Ethereum Classic
Networks · Layer-1Token Transparency Filing
Project & Team
Description of Project
Provide a concise narrative that clearly states each of (a)–(e) below.
- (a) Problem the project solves — The problem the project is solving.
- (b) Operational priorities — Provide a high-level description of how the project expects to support ongoing development and operations over time.
- (c) High-level project overview — How the project works at a high level.
- (d) Primary token functions — The primary functions of the token (e.g. gov participation).
- (e) Control surface reliance — If any, briefly describe the anticipated or possible evolution of the protocol's governance/control model.
(a) Problem the project solves
Ethereum Classic presents itself as the original non-forked Ethereum chain and emphasizes censorship resistance, immutability, and "Code is Law" after the 2016 DAO bailout fork split Ethereum and Ethereum Classic into separate networks (source, source).
(b) Operational priorities
The public evidence describes ETC operations as externally funded and contributor-driven, with no centralized treasury, while ETC Cooperative separately states that it supports Ethereum Classic growth and has historically funded protocol development, infrastructure, communications, and ecosystem work (source, source, source).
(c) High-level project overview
ETC is a proof-of-work smart-contract network compatible with Ethereum-style EVM development; its protocol changes are proposed through ECIPs, and hard forks are used for protocol upgrades, bug fixes, and compatibility changes rather than application-layer state reversals like The DAO fork (source, source, source).
(d) Primary token functions
ETC is used as the native proof-of-work asset for block rewards and transaction fees, and ECIP-1017 defines the monetary-policy framework that reduces mining rewards by 20% every 5,000,000 blocks (source, source).
(e) Control surface reliance
The public governance surface is process-oriented rather than issuer-controlled: ECIP-1000 says ECIPs are the primary mechanism for proposing new features, collecting technical input, and documenting design decisions, and the development-teams page says Ethereum Classic has no official team or formal hierarchy (source, source).
Known Project Team
For each existing entity: Labs/DevCo (e.g., Founder, CEO, CTO, COO), Foundation (e.g., President, Executive Director, CFO, COO), and DAO / onchain governance leadership (if applicable) list the: (a) full names, (b) official titles, (c) and prior experience of key team members. For any non-existent entity, explicitly mention it does not exist. External links may be included but they will not factor into the score.
Full Name | Entity | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|---|
Bob Summerwill | Foundation | Former Executive Director of ETC Cooperative from 2019 to 2024 | Prior to ETC Cooperative: core developer on cpp-ethereum at the Ethereum Foundation (2016); worked full-time on the launch and first year of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance at ConsenSys (2016–2017); eighteen years in the games industry across Psygnosis, Electronic Arts, Roadhouse Interactive, DeNA, and Sony (1996–2014), including work on 20 AAA titles. Currently Head of Ecosystem at BlockApps. Source |
Zachary Belford | DAO | ECIP Editor; Co-Lead Tooling Developer, ETC Core | Co-Lead Tooling Developer at ETC Core |
Yaz Khoury | DAO | ECIP Editor; Director of Developer Relations, ETC Cooperative | Director of Developer Relations at ETC Cooperative |
Wei Tang | DAO | ECIP Editor | Core Developer at Parity at time of ECIP editorship |
Blockworks note: No primary DevCo exists for Ethereum Classic. |
DAO Structure
Provide a structured description of the DAO's governance, powers, and economic rights. If a DAO does not exist, state so. Address the lettered items below. Even if there is no DAO, there must be an answer to (d).
- (a) IP ownership & control — State what IP the DAO owns or controls (e.g., codebases/repos, trademarks/brands). Note any license if relevant.
- (b) Contract/admin powers — List onchain or administrative authorities and limits: pause/upgrade roles (e.g., multisig pause), governance-executor authorities, and the method of authority for each (e.g., veto, majority, super-majority).
- (c) Locked-token rights (conditional) — If locking/staking for additional rights exists, explain the additional rights and what tokenholders can and cannot decide. If no locking mechanism exists, leave absent.
- (d) Value accrual & holder rights — If any, describe the current rights of tokenholders over revenue distribution and the treasury.
- (e) Dissolution authority — State who can dissolve/wind up the DAO and by what mechanism (e.g., onchain vote threshold, board resolution of a legal wrapper).
(a) IP ownership & control
No formal onchain DAO currently exists for Ethereum Classic. No DAO-specific IP ownership or control applies. The Olympia DAO framework referenced in draft ECIPs 1113 and 1114 has not been activated.
(b) Contract/admin powers
ETC protocol governance is publicly described through ECIPs; ECIP-1113 is a draft proposal describing an Olympia DAO framework. Draft ECIP-1114 proposes that ECFPs would be reviewed and voted on through Olympia DAO governance and executed only through the DAO's authorized Governor to Timelock to Executor pipeline (source, source, source).
(c) Locked-token rights (conditional)
Draft ECIP-1114 says that, at launch, Olympia DAO would operate without a governance token and uses a one-address-one-vote model, with possible future upgrades to alternative voting systems through standard governance (source).
(d) Value accrual & holder rights
No formal DAO exists for Ethereum Classic and there is no protocol treasury or issuer-controlled revenue stream. ETC tokenholders have no rights over revenue distribution or treasury assets. Value accrual is a function of the programmatic mechanisms defined in ECIP-1017: a fixed supply cap of approximately 210.7 million ETC; the 5M20 emission schedule, which reduces the per-block reward by 20% every 5,000,000 blocks; and a transaction fee market that compensates miners for block production. No governance mechanism exists by which holders can vote on distributions or redirect fees. (source).
(e) Dissolution authority
No formal DAO exists for Ethereum Classic. No dissolution or wind-up mechanism applies.
Primary Foundation
For the Primary Foundation do the following independently. If an entity does not exist, state that explicitly. Items (a)–(f) apply only if that entity exists; state explicitly that the entity doesn't exist. Definitions: The primary Foundation and DevCo can be explained as those entities which are directly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch.
- (a) Entity — Type and jurisdiction.
- (b) IP ownership & control — What IP the entity owns/controls (repos/code, trademarks/brand; license optional) and an explanation of any subsidiary entities.
- (c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration — If any, describe the current powers over DAO governance, treasury actions, protocol-controlled resources (e.g. revenue), token administration, or reward parameters, and the method/threshold for each.
- (d) Powers over DevCo — Explain whether the foundation can exert direct or indirect influence over decision-making of the DevCo.
- (e) Contract/admin powers — Pause/upgrade/governance-executor authorities and the method/threshold for each (e.g., veto/majority/super-majority; "3/5 multisig").
- (f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies — Describe any current governance-approved, contractual, or programmatic mechanisms, if any, by which protocol-controlled resources, treasury assets, fees, revenue, rewards, or token distributions may be directed to this entity, its equityholders, contributors, or other participants. If no such mechanism currently exists, state that explicitly. Do not discuss hypothetical future dividends, repurchases, or distributions unless formally adopted.
(a) Entity
ETC Cooperative is a Delaware-incorporated 501(c)(3) public charity (EIN 32-0551158, Wilmington, Delaware). It is a post-launch ecosystem support organization, not a primary foundation involved in ETC issuance at the July 2016 chain split. (source, source)
(b) IP ownership & control
ETC Cooperative publicly maintains the ethereumclassic.org website and associated GitHub repositories as part of its infrastructure stewardship role. No trademark registrations or exclusive codebase IP ownership are identified in public sources.
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
ETC Cooperative holds no powers over DAO governance, protocol-controlled resources, token administration, or reward parameters. Protocol changes proceed through the ECIP process and voluntary node adoption.
(d) Powers over DevCo
ETC Cooperative holds no formal authority over any primary DevCo; no primary DevCo exists for ETC.
(e) Contract/admin powers
No pause, upgrade, or governance-executor administrative keys are identified in public sources as held by ETC Cooperative.
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
ETC Cooperative's Q1 2025 report states that the Cooperative historically earned income from a Grayscale arrangement contributing one-third of fees collected by the Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust until the two-year agreement ended in March 2022. No current governance-approved or programmatic mechanism directs protocol-controlled resources or token distributions to ETC Cooperative.
Primary Dev Co
For the Primary DevCo do the following independently. If an entity does not exist, state that explicitly. Items (a)–(f) apply only if that entity exists; state explicitly that the entity doesn't exist. Definitions: The primary Foundation and DevCo can be explained as those entities which are directly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch.
- (a) Entity — Type and jurisdiction.
- (b) IP ownership & control — What IP the entity owns/controls (repos/code, trademarks/brand; license optional) and an explanation of any subsidiary entities.
- (c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration — If any, describe the current powers over DAO governance, treasury actions, protocol-controlled resources (e.g. revenue), token administration, or reward parameters, and the method/threshold for each.
- (d) Powers over Foundation — Explain whether the DevCo can exert direct or indirect influence over decision-making of the Foundation.
- (e) Contract/admin powers — Pause/upgrade/governance-executor authorities and the method/threshold for each (e.g., veto/majority/super-majority; "3/5 multisig").
- (f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies — Describe any current governance-approved, contractual, or programmatic mechanisms, if any, by which protocol-controlled resources, treasury assets, fees, revenue, rewards, or token distributions may be directed to this entity, its equityholders, contributors, or other participants. If no such mechanism currently exists, state that explicitly. Do not discuss hypothetical future dividends, repurchases, or distributions unless formally adopted.
(a) Entity
No primary DevCo exists for Ethereum Classic. The July 2016 chain split involved no issuing entity. The ETC development teams page states that Ethereum Classic has no official team or formal hierarchy. Historical development contributions from ETC Labs, ETC Core, and ETC Cooperative are documented, but none constitutes a protocol-wide primary DevCo with unilateral control. No DevCo holds IP ownership, foundation influence, contract/admin powers, or protocol-level economic arrangements. (source, source)
Token Supply & Allocations
Initial Allocation
Disclose launch and initial supply details in a single initial allocation schedule covering the token's launch.
- (a) Launch supply totals — The total number of tokens issued at launch, the total number of tokens locked at launch or the total number of tokens unlocked at launch.
- (b) Recipient categories & use of funds — The recipient categories with brief explanations as to how the category will use the tokens so an auditor can distinguish each bucket.
- (c) Initial price per token (if applicable) — The initial price per token at TGE. If the token launched via a liquidity bootstrapping mechanism, auction, or other price-discovery process rather than a fixed offering price, describe that mechanism and the final market set price instead. If no fixed price was set, state so.
- (d) Ticker / market symbol — The ticker/market symbol.
- (e) Total supply & supply regime — The total supply and whether the supply is fixed (if not explain inflation rate or deflation rate).
- (f) Initial vesting / release schedules — The initial vesting/release schedules (identify which categories/recipients are subject to vesting and the high-level timing logic).
(a) Launch supply totals
At the July 20, 2016 chain split (block 1,920,000), ETC inherited the full Ethereum state. The pre-mine issuance of the original unified ETC/ETH chain was 72,009,990 coins, plus mining rewards accrued from the July 30, 2015 Frontier launch through block 1,920,000. All ETC at the split block was immediately accessible to holders; zero ETC was locked under any issuer-imposed schedule at launch. (source, source).
(b) Recipient categories & use of funds
The sole recipient category at launch was pre-split ETH holders. Every address holding ETH at block 1,920,000 on July 20, 2016 received an equivalent amount of ETC on a 1:1 basis by protocol mechanics. No foundation, DevCo, treasury, or investor-sale allocation bucket existed (source).
(c) Initial price per token (if applicable)
No fixed ETC offering price was found in cited sources; Ethereum Classic's history page says Bisq and OTC desks gave original-chain tokens a price-discovery order book and that Poloniex listed ETC on July 23, 2016 (source).
(d) Ticker / market symbol
The public sources use ETC as the native market symbol for Ethereum Classic (source, source).
(e) Total supply & supply regime
ECIP-1017 introduced an upper bound on ETC issuance and a degraded-emission schedule; the 5M20 model reduces total reward by 20% every 5,000,000 blocks, with cited supply estimates of not more than 210.7M ETC in a worst case and not less than 198.5M ETC if the network maintains the referenced 5.4% uncle rate (source).
(f) Initial vesting / release schedules
No vesting or release schedule applies. There were no team, investor, or foundation token allocations subject to lockup at launch. ETC issuance is governed entirely by the mining and 5M20 emission schedule.
Airdrop Process
Address each of the following sub-items based on the project's airdrop status. If a sub-item does not apply to the project's situation, state that explicitly.
- (a) Planned but not yet executed airdrop — If the project has planned but not yet airdropped, commit to publishing a recipient wallet list in a public channel and provide it to Blockworks quarterly until the initial TGE airdrop is fully completed. Additionally, generally state the possible target user segments (e.g., "stakers of X," "Aave users") and the allocation method (e.g., proportional to ve-balance or net position).
- (b) Executed airdrop — If the project has already airdropped, point to a per-address source such as CSV/TSV/JSON files, a Dune table, a full Merkle dump, GitHub repo files embedding per-address allocations, or RPC endpoints that expose claim/amount data; explorer links alone do not count. Additionally, clearly state covered user segments (e.g., "stakers of X," "Aave users") and the allocation method (e.g., proportional to ve-balance or net position).
- (c) No airdrop planned or conducted — If the project does not plan to conduct an airdrop for TGE and has never conducted one, state so plainly (e.g., "We have never conducted an airdrop to date and do not plan to execute one").
- No airdrop planned or conducted: ETC has never conducted an airdrop and none is planned. ETC originated as the continuation of the original Ethereum chain following the July 2016 fork; holders of ETH at block 1,920,000 held an equivalent amount of ETC by protocol mechanics, not through a project-run airdrop.
Transactions & Market Structures
Market Maker Agreements & Deals
Projects must disclose all material terms of market-making arrangements that affect token liquidity. If the project has no agreements or deals with market makers, state that explicitly; doing so earns full credit. For each market maker, include in a table:
- (a) Market maker's name — the market maker's name;
- (b) Token allocation or loaned amount — the token allocation or loaned amount as a percentage of total supply;
- (c) Duration/term of agreement — the duration/term of the agreement; and, where applicable,
- (d) Name of agreement structure — label the financial vehicle being used in the agreement (i.e. loan, option/call, retainer model) without describing trading strategy or expected outcomes.
If the project has no agreements or deals with market makers, state that explicitly; doing so earns full credit. If no native tokens were loaned or allocated to market makers, state that explicitly; cash/fiat retainers or fees are not required for this item.
Blockworks note: ETC has no market maker agreements or token loans. No issuing entity exists with legal standing to enter such arrangements on behalf of the protocol.
CEX / DEX Agreements & Deals
Projects must disclose all material terms of centralized or decentralized exchange listings that affect token liquidity. For each listing, include in a table:
- (a) Exchange name / DEX pool — the exchange name (and, for DEX, the specific pool/pair);
- (b) Token allocation for listing — the token allocation supplied or committed for listing as a percentage of total supply;
- (c) Term Duration — the duration/term of any listing lockups, liquidity, or incentive programs; and, where applicable,
- (d) Native-token listing fees — whether any listing fees were paid in native tokens, with amounts (tokens or % of supply), recipients, and any vesting or lock terms tied to the partnership.
If the project has no agreements or deals with CEX or DEX, state that explicitly; doing so earns full credit; cash/fiat fee amounts are not required for this item.
Blockworks note: ETC has no project-side CEX or DEX listing agreements, no token allocations for listings, no listing lockups, and no native-token listing fees. No issuing entity exists to negotiate such arrangements; exchanges list ETC on their own initiative.
Financial Disclosures & Risks
Prior Token Sales & Fundraising
Disclose all prior token sales by the Project — including fundraising rounds, any material OTC sales to investors, and any discounted market-maker sales. For each sale, provide:
- (a) Series Name
- (b) Early-Stage Investment Instrument used (i.e. SAFT, STAMP, SAFE, SAFE+Token Warrant, etc.)
- (c) Date of sale (at least month & year)
- (d) Number of tokens sold (or % of total supply)
- (e) Vesting schedule
If no prior sales occurred, state that explicitly (e.g., "No prior fundraising, OTC, or discounted MM sales have occurred.").
Blockworks note: No prior fundraising, OTC, or discounted market maker sales have occurred for ETC. The token originated via the July 2016 chain split with no issuing entity and no token sale. ETC Cooperative has separate public ecosystem-funding disclosures: its Q1 2025 report says it historically earned income from a Grayscale arrangement, donations, and sponsorships, and that the Grayscale arrangement contributed one-third of fees collected by Grayscale related to the Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust until the two-year agreement ended in March 2022. These public disclosures are not presented in the cited sources as ETC token sales (source).
Previous Exploits Affecting The Native Token
If any, list prior exploits or incidents that directly affected the token, token supply, tokenholder balances, token contract, minting controls, burn mechanics, or custody of token supply. This question is not asking about general protocol, application, or smart contract exploits unless the incident directly affected the native token itself. If no prior incidents, state this explicitly (e.g., "No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of YYYY-MM-DD").
- (a) Date & component affected — Date (YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD), chain(s)/component affected.
- (b) Exploit vector summary — Plain-language summary of the exploit vector (what the hack was).
- (c) Quantified impact — Quantified impact (assets/tokens affected or a clear "no loss of funds" statement).
- (d) Remediation/response taken — Remediation/response taken (patches, upgrades, governance actions, compensation).
- (e) Current status — Current status (resolved, in litigation, under investigation, refunded, etc.).
- (f) References (optional) — References (optional): link(s) to post-mortem/advisory/PR.
(a) Date & component affected
Incident 1: 2016-06 to 2016-07, The DAO / Ethereum pre-split state
Incident 2: 2019-01 (two attacks, January 5 and January 7, 2019) and 2020-08 (three attacks in August 2020), ETC proof-of-work chain / consensus layer
(b) Exploit vector summary
Incident 1: The DAO was drained using a re-entry bug, after which a hard fork on the Ethereum side executed an irregular state change at block 1,920,000, ETC continued as the original non-forked chain (source, source).
Incident 2: ETC's 51% attack explainer states that ETC suffered 51% attacks in 2019 and 2020 and that attackers used majority hash power to reorganize the chain for double spends (source).
(c) Quantified impact
Incident 1: Ethereum Foundation's hard-fork completion post says the state change transferred approximately 12 million ETH from the Dark DAO and Whitehat DAO contracts into the WithdrawDAO recovery contract, and ETC history says a white-hat group secured 70% of The DAO funds while the remaining 30% required protocol-level action (source, source).
Incident 2: The user FAQ says the losses from the 51% attacks were around $10 million and affected exchanges through double spends (source).
(d) Remediation/response taken
Incident 1: The Ethereum side implemented the DAO bailout fork, Ethereum Classic did not adopt the application-layer state reversal and continued as the non-forked chain (source, source).
Incident 2: ETC public risk materials discuss confirmation-count mitigation, and the transaction-security article says 7 confirmations are not sufficient for safety and frames 51% attacks as the true proof-of-work transaction-reversal risk (source).
(e) Current status
Incident 1: Historical fork event, ETC continued as the original non-forked chain and was listed by Poloniex on July 23, 2016 (source).
Incident 2: Resolved. ETC public materials state that no further 51% attacks have occurred after countermeasures were implemented. The January 2019 attack resulted in approximately 219,500 ETC double-spent against exchanges, a portion was returned to gate.io by the attacker. The August 2020 attacks resulted in approximately $5.6 million in double-spends in the first attack alone. No protocol funds or native token supply were affected, losses were incurred by exchanges. (source).
(f) References (optional)
Incident 1: Ethereum Foundation fork completion, ETC history
Incident 2: 51% attack explainer, user FAQ
Material Risk Factors (Regulation, Technology, Token Economics)
Describe material risk factors across the three categories below. Each category includes prompts to address at a minimum.
-
(a) Regulatory, Legal & Tax Risks — Describe how evolving laws and regulations could affect the project by answering, at a minimum, questions like:
-
Impact of Regulatory Change on TGE and Listings: (If applicable) How could evolving or conflicting laws and regulations affect your ability to complete the TGE, deliver tokens to purchasers, and list or maintain the token on trading venues in key jurisdictions?
-
Entity-Level Regulatory Impact: (If applicable) How could regulatory or legal changes impact your core entities (Foundation, DevCo, DAO, affiliated service providers), including enforcement actions, licensing requirements, or forced changes to structure or operations?
-
Tokenholder Tax Treatment: (If applicable) What uncertainties exist around how tokenholders may be taxed, and make clear that tokenholders are responsible for understanding their own tax obligations?
-
Jurisdictional & User Access Restrictions: (If applicable) If the project restricts access for certain jurisdictions or user types (e.g., U.S. persons, sanctioned countries, retail vs. professional), what are those restrictions and what risks do they create for users and for the project?
-
(b) Protocol, Technology & Security Risks — Describe risks to network and contract reliability, correctness, and safety by answering, at a minimum, questions like:
-
Bugs and Design Flaws: (If applicable) What bugs, design flaws, or implementation errors could exist in your core protocol code, smart contracts, and any bridges, rollups, or oracles that you depend on, and how could these lead to loss of funds or disruption of the protocol?
-
Security Measures & Their Limitations: (If applicable) What security measures have you taken (audits, formal verification, bug bounties), and what types of failures might these measures still fail to detect or prevent?
-
(c) Token Economics, Unlocks & Incentive Risks — Describe how the token's economic design and supply schedule could affect holders by answering, at a minimum, questions like:
-
Critical Economic Assumptions: (If applicable) Which economic assumptions (e.g., staking yields, fee revenue, liquidity incentives, MEV capture, demand for blockspace) are critical for protocol security, utility, and governance, and what happens if those assumptions fail?
-
Governance Control over Monetary Policy & Rewards: (If applicable) To what extent can governance change monetary policy, fee parameters, or reward allocations (e.g., inflation rate, treasury flows, incentive programs), and how could such changes adversely affect tokenholders?
(a) Regulatory, Legal & Tax Risks
ETC Cooperative is a Delaware-incorporated 501(c)(3) public charity, but public sources do not identify it as an issuer foundation for ETC's 2016 launch. ETC's public exchange materials describe both centralized and decentralized exchange access, including user compliance obligations for centralized exchanges and no-documentation access for decentralized exchanges (source, source, source).
(b) Protocol, Technology & Security Risks
ETC remains a proof-of-work chain and acknowledges 51% attack risk: ETC public materials state that Ethereum Classic has suffered 51% attacks on multiple occasions, that attackers can use such attacks to reverse transactions, and that higher confirmation counts are a mitigation rather than an elimination of risk (source, source, source).
(c) Token Economics, Unlocks & Incentive Risks
ETC's monetary policy relies on proof-of-work security incentives: ECIP-1017 says monetary policy is intended to bootstrap network security, that higher ETC demand and price can incentivize mining power, and that the 5M20 model reduces total reward by 20% every 5,000,000 blocks. A failure of ETC price or miner incentives could weaken the security rationale described in ECIP-1017 because the same ECIP links mining incentives to network security (source, source).
This Token Transparency Filing is provided for general informational purposes only and does not verify or warrant the accuracy of individual answers.
