Voted no. You guys are snakes.
Request for Comment: Toucan NCT Bonds
- Edited
I was going to leave well enough alone but this is just brazen
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.
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.
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.
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.
Speaking as a community member: While we do need to move on with building the on chain carbon market, our foundation has to be rock solid. Community governance has been cited as a reason why Klima was not involved in the BCT -> NCT balancing (alerting other actors while the voting and discussion occurs in public). What we're seeing now is the cost of that action possibly being greater than what was to be avoided.
Also, not naming names, but some members of the Toucan team needs to practice better social media sensibility by not throwing subtle shade at Klima on Twitter literally 1-2 days before posting this. I mean, come on.
I dont think we should be making decisions about NCT before the Toucan decides what they around doing with the arbed value form BCT. Does make sense to start buying an coin that is unpopular before that issue is resolved.
As a long term Klima staker and early BCT buyer this proposal has broken any trust I have for Toucan (and brought back memories of the Klima launch with Toucan ultimately messed up by distributing BCT to rough actors). This proposal feels like an attempt by Toucan to extract value from Klima after the community's longstanding support (for crypto). Aside from effectively stealing (for now) the upside of Klima's BCT to NCT conversion Toucan has decided to create an NCT-USD liquidity pool (thus attacking Klima's raison d'etre and putting the symbiotic relationship between both protocols into question). To add insult to injury we are now being asked to be exit liquidity for Toucan's arb.
In sum - Toucan's behavior has been extremely distasteful and, while I wish the individuals involved the best, Toucan can fk themselves if they think this is a reasonable proposal.
Friends, let’s keep this civil and in good faith (as I believe the Klima team have maintained all throughout). Agree with the above; this proposal seems out of sequence, and steps need to be taken to restore a sense of trust and faith in the partnership.
I think many of us are in a bit of mourning about the partnership. Toucan’s execution of the rescue and the subsequent distancing and shade that has been cast on Klima (and allowed to persist within their forums) combined with the seemingly cold cards-to-chest poker-face business-as-usual vibe that has emerged has been a little disheartening. Still, Klima will be fine either way. My hope is that Toucan doesn’t delay too much longer in deciding who they want to be, and what they want to be known for in the ReFi space. I believe that a genuine spirit of abundance might yet somehow emerge, and that in years to come we will look back at this moment and laugh in good cheer.
Yes, let's maintain civility. Klima and Toucan have had success together.
I do think it's reasonable to revisit this after a decision has been made regarding the value arbed from the BCT pool. I will be voting against until we have a clear picture of exactly how that is handled.
- Edited
I already voted no and will continue to vote against any new asset/liquidity introduced from Toucan until: (A) acceptable resolution of the return of BCT->NCT value at no additional cost to KlimaDAO; and **(B) a confirmed allocation to KlimaDAO of the future Toucan DAO/governance token, considering the current "going rate" among carbon bridges is ~ 10%, as recently established by Moss & C3.
Among RfCs from Moss, Flow/GoddessDAO, and C3, Toucan's is the latest and yet objectively the worst, offering zero incentivization/reward to KlimaDAO, which was a part of every preceding carbon bridge proposal to KlimaDAO.**
- Edited
greevesie It is an interesting narrative take when our problem isn't the will to climate action but the number of people who are willing to get involved. If every turn there is going to be another nonstandard business action, lack of mass engagement will be the least of our problems. That being said, part of the problem here is that easy resolution seems to present itself. I trust the swift action to secure the funds, which is appreciated by me, results in a similarly swift resolution of fund allocations.
I am voting yes.
Because Toucan has the simplest process for bringing carbon offsets on-chain, I think it is in the overall carbon market's best interest to provide demand for this forestry token to see if it disrupts the off-chain market similar to it's BCT token. I want to see more bridging on-chain and continue to drive up the price of carbon. Bridging has slowed tremendously the past couple months and this is an opportunity to increase the bridging volume.
Was BCT devalued through removal of certain TCO2s? Of course it was; however, it was known for a long time that these TCO2s were in the Base Carbon Pool. Anyone who was following the Toucan discord knew that a "redeem" function was in the pipeline and that implied that it would be a race to see who redeemed the NCT-Eligible TCO2 tokens from the BCT carbon pool first. Toucan acted without reaching out to Klima (it's largest holder and liquidity provider), but I personally believe that the Klima team should have proactively reached out to Toucan before this all went down since the writing was on the wall and the rebalancing was inevitable. Free market gonna free market. I understand why the Klima team is upset about the loss of value, but isn't that what being a Klimate is about?
ollumi 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.
Every time the price of BCT goes over the price of the lowest quality credit permitted in the BCT pool (usually 2008 renewable projects), large quantities of these credits are bridged on chain an sold until the price of BCT returns to the the off-chain price of the lowest cost of production. This is how commodities work, and our pools function similarly.
- Edited
ollumi 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.
The value doesn't effect BCT it effects NCT because profit seeking actors would just dump these credits that they have taken in a zero-sum way.
Don't believe me ... look what happened to the credits that weren't rescued:
https://polygonscan.com/tx/0x01fca7b28e1ca071e1074e57c63e556af6af220df07c9efb7952a9a018d638ed
https://polygonscan.com/tx/0x3a6e6bc275a02e7327ce7be5b79e59c94a2c76e4b4f641d8954b339c13bca321
https://polygonscan.com/tx/0x12c672fa006fc1e628f5e4a5fb02dad21a825876ffe1f6158efa93213e97d19f
https://polygonscan.com/tx/0x15acf7c89a62f969037003b1c866c33144385114f68726adee2f50411526b2f5
https://polygonscan.com/tx/0xb0095710f47a82c6e94c99684899e1c18fd8cf3852a4c9fcb9a53dde0548328d
https://polygonscan.com/tx/0x119ff0caa53cee1b196eac8ce2a039c8f779bdfae5393b3bb00e0f92c770e0a3
ollumi 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.
If you have read and understood all the explanations that we have taken pains to put out on this and still feel this way, then I respect your right to an opinion.
It sounds like you're saying you would have let individuals actors extract the value and profit, and we all lose?
That was literally the only alternative or please tell me what you would have done?
(btw: first redeems by unknown actors on BCT starting 31st October 2021)
- Edited
ollumi 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 NetworkIf 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?
It's literally the people who put the nature based credits in the BCT pool in the first place.
None of the signers participate in the rescue operation besides Toucan Protocol
ollumi 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.
Please point me to where we blame other market participant for anything?
Also not sure what you mean about sudden decline in enthusiasm?
- Edited
Which...proves my point exactly, so I'm happy that you agree with me?
To borrow your tone in your replies: if you understand the effect of information, these transactions were done before the information was available to a greater public, while we're discussing why you would willingly 'chose' to continue to withhold that information rather than having it be out to the greater public. So to summarize, you're using transactions with insider information priced out of it to prove what prices would be with information priced into it.
If you have read and understood the conversations I've taken pains and my own valuable time to engage in good faith with your team on your server and on these forums and still do not understand why I feel that way, I think this proves my last point in my previous post. As for "only alternative" - as said already, you could've released the information to the greater BCT holding community - this is called transparency. If you were concerned about arbitrage, you could've either swallowed the pill that this is what market prices and your own product design dictated and shored up the difference via a capital partner, or been slightly less of a command & control operator compared to the route you chose and retroactively imposed selective redemption fees on nature-based credits in the BCT pool that would account for any projected price gap and announce the reason why, or selectively reached out to those who have been redeeming from your protocol with a bounty that represents a sure haul compared to the uncertainty of whether you would launch an NCT pool at all or whether the NCT pool liquidity could absorb their theoretical arbitrage maximum, or any number of other, non-self serving steps. But most importantly, I don't have to offer any of these alternatives to criticize what you did do: to paraphrase a certain comedian - I don't have to be a pilot to see a helicopter stuck up a tree and think that fellow screwed up.
That is my misunderstanding then, thanks for clearing that up!
I mean since you asked so nicely, here's an example, on KlimaDAO's forum in a RFC from a 3rd party no less, but I guess that's also consistent with how your server is mobilizing people from the Toucan server to vote on this KlimaDAO forum RFC - you don't see governance issues with voting on your own request to a separate, independent party?
I won't bother listing others where members of your team try to label other startups in the space as fragmenting your "one standard" and doing harm, people do see for themselves.
As to the sudden decline in enthusiasm, if you're not sure what I'm referring to, you wouldn't be here on these forums replying to me.
Hello Ollumi, I'm really sorry that you feel this way, and I apologize for you experiencing a lack of responsiveness in our Discord.
We hear and understand you, and we are working on making things right, so we can move forward together. We are all humans here aiming to solve the biggest challenge of our species, which should provide enough common ground to work out our differences in a way that satisfies all parties.
We would like to invite you on a call with members of the Toucan core, so we can have a fruitful conversation around the points you brought up. Please message me (ela @ Toucan | GMT+2) on Discord (DMs are open, otherwise please ping me on the Toucan Discord), so I can coordinate a time that works for you and the Toucan core.
Thank you!
After reading through the comments it seems to me that the biggest concern about this proposal is that KlimaDAO’s treasury would have to buy back what it had already paid for.
I think it’s worth to take a closer look:
Would KlimaDAO really have to start buying back the same assets (NCT and LP tokens) that were “taken out” of its treasury if NCT bonds would be introduced?
My understanding is quite the contrary. Klima will be able to sell bonds in return for NCT and LP tokens only to users who either sourced these NCTs via bridging or they bought them on SushiSwap after the NCT liquidity pool was launched and none of these assets were previously in Klima’s treasury (except the NCT that was redeemed by non-Toucan entities, over which nobody has power anyway neither now or in the future). The NCTs that were “taken out” from the Klima treasury changed their shape into the form of LP tokens – so to avoid misreference it only makes sense to refer to them as such hereafter - and Toucan have absolutely zero intention to bond any NCT-USDC LP tokens from the mass-rebalancing action.
Also, it’s both very dangerous and quite ridiculous would be to think that if a user who bought his NCT from the - currently still Toucan owned - NCT-USDC pool, isn’t acknowledged as his legitimate property, and thinking it belongs to Klima. It would make the meme turn reality in which Bugs Bunny says: “Our carbon.” Image of the meme: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/846431959042621480/912120960906317864/Klima_Meme_1.png
This would also break the fungibility of NCT. I think there is no need to explain further why this narrative would crush the on-chain carbon market.
On the other hand what should we say to those who may want to bridge new NCT and bond them ASAP to the treasury?
Not enableing NCT bonds would both delay the inflow of carbon assets from the traditional market to the on-chain which would delay global carbon price increase, and it would prevent users to play the beneficial 1,1 strategy, delaying the increase of Klima’s runway. Btw, I think if Klima is offering to sell a bond, it is only doing so under such conditions that is beneficial to them, so Klima would lose potential revenue.
If we are delaying the launch of NCT bonds, we are essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I ask everyone to reconsider this proposal and don’t see and point to Toucan as the single identifiable blameable actor. One can only do that because Toucan had to do the rebalancing operation themselves. By supporting NCT bonds, you are not doing Toucan a favor. You are doing it for the benefit of Klima, the emeriging On-Chain Carbon Market and mainly for the health of the Planet with all the living beings in it.
- Edited
Hi! IBuyShitCoins I also wanted to reply to your comment with my writing: https://forum.klimadao.finance/d/27-request-for-comment-toucan-nct-bonds/58