RainbowWarrior
The argument for me isn't about the quality of the credits, it's that MCO2 pretty much acts as a Moss token by proxy. Moss is a centralized, VC backed company , they are picking the projects, buying the credits tokenizing them and then selling them. This kind of policy decision enriches them, and other MCO2 token holders, and is again just another middleman, who I thought the whole point of this was to replace?
I thought the point of Klima was to drive up the price of carbon offsets to make it cheaper for companies to not pollute in the first place, and to make it profitable for projects to pull carbon out of the atmosphere - i.e. using market mechanisms to incentivise the behaviours we need.
If someone finds a niche where they can make a profit by doing that, isn't that a good thing? Does it really matter if they're profiting by being a middleman if the carbon price goes up, and decarbonisation projects happen which wouldn't have happened otherwise?
With BCT, any carbon project can bridge their own tokens and mint Klima or use the BCT to take out a loan and finance themselves. None of this is possible for MCO2 and centralised approaches like this.
My understanding is that the journey from "I have a great idea for a decarbonisation project" to "Here are your BCT tokens for this year" is a multi-year process requiring a lot of specialist knowledge and interactions with several different organisations. If Moss have a way to streamline that process for qualifying projects, doesn't that mean they're enabling projects to go ahead which otherwise might have stalled or not started in the first place?
Also, if MCO2 is a treasury asset, that doesn't stop projects from bridging to BCT - it just offers another option that some projects might be able to use.
On top of all of this, we have fragmentation of liquidity, and competing tokens... again... re-inventing the same this that was always there off chain in the first place.... The whole point of bringing credits on chain is to build an abstraction layer and meta-registry on top of these different credit types, but now we have another abstraction next to an existing abstraction, and we just end up with an even more ugly fragmented, illiquid monster markets than before...
I thought the plan was always to have multiple "pools" of tokenised carbon offsets - e.g. nature-based, direct air capture, etc. Are you saying that Klima should only ever be backed by BCT? Also, doesn't bonding the base carbon tokens for Klima have the effect of converting less liquid, heterogeneous carbon tokens into a more liquid, homogenous asset (i.e. Klima)? Or, have I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?