethereum. Cronos operates on a Proof of Stake (PoS) model integrated with Tendermint’s Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) consensus, designed for decentralization, security, and interoperability. This model enables validators to be selected based on staking power, rewarding them for securing and validating the network. Core Components: Proof of Stake (PoS) with Tendermint BFT Validator Selection: Validators are chosen based on the amount of CRO tokens staked, securing the network and producing blocks. Delegation Model: Token holders can delegate their CRO to validators, enabling participation in network security without needing to run a validator node. Cosmos SDK and Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) Cross-Chain Connectivity: Built on the Cosmos SDK, Cronos enables cross-chain communication, connecting to other Cosmos blockchains and ecosystems such as Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain. The Cronos POS Chain operates as a Layer-0 blockchain within the Cosmos ecosystem, utilizing the Tendermint Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) consensus engine. It employs a Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) model, where the top 100 validators by total staked CRO tokens form the active set responsible for block production and network security. 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.

Cronos is present on the following networks: Cronos, Cronos Pos, Ethereum. Cronos incentivizes validators and delegators with staking rewards and transaction fees, aligning economic incentives with network security and growth. Incentive Mechanisms: Staking Rewards Validators and Delegators: Both groups earn CRO rewards for supporting network security. Delegators earn a portion of the validator rewards, promoting broader network participation. Deflationary Mechanism Token Burning: A portion of transaction fees and staking rewards may be periodically burned, reducing CRO supply over time and potentially increasing token value. Applicable Fees: Transaction and Smart Contract Fees Standard Transactions: Users pay CRO for network transactions and dApp interactions, providing a steady income for validators. Ethereum-Compatible Gas Fees: Executing Ethereum-compatible smart contracts incurs gas fees, similar to Ethereum, payable in CRO. The Cronos POS Chain uses its native CRO token to coordinate economic incentives and governance. Validators are rewarded for producing and validating blocks through a combination of inflationary block rewards and transaction fees. Transaction fees, also paid in CRO, are distributed between validators and a community pool. 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.

2024-09-25

2025-09-25

107628.54250 (kWh/a)

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, cosmos, 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 calculation of energy consumptions, the so called 'bottom-up' approach is being used. The nodes are considered to be the central factor for the energy consumption of the network. These assumptions are made on the basis of empirical findings through the use of public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. The main determinants for estimating the hardware used within the network are the requirements for operating the client software. The energy consumption of the hardware devices was measured in certified test laboratories. When calculating the energy consumption, we used - if available - the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) to determine all implementations of the asset of question in scope and we update the mappings regulary, based on data of the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. The information regarding the hardware used and the number of participants in the network is based on assumptions that are verified with best effort using empirical data. In general, participants are assumed to be largely economically rational. As a precautionary principle, we make assumptions on the conservative side when in doubt, i.e. making higher estimates for the adverse impacts. To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the network(s) cronos_pos, ethereum is calculated first. For the energy consumption of the token, a fraction of the energy consumption of the network is attributed to the token, which is determined based on the activity of the crypto-asset within the network. When calculating the energy consumption, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is used - if available - to determine all implementations of the asset in scope. The mappings are updated regularly, based on data of the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. The information regarding the hardware used and the number of participants in the network is based on assumptions that are verified with best effort using empirical data. In general, participants are assumed to be largely economically rational. As a precautionary principle, we make assumptions on the conservative side when in doubt, i.e. making higher estimates for the adverse impacts.