Polygon POL

Polygon POL is present on the following networks: Ethereum, Polygon.
Ethereum uses a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism introduced with The Merge on 2022-09-15, which replaced the previous Proof-of-Work consensus model. The PoS mechanism is implemented through Gasper, combining Casper-FFG for finality with the LMD-GHOST fork-choice rule for chain selection. Validators participate in consensus by staking ETH through the Beacon Chain. Validators are pseudo-randomly selected to propose new blocks, while other validators attest to the validity of proposed blocks. The network operates using 12-second slots grouped into epochs of 32 slots. Under normal network conditions, finality is typically achieved after two epochs, approximately 12.8 minutes, through Casper-FFG. The LMD-GHOST fork-choice rule determines the canonical chain based on the accumulated weight of validator attestations. Validators that engage in certain malicious behaviour, such as equivocation or contradictory attestations, may be subject to slashing penalties, while offline validators may incur inactivity penalties. Subsequent network upgrades, including Dencun (2024-03-13), Pectra (2025-05-07) and Fusaka (2025-12-03), introduced protocol changes affecting Ethereum’s consensus mechanism and Layer 2 functionality.
Polygon PoS is an EVM-compatible sidechain that operates with a Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanism and periodically submits checkpoints to the Ethereum mainnet. The network maintains its own validator set and processes transactions independently from Ethereum, while using Ethereum smart contracts for staking-related functions and checkpoint verification. Polygon PoS therefore uses Ethereum as a staking and checkpointing layer, but does not rely on Ethereum for full transaction execution or transaction data availability. The Polygon-side architecture consists of two primary node layers. The Bor layer is responsible for transaction execution and block production. The Heimdall layer is responsible for validator coordination, staking-related monitoring, consensus, and checkpoint finalisation. Heimdall is based on Cosmos SDK and CometBFT and aggregates blocks produced by Bor into periodic Merkle-root checkpoints that are submitted to smart contracts on the Ethereum mainnet. Validators participate in the network by staking POL tokens. Token holders may delegate POL tokens to validators, contributing to the validator’s effective stake and participating indirectly in network validation. Following the Rio upgrade, Polygon PoS uses a Validator-Elected Block Producer model. Under this model, validators elect the block producer or block producers for a span, rather than relying on the previous stake-weighted selection model for multiple block producers over shorter intervals. Block production and transaction execution are performed on the Bor layer, while Heimdall validators coordinate consensus and checkpoint finalisation. At regular intervals, Heimdall validators aggregate blocks into a Merkle root and submit the resulting checkpoint to Ethereum smart contracts. These checkpoints provide an additional verification layer and support cross-chain verification, including in the context of asset transfers between Polygon PoS and Ethereum. This design enables higher transaction throughput and lower transaction costs than the Ethereum mainnet, while maintaining a technical connection to Ethereum through staking contracts and periodic checkpointing. Polygon PoS should therefore be understood as an independent sidechain or commit-chain architecture, rather than a rollup that inherits full execution and data availability security from Ethereum.

Polygon POL is present on the following networks: Ethereum, Polygon.
Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism secures the network through validator incentives and protocol-defined penalties. Validators are required to stake ETH in order to participate in block proposal and attestation activities. A minimum of 32 ETH is required to activate a validator. Following the Pectra upgrade on 2025-05-07, EIP-7251 increased the maximum effective balance per validator from 32 ETH to 2,048 ETH. Validators may receive protocol-defined rewards for proposing blocks, attesting to valid blocks and participating in sync committees. Rewards consist of newly issued ETH and transaction-related fees. Transaction fees on Ethereum follow the mechanism introduced by EIP-1559, under which each transaction includes a base fee that is burned at the protocol level and an optional priority fee paid to the validator proposing the relevant block. Validators that engage in certain malicious behaviour, including equivocation or contradictory attestations, may be subject to slashing penalties. Validators that fail to participate correctly in consensus activities may also incur inactivity penalties. These mechanisms are intended to support validator participation and the economic security of the Ethereum network.
Polygon PoS uses economic incentives to support validator participation, transaction processing, and network operation. Validators stake POL tokens and participate in block production, validation, voting, and checkpoint finalisation. Validators may receive rewards connected to their participation in the network, including rewards linked to validation activities and transaction-fee allocation, depending on the applicable protocol rules. Token holders who do not operate validator infrastructure may delegate POL tokens to validators. Delegators may receive a share of rewards attributable to the validator to whom they delegate, subject to the validator’s commission and applicable protocol rules. Delegation increases the validator’s effective stake and may affect its role in the validator set and related network processes. Following the Rio upgrade, Polygon PoS introduced a Validator-Elected Block Producer model, under which validators elect the block producer or block producers for a span. Publicly described protocol changes associated with this model also provide for redistribution of fees, including maximum extractable value-related fees where applicable, to non-producing validators under the relevant protocol design. This changes the incentive structure from the previous model in which block production selection was more directly described by reference to stake-weighted producer selection. Polygon PoS includes protocol specifications for validator penalties, including slashing-related concepts. Transactions on Polygon PoS require payment of network fees in POL. Fees apply to ordinary token transfers, smart contract deployment, and smart contract interaction. The amount of fees may vary depending on network demand, transaction complexity, and computational resources required. Because Polygon PoS processes transactions independently from Ethereum, transaction fees are generally designed to be lower than equivalent activity on the Ethereum mainnet, although actual fees may change according to network conditions and protocol parameters.

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.
To determine the energy consumption of a token, the energy consumption of the network(s) ethereum is calculated first. For the energy consumption of the token, a fraction of the energy consumption of the network is attributed to the token, which is determined based on the activity of the crypto-asset within the network. When calculating the energy consumption, the Functionally Fungible Group Digital Token Identifier (FFG DTI) is used - if available - to determine all implementations of the asset in scope. The mappings are updated regularly, based on data of the Digital Token Identifier Foundation. The information regarding the hardware used and the number of participants in the network is based on assumptions that are verified with best effort using empirical data. In general, participants are assumed to be largely economically rational. As a precautionary principle, we make assumptions on the conservative side when in doubt, i.e. making higher estimates for the adverse impacts.

To determine the proportion of renewable energy usage, the locations of the nodes are to be determined using public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. If no information is available on the geographic distribution of the nodes, reference networks are used which are comparable in terms of their incentivization structure and consensus mechanism. This geo-information is merged with public information from Our World in Data, see citation. The intensity is calculated as the marginal energy cost wrt. one more transaction.
Ember (2025); Energy Institute - Statistical Review of World Energy (2024) - with major processing by Our World in Data. “Share of electricity generated by renewables - Ember and Energy Institute” [dataset]. Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data Europe”; Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data”; Energy Institute, “Statistical Review of World Energy” [original data]. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewables.

To determine the GHG Emissions, the locations of the nodes are to be determined using public information sites, open-source crawlers and crawlers developed in-house. If no information is available on the geographic distribution of the nodes, reference networks are used which are comparable in terms of their incentivization structure and consensus mechanism. This geo-information is merged with public information from Our World in Data, see citation. The intensity is calculated as the marginal emission wrt. one more transaction.
Ember (2025); Energy Institute - Statistical Review of World Energy (2024) - with major processing by Our World in Data. “Carbon intensity of electricity generation - Ember and Energy Institute” [dataset]. Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data Europe”; Ember, “Yearly Electricity Data”; Energy Institute, “Statistical Review of World Energy” [original data]. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity Licenced under CC BY 4.0.