TheLawyer
Appreciate this perspective, and the answer provided.
That said it is referred to as a grant in the proposal above. If there's a crucial distinction to be made, it would be sensible to have that made more clearly in the proposal.
Whilst I see the benefit of a non-financial relationship between Carbonmark and KlimaDAO, I also think the governance of the ongoing non-financial relationship needs attention to ensure it stays productive, especially as Carbonmark could be considered a spin off with its differentiation and potential legal differentiation specifically whereby a unique entity may be required to qualify for KYB etc. (not a lawyer so feel free to chime in on the entity structure).
There's a concern from my side that the funds of the DAO are declining whilst the market remains bearish. I appreciate the need to turn supply into value via Carbonmark. That said, I would highlight a concern that governance between entities and value to existing klimates may dilute as Carbonmark progresses.
Concerns about loan repayment could be offset by favourable terms in terms of length of time and low or no interest to repayment. I would argue it's perhaps better for the organisation than to spin off a new subsidiary without any accountability to the parent or token holders in terms of financial performance and additionally may help with a complex governance problem. There was discussion about yield farming being hazardous due to the potential to investment tending to zero, which is very sensible; perhaps this is a lens for all DAO investment to be more hawkish in the bear market. With this lens a loan vs. a grant is quite a minimal step.
Whilst work progresses on the DWG or the establishment of a formal plan for KlimaDAO's operations, it would be wise to also consider the financial and legal relationship (or indeed formalising the social contract in some other way) between Carbonmark and KlimaDAO. Making this clear internally and externally could be of value going forward.
I appreciate the strategy may be complex between entities, which sometimes warrants this sort of family office type relationship. That said I think having some basic structure which passes a sense test internally and externally is valuable alongside a tense market position.
Whilst I agree that there is need for the bridge to DCM credits, I would argue that (even minimal) financial accountability can only help the focus.
Good luck on next steps.