Summary

This proposal outlines the transition of governance of the Base Carbon Tonne (BCT) from Toucan Protocol to KlimaDAO. The transition includes the transfer of administrative control of BCT carbon pool smart contracts and the rebranding of BCT tokens.

Motivation

The transfer of BCT governance to KlimaDAO is a strategic move to consolidate our position in the carbon credit market. This transition enables us to have direct control over a significant environmental asset, further aligning with our mission of driving ecological action. This consolidation is anticipated to enhance the ability of KlimaDAO to manage underlying carbon projects within BCT.

Proposal

Transfer of Control: Transfer administrative control of the BCT carbon pool from Toucan to KlimaDAO, encompassing smart contracts on both Main net (Polygon, Celo) and Test net (Mumbai, Alfajores).

Rebranding of BCT Token: Develop a new visual logo for the BCT token, removing the designation "Toucan Protocol" from all contracts and documents.

Payment for Transfer: KlimaDAO will pay 125,000 USDC to Toucan Protocol in exchange for administrative control of BCT.

Governance Approval: Implement this transition in compliance with the KlimaDAO Governance Framework, requiring a final vote of approval from the KlimaDAO community.

BCT Management: BCT was developed for the launch of KlimaDAO, and henceforth will be managed and owned by KlimaDAO. Upon passing of this proposal, the DAO wallet will be whitelisted for 0% selective redemption fees, and the protocol team will have the authority to manage the underlying TCO2’s at its discretion.

Polling Period
The conversation begins now and will be assessed for escalation to KIP by the Klimate Review Committee (KRC).

    optima since Toucan's governance forum was decommissioned, there is currently no way for KlimaDAO to influence BCT pool parameters

    Given that KlimaDAO holds 90%+ of BCT tokens, it is critical that KlimaDAO has a clear mechanism for governing the BCT pool, and this proposal provides such a mechanism for a relatively modest cost (compared to the total value of the BCT pool)

    I am in favor of advancing this RFC to KIP and will vote accordingly as a member of the KRC

    KlimaDAO becoming the steward of the BCT carbon pool smart contracts makes practical sense. I can foresee this unlocking new opportunities to create a more cohesive ecosystem that will further breed innovation.

    Being the base carbon unit in the Klima protocol, BCT has always had a unique and tightly coupled relationship with the protocol mechanisms. Administrative control of both Klima and BCT contracts could allow protocol mechanisms to be further refined and adapted to the needs of the ecosystem and potentially enable new technologies like cross-chain functionality and account abstraction.

    Can you elaborate on the proposed cost of $125,000? How did you arrive at this number and what is the 'cost' to Toucan for losing control of the BCT pool (do they earn the 25% fees from selective redemptions?)

      Charlaiz The selective redemption fee will no longer accrue to Toucan, KlimaDAO may or may not alter that fee in the future, and Toucan loses the TVL and top-line stats from having the BCT product.

      So the $125k is in exchange for the product's projected loss of fees (even though they technically are used to clean up the pool, they are still fees) and loss of TVL

      6 days later

      Hello, when will this change in the governnace of the BCT happen?

      Will it enable Klima to launch a new CCP only token, that means buyers can be assured the underlyign credits are stamped with high integrity by the ICVCM?
      By this, I mean only credits with the CCP label can be tokenised?

      Could Klima be even more specific and launch tokens for REDD that have CCP label?

        Paddy Hey Paddy! Thanks for reaching out here.

        Change will occur if snapshot vote passes.

        For reference: all of the credits in BCT are already tokenized, and this certainly opens the door for Klima to launch new liquidity pools with tighter gating criteria.

        We've been sourcing carbon from various projects as part of our forward carbon workflow (https://forum.klimadao.finance/d/289-kip-52-iot-ai-ml-on-blockchain-water-filtration-high-quality-project-kip , https://forum.klimadao.finance/d/288-kip-51-gro-foundation-arr-project-funding , https://forum.klimadao.finance/d/288-kip-51-gro-foundation-arr-project-funding , https://forum.klimadao.finance/d/277-kip-48-j-credit-pilot-activity-support-j-credit-integration/6 , https://forum.klimadao.finance/d/246-kip-41-aither-limenet-mineral-ocean-alkalinity-enhancement/4 , https://forum.klimadao.finance/d/139-kip-32-starcb-eeimp-project/6 )

        We are quite keen to accelerate the tokenization of these and other impactful projects. At the end of the day, the ICVCM are assessing the impact of various categories of carbon projects, and we think our quality criteria on these newer purchases are going to overlap significantly with what comes out of the ICVCM.

        A major distinguishing criteria for many of these new pools will be the CCP label, which as I understand is being applied at a category level (https://icvcm.org/category-assessment-status/) with relevant methodologies found here (https://icvcm.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CarbonCategories-methodologies-table-Feb82024.pdf).

        Klima can be as specific as it wants, and list carbon at a category-level, methodology-level, or even a project-level as we see at https://www.carbonmark.com/

        MSWG1 should provide clarity around categories like IFM and REDD+ . Given the ICVCM outputs will likely drive buying activity and increase price discovery, KlimaDAO will certainly assess their opinions when deciding any new pool criteria, whether that be for existing on-chain carbon assets or new assets we seek to bring on-chain.

        The information coming out of the ICVCM likely will drive buying patterns to some degree, and so allowing users to clearly see what is CCP-aligned and what is not, and differentiating for this at a pool level while making markets on the distributed ledger - will be an important consideration when evaluating how best to scale the carbon markets.

        Thanks,

        That sounds like an almost yes.

        When is the snapshot vote due?

        Cujo locked the discussion.
        Write a Reply...