RFC: Separate Carbonmark from KlimaDAO and fund expansion strategy

Z33

Garmon based on the proposal, it'd be Carbonmark team, as that isn't a DAO.

TheLawyer

Z33 theres a bit of a mixup. Carbonmark is actually part of the DAO
The difference is minimal, but it allows with the real world entity to be more scalable

Z33

Would klimaDAO get equity in return for the seed funding? if yes, how much and at what valuation?

TheLawyer

Z33 there is no intentions of putting it in a private entity with shares,as clearly stated
More likely a no profit entity such as a foundation or association

Z33

TheLawyer sorry, I meant, once it's spun off as a separate entity, it won't be a DAO anymore, correct?

emc

TheLawyer Thank you for your efforts to explain this

More likely a no profit entity such as a foundation or association

This piece of the proposal still feels fairly opaque. Which of those structures will it be and what ramifications does each of those have over the other?

As a "legal" entity does there need to be an individual (or individuals) who are responsible for the actions of the foundation/association?

Will this person(s) be registered and how can we ensure that the current decision making process used for the DAO is followed/honoured by this person(s)?

With the questions being raised about liability of DAO members I think it would be beneficial to know exactly what legal structure Carbonmark will have and who the key stakeholders/responsible parties will be.

TheLawyer

vishkap financial accountability is necessary, but I don't understand how a loan can be different.
Klima has requested more than once the budgets for building. The request now is a bigger budget (less future requests therefore), and provide a real world entity that has the possibility of accepting more and bigger clients.

The idea, is of course to be as more decentralized as possible, and there it's clear and shown in the past months with for instance QV and other moves.

The split will allow the protocol to focus 100% on the protocol itself, and allow carbonmark to build the infrastructure where Klima will benefit, and the infrastructure that so far Klima doesn't have and need (rw entity).
On the other hand, the difference is truly minimal

vishkap

TheLawyer
Thanks for clarification.

I’m not sure what structure I’m in favour of, and I was spitting out ideas - and appreciate the dialogue here.

In some ways decentralisation can be harmful which is why I see merit in a centralised and purpose driven vehicle, which carbonmark may benefit from being. I think the loan or equity makes sense if carbonmark is spun off in terms of governance and/or is clearly defined as an entity. I understand the lack of clear impact of a loan arrangement if the entities are inextricably linked. Ideally an entrepreneur might grab such opportunities themselves in the future; but there would be no guarantee of utilisation of Klima digital credits. For this reason and others I can see why there are clear shared interests. I await any further definition in entity and purpose between the two brands, KlimaDAO and Carbonmark alongside the continued dwg process before commenting on or fully understanding nuances. In principle I agree with the stated approach.

TheLawyer

Garmon Currently, Carbonmark's fees are at 0.

In the future, if Carbonmark is a different legal entity, and if people at Carbonmark wanted to raise the fees, who would get the say? The Carbonmark team, or would it be a vote?

So far the decision the DAO delegated it to the heads of the departments
I see no difference if carbonmark will use a RW entity

equalizer

Engaging with the Klima DAO team's decisions, it's crucial to see things straight and cut through the noise. Here’s the breakdown:

Carbonmark is already a part of the DAO. Making a big deal out of this doesn't make sense. We should be focusing on the main goals.
Carbonmark is open-source. Anyone can clone it. If we keep opposing its integration, we might end up watching someone else reap its benefits while Klima gets nothing. On the other hand, in this scenario, Klima will have the most upside.

Why keep poking with more questions when everything's already lined up? Both entities are on the same page, aiming for the same goals. Instead of going in circles, let's keep our eyes on the prize and get things done. Let's not waste time on stuff that’s already clear.

Im in favor in anything that can give resonance to Klima

vishkap

equalizer

Conversation tends to be an integral part of a voting based system. Whilst you make a strident and valuable point (and pragmatic summary); the conversation and engagement (as well as the opportunity to engage) makes voting more meaningful as people can start to gather and understand what they will be voting upon. That community buy in is valuable in the face of a seasonal and volatile set of unknowns in the future.

TheLawyer

Z33 but DAO is not a specific entity form, but a set of rules to govern assets
Be more specific so I can help at the best of my abilities

andybash12

Z33 Carbonmark would be more of a separate division and not a separate entity.

andybash12

The goal of this RFC is two fold.

Enable Carbonmark to become a real world entity with an address, bank account, etc to build partnerships and service customers in the real world (read web2). This is a big thing because

a) 99% of the customers in web2 are either unaware or don't understand or are skeptical of web3. Imagine a customer of Carbonmark asking "where are you based?" and the answer is "Uhh..We are on the blockchain. Present globally." Companies work with partners who are in the real world.

b) All of the web2 customers are the ones who contribute 100% of carbon emissions and need carbon credits of offsetting. We've to be in web2 to service web2.
Clearly demarking KlimaDAO and Carbonmark would enable proper allocation of resources and funds and define the role played by each of them.
- KlimaDAO is focussed on the protocol (decentralization, public good, open source, being the base layer for carbon) and how to add value to the $KLIMA token.
- Carbonmark would focus on increasing the adoption of DCM, bringing more customers into web3 (by existing in web2), retirement volumes, increasing the supply of new carbon credits and promote blockchain as the technology of the future for carbon retirement.

The activities and growth of Carbonmark would feed into the KlimaDAO ecosystem.

Nikodemos

If this passes, would Carbonmark be able hold stocks, bonds and shares of other legal entitys although it self doesn't have shares to be shared? If so this might open more opportunities to do deals with other companies like Limenet.

Also would like to know what the treasure of Carbonmark would look like in the beginning. Would it have any klima tokens for participating into KlimaDAOs decision making?

Would there be two seat problem if there is voting regarding situation where result of voting is more favorable for KlimaDAO or Carbonmark since same people are on both teams?

TheLawyer

Nikodemos If this passes, would Carbonmark be able hold stocks, bonds and shares of other legal entitys although it self doesn't have shares to be shared? If so this might open more opportunities to do deals with other companies like Limenet.

Exactly

Also would like to know what the treasure of Carbonmark would look like in the beginning. Would it have any klima tokens for participating into KlimaDAOs decision making?

KlimaDAO can decide to give some tokens to CM in the near future

Would there be two seat problem if there is voting regarding situation where result of voting is more favorable for KlimaDAO or Carbonmark since same people are on both teams?

I don't see it happening, as both entities are in the same team

TheLawyer

vishkap

Taking a step back to analyze the entire situation, one must recognize a fundamental difference in the approach between the contributors team where you were also part of (or general opex) and CarbonMark (CM).
The contribs never sought a loan, thus it becomes challenging to understand the reasoning behind expecting CM to take one. Venturing into the realm of loans would obligate CM to devise a structured repayment strategy. If this strategy does not encompass the utilization of Klima and its carbon from its inception, then the entire exercise would prove counterproductive, rendering no tangible benefits for the community.
Think of it this way: if CM took out a loan, they'd be on the hook to find the best way to pay it back. But if that method isn't using Klima from the get-go, they would have to find any possible way to repay the loan. This would mean even not using Klima, but any platform or activity that would make CM repay it in the safest possible way. Maybe meaning not using Klima at all.
Where's the benefit in that for Klima?
Moreover, it is essential to underscore that the provision of loans doesn't align with the foundational objectives of Klima. It's imperative that our discussions remain anchored to the broader vision and the effective methods to achieve it.

ryfleisch

From the Provide perspective, I see some likely benefits in our combined enterprise GTM approach from this move. It can bring more clarity and function to the roles each participant operates from.

andybash12

In addition to all the comments shared in this post already, I feel that any revenue that is generated by Carbonmark should be reinvested in to growing Carbonmark. Any repayment condition would inhibit this process.

By growing Carbonmark and increasing DCM adoption, the returns for KlimaDAO would be several folds higher than just the repayment of the $2.7m funding request, mentioned in this proposal.

TheLawyer

andybash12 this is exactly the point.

Alanos86

What would be the CM’s legal structure and who would be the owners/decision makers in that structure?

« Previous Page