Good conversation here - it goes without saying that internally these are questions we have been grappling with for some time, and a lot of effort has gone into rationalizing the project, where its going, and what needs to be done to accelerate it. Glad to see this level of engagement around what is a big strategic decision for the project.
A few high level thoughts from me addressing the themes that have come up:
In terms of objectives of the RFC:
the Protocol's main interest in this proposal is to have the ability to enable the creation of an entity that can drive retirement volumes onto the underlying carbon credits held in the DAO's LPs / ecosystem. The major question the Protocol has been asking itself for the past year or two is "how do we drive demand into the ecosystem", based on the understanding that this is ultimately how value will be accrued back to KlimaDAO. Carbonmark as is is today was the short-term solution the DAO developed. This proposal seeks to answer the same question with a longer-term view. Conversely, it does not seek to define how KlimaDAO can become a lending facility for DCM innovation, "investor" or otherwise.
In terms of synergies between KlimaDAO and the proposed Carbonmark set-up:
Carbonmark has been built expressly to leverage the DCM ecosystem, based on our theory that the benefits of the public blockchain tech-stack will win out over the long-term. If we are correct with this assumption, KlimaDAO should remain a powerful mechanism to build on-chain liquidity - and thus service Carbonmark and other DCM solutions long in to the future. If we are wrong on this assumption (and traditional infrastructure will remain dominant), then our Protocol and innovation activities will remain purely experimental, but not achieve mainstream adoption. I do not think that is the case, but if it is and Carbonmark and/or KlimaDAO need to innovate in different ways (looking at different asset classes, technologies, etc), my personal view is that it is ok; in a future where commercial activities are separated from protocol activities, it is not a problem if they are able to iterate in different ways from one another (in fact, this may be optimal).
Re the funding ask:
Per the initial RFC, the funding proposal is intended to ensure that there is 18 months of runway for the tech layer for the DCM to be built out, without the risk and turmoil that funding cliff-edges create. This is slightly below current BAU spending forecasts, but for all intents and purposes would be used for BAU dev activities, with the added benefit of having the ability to commercialize these activities through traditional business rails. This can also help project attract / retain talent talent within a more traditional structure, and generally increase operational efficiencies (things that can be sometimes challenging within a DAO). From the internal perspective, this feels like a no-brainer to ensure we can deliver on the objective outlined in #1.
I caveat that the DAO has spent much more on tech development thus far on a pro-rated basis than the amount that is represented in this funding ask. With the maturity of the product, the clear vision Carbonmark has, and with appropriate contracts in place to attract FTEs, we stand to be much more efficient to build out the rest of the tech.
Generally agree that attaching loans which anchor Carbonmark's priorities on repayments could distort its objectives (and intentionally deferring comments on the feasibility of this to others who are more qualified to comment).
Risks / opportunity cost:
...and ref @vishkap's comments on the bear market. We are in a highly competitive market segment (blockchain x climate), although its currently stunted due to tokenization embargoes and the current state of the carbon market. Carbonmark does at some point need to position itself more strongly for when the the markets recover / (re)open -- not doing so will likely mean losing ground in the future.
The nature of the competitive pursuits that the DAO is now pursuing are indicative of the organic nature of a DAO; but not that they are particularly well advised within the DAO set-up. We are where we are today... but crossing the chasm to "web2" / off-chain is going to be required to rectify the situation at some point.
Realistically, a bigger issue (that has been unsaid but is known within the community) is that Carbonmark is open-source. At some point the tech may well simply be taken - this is the nature of R&D within the environment we are in. The opportunity for Carbonmark to "do it itself" is probably time-limited.
In terms of the risks / opportunity cost, we can (and indeed have for many many months) speculated on when the right time to move forwards with such a proposal would be. The only certainty we have, is that at some point it will be too late.
To summarise from my point of view, "doing nothing" is not a neutral act. Staying as we are will also have significant ramifications for both Carbonmark and KlimaDAO's abilities to pursue their respective objectives.
As was requested at the last Office Hours, it certainly seems like it'd make sense to arrange for a second session dedicated to this topic with the Community - next week in the usual slot(?)