KlimaDAO Forum

I am strongly in favor of KlimaDAO supporting this project and moving forward with a forward carbon deal with the parties outlined by StarCB.

The key ROI for the DAO from such an engagement is putting us in a far stronger strategic position with traditional VCM players, including key registries. As the owner of these credits, we’ll have demonstrated real skin in the game with various interested parties to build a pool specification framework where the credits can be deposited on-chain. Importantly, our involvement here can be used as a powerful case study for other project developers interested in bringing their supply directly on-chain. This latter point is critical as we level up our engagement with key VCM players in the market.

Furthermore, as per KlimaDAO’s strategic plan, this opportunity allows us to catalyze supply-side rails in addition to our work in creating a more accessible market. This places us in a far closer relationship with carbon registries that may be wondering how KlimaDAO can scale up the market beyond post credit-issuance market facilitation.
Note that two of the key execution points from our strategic plan in terms of how KlimaDAO achieves its vision is as follows:
1) “The development of key infrastructure that will unlock growth in key areas of the market, including forward carbon, spot trading, and carbon offsetting.”
2) “The establishment of strategic partnerships that unlock growth and capital across the carbon market’s supply chain.” Effectively, we are providing an initial risk-reduction for other carbon project developers to tokenize their carbon.

From a financial standpoint, and given the general direction of the carbon market over the past two years, a forward carbon deal like the one outlined here is one of the most financially efficient methods for us to control carbon liquidity on-chain (bonding prices are likely to be higher). The EEIMP pool’s launch price is likely to be in the $12-14/tonne range if it’s deployed in Q4 2023 – especially if vintage requirements are increased to 2018+ as has been discussed by some stakeholders.

Additional co-benefits:
-KlimaDAO would have an opportunity to travel to the project site. This gives us an opportunity to tell our story of impact from a completely new and exciting angle – with the community members on the ground by our side.
-This is a direct way for us to ensure increased diversity of on-chain carbon assets in the future.
-Establishes KlimaDAO’s role within the market as the rails to scale the VCM
In summary, this represents an exciting opportunity for KlimaDAO to engage on the supply-side of the market, catalyze the development of a new energy efficiency and social-impact focused carbon pool, and powerfully demonstrate our skin in the game as it pertains to the carbon project and tokenization space.

Key Questions:
-I know StarCB has been active in bringing carbon supply on-chain, prior to the tokenization ban, and in offering digital carbon to its clients. Would StarCB bring additional tonnage on-chain fitting the EEIMP pools criteria (or other pools) on its own accord to help boost digital carbon liquidity?
-How can StarCB provide project updates to the wider KlimaDAO community as things progress with the deployment of cookstoves and the impact on local communities over the project’s lifetime?
-What contractual risk-mitigation can StarCB provide KlimaDAO? Given the large expected issuance per year, who is taking on the risk should under delivery occur? Are the credits allocated to KlimaDAO guaranteed under an under delivery scenario? If the project faces considerable under delivery, can StarCB guarantee credits from a similar project (vintage + technology type)?
-Will StarCB share a draft VERPA agreement so that we can perform a legal review?

Thanks for putting this together @CarbonPapi

Very exciting opportunity, well aligned with the treasury's goal to scale the voluntary carbon markets and seed liquidity for higher impact methodologies.

Given the uncertainty about Verra's approach to tokenization pending the results of their public consultation, I'm glad to see this project plans to issue under Gold Standard. These credits will both diversify the registries represented in the on-chain carbon ecosystem, and demonstrate the unique advantages of blockchain technology to Gold Standard and other off-chain VCM players.

I was reading up on cookstove methodologies and found this Guidebook from Gold Standard very helpful: https://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/ics_methodology_guidebook_v1.pdf

@CarbonPapi could you clarify which specific Gold Standard methodology this project is implementing? TPDDTEC or GS Simplified?

It is very important that KlimaDAO shows the world that new projects can be funded also from DAOs and that we can have a serious and important impact IRL

In my mind, this would be one massive step towards realizing Klima's long-term vision and potential for not just facilitating and growing on-chain carbon markets, but directly having tangible, real-world impacts. Getting to deliberate and direct these investments collectively also provides reinforcing value to Klimates working together as a DAO. I also feel that taking ownership not only positions us favourably with traditional VCM actors as others have said, but also makes Klima that much more readily understandable to a broad audience. Sharing the images and stories from the projects that we fund/own can speak much more directly to audiences that are still trying to wrap their heads around what the VCM is and how tokenization helps.

I approached Klima some months ago, and I really believe in the project as it is going, and the direction that the DAO took.
I see this as a great opportunity for KLIMA DAO to grow again as a project especially considering that the market for carbon credits on the blockchain is stagnant.
This is the direction that the DAO must pursue, but how it is proposed, it’s not good.
There is no business plan, there is no due diligence or evidence of a due diligence that has been done, there is no resume from this originator, and on their website, they do not speak about the projects and if they develop.
How can we sure that this is a good deal for the DAO? How can we sure that there is not a margin or a wrong spending in these kind of project? Is there a profit for the DAO, or we only get the credits? is the tribe paid directly?
for instance a user said:
**Last but not least, SCB is committed to providing the necessary expertise and monitoring the progress of the project by visiting the site and through local partners. **
how will this work? is KlimaDAO investing in STARCB, then STARCB will provide information? Is this service paid?
also "SCB conducts a detailed review of the project developer with whom it is partnering in the project implementation"
can we have this information?
I am up for the future projects, but they must be well documented and explained in details with the numbers. I want to vote yes as soon as the documents are shared

Please bear in mind that these credits will be Gold Standard certified, therefore there is the standard itself that provides enough safety.
SCB will provide more documents in the support of the project, but don't forget that having them as part of the agreement, and them working closely with the generator give us another layer of safety.
I think that when the answer that _drw will be answered, there will be enough information to move forward.
Also, we are working on getting more expert in order to evaluate all the new proposal that will be proposed to Klima DAO in order also to give a neutral aspect to every proposal, and have more data to analyze.
We can't just stop to onchain carbon, we always need to remember that most of the projects are still happening in the real world, outside the blockchain :-)

Given slowdown in supply of credits being bridged on-chain, KlimaDAO has to find other ways to push the movement of the VCM onto the blockchain, and this approach makes a lot of sense.

• KlimaDAO takes a more active role in bringing credits on-chain. Should this go ahead, it would be amazing to see the power of a DAO, not only in being able to act through protocol mechanics like bonding, but also through token holder led governance
• KlimaDAO makes a statement to the broader VCM. We increased VCM throughput after the launch of the protocol, and we will increase VCM throughput here by deploying capital
• The KlimaDAO narrative evolves. Not only are we incentivising the VCM to grow through our treasury and bonding, and through Klima Infinity, we are extending our impact at the grassroots project level

I see other benefits too:

• KlimaDAO building a closer working relationship with Gold Standard and SCB
• As a marketing contributor, this is super powerful. Through site visits and close involvement with the execution of a project, we will be able to create unique material that resonates with Klima Infinity customers. We will be able to showcase the power of the VCM
• On a personal level, I'd love to see the EEIMP pool grow, and become a template for other similar pools. I want to see air pollution levels in Southeast Asia come down, and I want to see the on-chain VCM as being a key driver of this.

As a next step, I'd call on all Klimates to figure out how we can leverage this opportunity to drive revenues and power up the Klima economic engine – making this the first step of sustained growth.

This is a great initiative and I agree with others here about how this is the right move for KlimaDAO.

Since KlimaDAO would receive 31,250 carbon credits in total out of 1 million tCO2 over 5 years (200k per annum), could we've more information on who the other investors are who'll be receiving the remaining carbon credits?

Could we also have more information on how many cookstoves are planned to be purchased and distributed using the $250k investment?

Smickey I am taking care of arranging a neutral body that can vigilate on this deals.
More will come soon, as said yestereday in the office hours

CrazyTurk we can't talk about tokenization, yet. About benefit, if you think about it, it's a IRL carbon credit.

I strong feel that this is a great move forward for KlimaDAO and I support supporting this project through SCB.

Drw Thanks for the feedback and the questions:

-I know StarCB has been active in bringing carbon supply on-chain, prior to the tokenization ban, and in offering digital carbon to its clients. Would StarCB bring additional tonnage on-chain fitting the EEIMP pools criteria (or other pools) on its own accord to help boost digital carbon liquidity?

Prior to the tokenization restrictions, SCB was indeed deeply involved in the on-chain carbon liquidity lifecycle as well as extensive promotion of tokenized credits to SCB’s large customer base. The rationale behind such an involvement is SCB’s core belief in innovation and its positive impact on the market. Therefore, assuming a positive outcome from the registries regarding tokenization, SCB will boost carbon liquidity as it is in a prime position to do so, given our team's knowledge and expertise of the offchain and onchain world.

-How can StarCB provide project updates to the wider KlimaDAO community as things progress with the deployment of cookstoves and the impact on local communities over the project’s lifetime?

The main goal would be to be able to implement a public update schedule. The content of those updates will need to be defined with KlimaDAO to comply with the community but as a first step SCB will deliver photos and videos of the deployment phase of the project that will happen during our visit at the end of November as well as general documentation on the ongoing activities.

-What contractual risk-mitigation can StarCB provide KlimaDAO? Given the large expected issuance per year, who is taking on the risk should under delivery occur? Are the credits allocated to KlimaDAO guaranteed under an under delivery scenario? If the project faces considerable under delivery, can StarCB guarantee credits from a similar project (vintage + technology type)?

As mentioned in the draft VERPA, in case of under delivery SCB offers replacement options with credits from a comparable project (vintage, location & project type). Please do refer to the VERPA for the legal terms.

-Will StarCB share a draft VERPA agreement so that we can perform a legal review?

Naturally, by this time a VERPA draft has already been sent to your teams for review.

MarcusAurelius
@CarbonPapi could you clarify which specific Gold Standard methodology this project is implementing? TPDDTEC or GS Simplified?

SIMPLIFIED METHODOLOGY FOR CLEAN AND EFFICIENT COOKSTOVES V3.0

andybash12 I appreciate the support and thank you for the questions:

Since KlimaDAO would receive 31,250 carbon credits in total out of 1 million tCO2 over 5 years (200k per annum), could we've more information on who the other investors are who'll be receiving the remaining carbon credits?

SCB is the sole investor on this project.
SCB is going to receive the remaining carbon credits.

Could we also have more information on how many cookstoves are planned to be purchased and distributed using the $250k investment?

So as to insulate SCB and Klima from potentially lower output we link the contract to issued VERs and not cookstoves.
As a fun-fact good quality cookstoves are manufactured at $25 each assuming one purchases on industrial scale.

Isn't $8 ton pretty expensive for a 3 year lock on voluntary carbon credits?

BurntToast These credits will be 2022 vintage +. Based on data from a variety of VCM partners, the current market for 2017+ vintage cookstove credtis from GS is above $12/tonne. Additionally, there is a general expectation in the market that projects with strong social and economic co-benefits will hold a premium over other credits, which would indicate a value add for the project StarCB is proposing. Furthermore, as has been the historical trend, offset prices continue to appreciate (though recent macro conditions have caused a price retrace - they're still higher than 2 years ago).