I was going to leave well enough alone but this is just brazen
ela
In regards to your points:
The value that was secured was never priced into BCT in the first place, and members of the Toucan core have advised against depositing nature-based carbon credits into the BCT Pool at/before launch.
Neither you nor I nor the Toucan team determines what is "priced" into BCT and what is not, the market does, based on the information available to it, otherwise, you can stop listing BCT on any swaps and exchanges and just list it as a direct to consumer/B2B product only sold by you. It's one thing to say the team with inside/proprietary information on redemption and access believes the market price does not accurately reflect the true value of the assets underneath, it's another thing altogether to simultaneously pretend this asymmetric information effect on price exist and pretend that BCT does not lose value from selective redemption by taking advantage of the asymmetric information. Toucan's "rescue operation" justification hinges on the very fact that the market would react to the release of this information to a greater public, yet continues to pretend it would have no impact on the price of BCT or recoverable value to BCT holders. This is a point I must stress because it's increasingly clear that some members of the Toucan team and its advisors simply do not respect market mechanisms or believe the purpose of these mechanisms is to be manipulated. This lack of respect for the demand side is more damaging than any positive "motivation" you may believe you hold.
To answer your question about the board, the funds are now in a 4/5 Multisig that consists of:
Klima DAO, BICOWG 1, Toucan Protocol, Moss, Regen Network
If that is the ultimate governing bottom line, what you're directly saying is that Klima would have at most a 20% say, and actually less because other signees were coordinated participants in the "rescue operation", is that correct?
In regards to a single standard, we are referring to TCO2s, the semi-fungible carbon tokens that back BCT and NCT; not BCT or NCT or any trading pairs (as a large advantage of on-chain carbon is that it can easily and verifiably be retired by anyone, not only traded or held).
Having one single carbon token standard while still preserving the attributes and complexity of carbon credits addresses many issues with the existing carbon markets, like fragmentation of credits in different registries, while at the same time still allowing a healthy carbon trading system.
This is your vision, not the market's decision. If you see robust initial enthusiasm for your framework, then experience a sudden decline in the enthusiasm, I would first look toward yourself and the products you make before blaming other market participants. As for the fragmentation in the off-chain VCM, this exists precisely because of the problems Toucan is beginning to replicate on-chain - opaque and unilateral decision making, unsatisfactory criteria and standards for credits, exclusionary committees with insufficient outreach to key stakeholders other than "we would not certify you." To be clear, the market fragments because needs are not being met, not because there's no one person telling everyone else to join or become the enemy of the people - many off-chain registries have tried that and continues to try that (Nori is but the most recent example) with decidedly unsatisfactory results for backers and the carbon market alike.
GoingJohnGalt
Its time to acknowledge that it's been two weeks, we now have a fully functioning nature-based token - an incredible ReFi feat, offering immense possibilities - and it's time to move on and keep building.
It's interesting that your old messages in Toucan about getting help bridging hydro credits from #bridge-support in Toucan's discord have disappeared, but I digress. The point here is that it is not Klima that's the bottleneck, but Toucan's decision on what to do with the rescued value. Perhaps peer pressure would be better applied towards pushing that to a speedy and transparent resolution instead of doubling down on Klima holders.
@greevesie
See comment above - the bottleneck is not at Klima, but rather at Toucan. It's been half a month since their "rescue operation", yet the resolution of the rescued value is still up in the air. Also, to be perfectly clear, bonding NCT or not will not affect "climate action" in the short term as all of those credits were issued for projects already up and running. It does delay sending a signal to future projects, but that is certainly much less damaging than forcing a double-pay action on the majority of the on-chain demand by writ of a small group of people advancing their own goals(whether that's self-ascribed noble or for the greater good or not) that could cripple on-chain demand for a crypto-generation.
@a13x
As @ela mentioned we have been very open and transparent with the community to ensure that everyone gets all the information that we have as to why the rebalancing was necessary, how it unfolded and what will happen with the funds. The whole team has been working hard the last weeks to introduce our new government process and intensify our commitment to communicate closely with the community and our partners along every step.
The release of information after you performed the operation is not being "open and transparent", it's a patch to a gaping problem you opened with your behind-the-curtains operation. While I appreciate opening a governing process, you have built no additional confidence in your team's ability to respond to feedback via that newly opened channel with many members of your team's hamfisted way of trying to force this initiative through via deflection (this is for the greater good! Do it now or you're harming the planet!) and without addressing the concerns voiced here head-on.
NCT was designed to create the highest level of quality possible in the VCM and introducing NCT bonds will send healthy ripply effects across the whole market, create fresh demand for buyers, set new incentives for the ecosystem and bring synergy effects to Klima by increasing the utility of it's carbon stack and further diversify the Klima treasury.
No, it was not, and I raised concerns in your discord, which someone from your team promptly redirected away from the main channel traffic of attention in a sub-thread in the name of "not spamming" your general channel (any visitors can judge for themselves the frequency and volume of what would constitute spam) and then promptly ignored after it was apparently the traffic redirection was successful. By no means do I insist on my way is the right way, but even the official response to the NCT pool being just another fast track to the lowest common denominator and the denominator wasn't set very high was that this was 1) this is probably the result but the sacrifice we need to make for liquidity and 2) keep on talking up NCT as some sort of highest level of quality when it's actually will end up as the lowest level of quality of nature-based credits (aside from the occasional developed country forestry projects which aren't registered with the major registries) available by design.
James
So to be clear it's not that we didn't want Klima's help nor did we 'chose' to do so without speaking to policy.
To be clear, it is something you 'chose' to do, even though you spoke to policy because you believed the Klima policy team's firm stance of transparent communication to the Klima community would impact NCT price beyond the point at which you can recover, and you believed Toucan and its Twitter Spaces friends community of stakeholders would be the better holder and distributor of the latent BCT value than arbitragers and BCT holders, who would split the value in some proportion after the release of information.
We have done the best with the resources we have in order to bootstrap the first high quality tokenised carbon pool with deep liquidity without any help from anybody.
This is something I've heard over and over again from the Toucan team since the effect of the operation went public. "We had no help so we had to do it." Do you realize it sounds exactly like "we have no money, but you do and we would know better what to do with your beautiful property over there, and we think we're excellent judges of who's deserving or not, so we just took the stuff you were going to spend on useless crap anyways"? I'm just wondering if there's a bit of self-awareness with anyone on the team at this point? There have been many, many alternatives proposed to you by this point, some of which were addressed in your own governance post in the form of "it's too complicated", and "it'd waste our resources on non-core functions", you know, as opposed to the "rescue operation", which is a core function? The only difference between the two is the former has results you don't see as benefiting you, and the latter has results you see as directly affecting you, not whether the operations themselves are "core" to you. I also wanted to make that perfectly clear.
