So much yes! Also agree with MR-MR-MR that it would likely be in Klima's interests to pro-actively arbitrage if the opportunity presents itself in any case. Ie if someone pools into BCT something that could be pooled in NCT. This mandate should extend to all future assets that have redeemal functions.
About the restrictions -
Re: 3) I personally don't see a particular reason why the maximum limit is strictly necessary. Basically backing will be maintained even if the credits are in TCO2 form. Also if you don't do it at significant scale you still might run into a race with other arbitrageurs catching wind of the situation.
Re: 4) Would probably be nice to include a specified timeframe in the mandate and not "at an undefined later time"

    No second thought given. Go for it. What are you waiting for?

    greevesie this is a recent development and right now will only apply to NCT and future pools - Toucan has assured us they would work together with us prior to implementing a contract upgrade to enable this redemption fee for BCT

    MR-MR-MR Very much agree with this. I also tend to concur that the limit either too tight or potentially unnecessary.

    MR-MR-MR
    100% agreed, another post highlighting the carbon experts will come out soon, and this team should be inclusive (e.g anyone can join if they have the proper qualifications)

    MR-MR-MR We will need some way to account for any TCO2s held in the treasury when looking at treasury value and backing. Suggested to peg it to BCT price at least initially so treasury value is retained until a new carbon pool comes
    Agreed.

    Rez

    We put 10% as the limit to reduce powers as a fail-safe. In the future, this may be automated, and may allow us to lift the limits. Worst case, we can do multiple batches of 10%!

    Rez Re: 3) I personally don't see a particular reason why the maximum limit is strictly necessary. Basically backing will be maintained even if the credits are in TCO2 form. Also if you don't do it at significant scale you still might run into a race with other arbitrageurs catching wind of the situation.

    Rez Re: 4) Would probably be nice to include a specified timeframe in the mandate and not "at an undefined later time"
    Agree with this, we'll clarify with the timeframe after more discussion with the partnership/carbon team.

    Will this affect somehow to price of on-chain carbon tons? Positively, negativity or not at all? Thank you.

    Also wider range of assets brings up more "instruments/products" to be used for offseting emissions. That could bring up arbitrary opportunitys and tailored products for offsetters (more marketing opportunitys).

    • Cujo replied to this.

      Nikodemos

      If only a redemption is done (for say BCT -> NCT) using reserves, then there is no actual market impact other than a potentially reduced arbitrage opportunity between pools. The flow would be Redeem -> Deposit, so nothing hits an LP pool.

      Write a Reply...