I write as a Klima holder. Thanks @GolanTrevize for the valuable control, I appreciate it as usually I tend to do these things and get the heat
I'll try to summarize pros and cons:
Pros
- KI users will have more choice, which will allow them to stay with Klima as an asset - this is important for increasing the demand for Klima and keeping the end users with Klima. It will also be detrimental for converting more integrators as KI intermediaries because their end clients would potentially find increased value in Klima
- There will be an opportunity to test out demand for other assets before starting bonds - good as real-life due diligence on Klima's side
- The treasury will become more diversified over time with assets that Klima's price may not allow us to otherwise get. Let's forget about NCT for a second, but this could be used also with Dovu and others, who can generate high quality credits and drive demand, but are not necessarily Verra/GS. We should aim to channel all demand (both Klima generated and external) to flow via the Klima token as a replacement for vanilla carbon. Using other assets will also allow KI users to not pay potential "single project" extraction fees that some bridges will have.
- The value of the treasury can "hopefully" increase without the dilution of issuing new Klima
Cons
- For the reasons that Golan mentioned, I would like Klima to not lock the new assets in the treasury like we do via bonding, but be able to sell them in LPs and use the money to prop up our treasury book value or even buy back Klima to support the price (we all know why this is crucial for getting new carbon and users).
- This opens up the question how large the liquidity will be for those assets since Klima will not be involved in setting up these LPs - this should be one important evaluation criteria imo
- It is clear that Klima is considered the buyer of last resort for many/all carbon assets on-chain and, as Golan pointed out, we should not give up this benefit without getting something back. I wouldn't want to continue the practice that some bridges have that they get the flow fees and Klima ends up with the price risk and generates all the demand. Some bridges do this smart and generate their own demand as well. This is, in my view, the best way to collaborate, where Klima is part of co-marketing with the bridge's own clients for the purpose of them using KI instead of the carbon assets directly. Moss is a great example for that.
Preliminary conclusion
Overall, I'd be for this proposal, but with a twist
- I'd propose that any carbon that Klima receives is not locked in the treasury, but used for the current needs of the DAO, which could mean it stays in the treasury, but could also be sold in non Klima sponsored pools.
- To link inclusion of such assets with concrete co-marketing which specifically enables and promotes the use of KI and also part of any LP fee income that Klima Infinity would generate in non Klima owned pools (or something along those lines).