• General

  • Request for Comment - Flow Carbon/Goddess DAO X KLIMA Collaboration

GoddessDAO Given that you seem to be targeting a lot of B2B accounts with this statement and that much of your value proposition statement in the proposal is tied to "education" that's correlated with your relationships with your clients, can you provide KlimaDAO with verifiable references of some of these customers, as is standard in the B2B world? After all, it's one thing to frame market validation as "we think this will happen" and another altogether to pull out a list of people who've confirmed that they've gone through the whole funnel.

    All these Q&A's are great. I support this addition.

    This proposal is ridiculous. This project has nothing live that is real. This shouldn't even be up for discussion as of now. I am completely against this proposal.

    Come on, have we just gotten happy for bringing on diversified versions of climate assets? Let's not get out of control and reckless please Klimates!

    It would be good to get Flow's opinion on the negative media reports for two of the projects on their list:

    1. Madre Dios Peru: https://redd-monitor.org/2021/05/14/madre-de-dios-amazon-redd-project-easyjets-phantom-carbon-credits-are-generated-by-logging-the-forest/

    2. Indonesia: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Environment/Climate-Change/Indonesian-carbon-credit-project-appears-to-betray-its-purpose

    Please let us know what DD you did on those prior to purchasing. Thanks much.

      Hi all,

      Below you can check the initial version of a partnership evaluation form we've used for Flow Carbon. It's goal is to summarize the proposal's different elements (Pros and Cons), provide initial comments and above all, facilitate a discussion on what is best for Klima. Let us know what you think.

      This should serve as a supporting doc for tomorrow's AMA with Flow.

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SA4qoa2vzk4SbXMnWs6O5iRjVwP0nXAA/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=105869954850477532204&rtpof=true&sd=true

      GoddessDAO

      I have to admit, I don't really understand what the purpose of Goddess DAO is. As in, it seems like a legal fiction; Flow will ultimately be in control, because it has to be in control, right? What would Flow do if Goddess decided to stop bridging Flow's offsets? An entity created for the express purpose of avoiding securities laws—"Flow's not tokenizing the carbon, a DAO that we control is!"—seems like a flimsy cover. Relatedly, is Verra entering its agreement with Flow or with Goddess? I ask because, if I were Verra, I wouldn't want to enter an agreement with Goddess, just as they haven't entered into an agreement with Klima.

      In short: why isn't Flow creating an entity like Toucan instead?

      Look, don't get me wrong, I love the idea of this. But it seems to me that the DAO is being created to circumvent NYS's bitlicense regulations, and further that GoddessDAO will have a hard time transitioning to/demonstrating actual decentralized control.

      EDIT: After listening to the AMA, I have another question. Because the GNTs expire after five years, what happens if KlimaDAO takes GNT into its treasury, and then the token expires?

        Looking forward to the 2 way bridge!

        Interesting proposal, a few concerns:
        -As many mentioned already, this is a bit too early for Klima to move on. Maybe this would be different a few months after launch when this has proven itself like other products on the market.
        -Instead of being deterministic, to use these credits you have to rely on actions by Verra and the SPV. This obviously has centralization risks. We are not putting our trust in Circle or Coinbase here, but a project nobody heard off before with no product or cred. Again these risks are reduced later but right now feels a bit too degen for Klima to support this.
        -Tbh rubbed the wrong way by people in Flow saying deterministic credits are "retired" and somehow have a worse appeal than custodian ones. This is basically spreading FUD, same FUD that bunch of people pointed towards Klima/Moss/Toucan in the past.

        Two way bridge could be nice if you don't trust on-chain markets are the future, so kudos to creating an escape hatch for corporates that are shy. Ultimately for this reason I am for the project and think it can be positive for ReFi with diversity but got a lot of proving to do before I will endorse such a proposal.

        My vote:

        GoddessDAO Against: Do not Introduce GNT, GNT/KLIMA, and GNT/USDC bonds

          I don't see how the issuance of an unretired tokenised credit on-chain should be managed. Doesn't that mean trusting the SPV or whoever holds the corresponding unretired credit offchain? That means trusting an offchain entity, that the DAO has no control over. This is, if I understood the concept correctly, a massive single point of failure and not a very "crypto" approach.

          Since the SPV/holder of the unretired credits could literally rug all GNT Holder, one of them being KlimaDAO treasury I would vote Against.

          Pls correct if I got the concept wrong or point me to some resource, I would be happy to learn more about the concept.

          Hi GoddessDAO team,

          You mentioned that you would refrain from showing logos of your corporate partners as they won't allow you. As away around this, would you be open to summing up the highest probability commitments by your corporate partners in the short / medium term in an MOU-like doc with Klima, which would show aggregated number of offsets that would be bonded. That way you won't have to disclose names and individual purchase intentions and we in the community can get an idea of the potential size and be able to later measure against.

          Thanks a lot!

            I'd like to see a more solid organization, before KLIMA makes proposals like this. To me, it doesn't look good for KLIMA to be proposing things that are not fully baked. I get that getting on the ground floor early could be a nice opportunity, but statistically, most organizations fail and a failing token in the KLIMA treasury will not be good. It means you'll have to sustain that inflation if one of them fails, and it can be 10% of your treasury or like 50%... and that could cause significant issues for KLIMA as an organization.

            Thinking harder on what tokens are accepted into KLIMA would reflect a much more mature organization that would provide a foundational baseline for people doing due diligence on KLIMA.

            Don't get me wrong, Goddess DAO could be amazing, and getting in early could result in some tasty multiples on profit, but it also could just be a few randos who are hoping to jump on KLIMA's coat tails and ride the LP fees, while the project is hot.

            At the moment, this seems half-baked and although it could be great... we have very little to base solid confidence on this organization.

              Sirob yes - will reach out to the partnership team now to set up a call.

                classwar (Just a detail - Klima isn't proposing this, this is Flow CArbon/Goddess DAO proposing it to Klima)

                    Mike_Fast Oh, that is an interesting detail that was lost on me. I wonder how many others are aware of that nuance.

                        classwar Perhaps we'll make this clear in the future, but most RFCs are from third parties that want to integrate with us.