James
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,
James
My point was clear, and I would otherwise gently steer you towards reading on information and markets, as well as what is long term equilibrium vs short term equilibrium, but I'm beginning to form an opinion your response was formed in bad faith, not lack of clarity or understanding, because:
James
What information exactly the functioning of the pools has been consistent since they were launched, anyone could have redeemed from them at any time.
Let's make this crystal clear. In the AMA following the uncovering of Toucan's operation, the Toucan team explicitly claimed it could not work with Klima's policy team to "rescue" the nature-based offsets in the BCT pool in question because @Brian33 and the policy team at Klima insisted such a move would require a KIP proposal vote followed by a snapshot vote in the interest of transparency.
or, from your own blog post:
We were not able to share that this mass balancing activity was being performed with the Toucan community before it was completed. By publicizing that this value remained available to anyone, the arbitrageurs we were defending against would have been tipped off. Revealing this free value in the dark forest would have resulted in the rescue being front-run
This is precisely how markets react to information, though either purposefully or inadvertently, Toucan decides to leave out the fact that both sellers and buyers would receive the new information, so value attribution wouldn't solely go toward arbitragers.
Yet at the same time, Toucan continues to insist that the information on how to selective redeem had been out in the open all along. Here's the thing: You can't have it both ways - if you are worried that release information would create a rush to hoard NCT offsets in the BCT pool, then you are admitting access to that information was gated, whether by technical, physical, or other barriers. If you insist on the information was open and otherwise un-hurdled the entire time, then allowing the policy team to publish a KIP would have no material effect. As for the release of information of Toucan's interest in a nature-based pool, this was something your team had done long before the behind-the-curtains operation.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim a "dark forest" where information would spur immediate reaction, and that the information was out there all along.
James
I'm just wondering if there's a bit of self-awareness with anyone on the team at this point?
Starting with the "rescue operation", with the exception of a few notable members of your team, every response in discord and forums I've heard coming out has been prefaced with "me me me", "I had no money so I had no choice", "this is what we think is best for ReFi", "this is our vision and you should be going along with it/are damaging the earth for not going along with it." Even the more polished mea culpa response from the blog post prefaces with qualifiers such as "the perception" that we did something wrong, etc. It is astonishingly tone-deaf and an own goal that no one forced you into. No one is trying to force you into a public caning, but you need to demonstrate at least a basic understanding of why certain stakeholders are unhappy with you to instill any confidence that you can redress lapses in the decision-making process that led to this outcome going forward. In your responses here, you have not.
ela
I would prefer to engage on open forums rather than closed because I've been engaged in way more bad faith engagements during my career, where the value to one party is the signal to the outside world rather than genuine dialogue, than I care to recall. That said, my goal here is not to embarrass or delegitimize anyone or any party, and I do believe in the value of engagement over opposition. I'd be happy to ping you via discord.