• General
  • Request for Comment - KLIMA X MOSS collaboration

Given there are people for and against, wouldn't the best way to make this work is by having the KLIMADAO review all the data of all MOSS tokenization transactions (since that seems to be the most contentious element ), every 6 to 12 months ? If they are taking advantage of the relationship, say by mis-representing the quality of the offsets they tokenize or by not being transparent enough or who knows what else, then the DAO can remove them. And as part of this, I would make them provide 100pct of the liquidity for at least the first year. This way it's their capital most at risk.

As a VC backed company, if the money people behind it are really in support of the mission, and can create value, they will find the capital to support the liquidity needed, OR, they will limit the number of MOSS tokens that can be created , which in turn will reduce the amount of capital they need to provide for MOSS liquidity

based on my understanding, and I of course could be wrong, this approach reduces the risk to the KLIMA treasury and to KLIMATEs

    mcuban Naked MCO2 bonds at first would be the lowest risk for Klima. While that's up and running MOSS and other partners could start to build up liquidity on Polygon, and if sufficient liquidity is achieved, we could then think about having MCO2-KLIMA or MCO2-USDC bonds. This is also a way to judge MOSS and their partners' skin in the game for pushing liquidity toward Polygon and making it the climate finance blockchain.

    The idea of 'auditing' bridges in this emerging DeFi x Carbon ecosystem every few months makes sense and will help build confidence in the overall market. We'll have to explore how to best execute that either from the DAO side or in collaboration with another organization (it could very well be an extension of ICROA in the future, if DeFi begins consuming more and more of the legacy carbon market).

      I posted this collaboration as a suggestion in Discord last month. I read their whitepaper and we had a brief discussion on Discord but I wasn't able to follow through after that. I am glad to see MCO2 finally made to the Forum. I believe it will add value both in terms of optionality in treasury and in marketing. It will strengthen KlimaDAO's OG status in this particular niche. Yes, from me.

      I'm wondering if pKlima tokens could be used more when new protocols and assets is being included for bonding. That cold be one more way to have extra protection against new assets or protocols in case they are hostile in some way.

      Wondering if there cold be like Moss-usdc pool and by providing that pool provider gets pKlima.
      Maby just a silly tough 😅

      Dear Dionysus and @mcuban : @Moss agrees with baked MCO2 bonds and we agree with providing the liquidity for an initial period, and for pushing for partners and our network to stake.

      We are also completely for transparency (we have invested heavily in all types of audits possible) and will abide by whatever standard that is decided collectively here for data review in whichever time period desired (we have the Armanino real time audit of the ledger at this link, by the way - compares total outstanding tokens with Verra ledger) https://real-time-attest.trustexplorer.io/moss

      We appreciate the feedback given here and declare our commitment to achieving best in practice standards

      Dear CryptoKnight : many thanks for the question. We are not a trading platform, we were initially a carbon credit curator and intermediary (selecting projects, buying wholesale, tokenizing, selling retail) and now we have moved strongly towards upstream - digital generation of carbon credits from NBS via satellite imaging and quant models. We are also acquiring land in the Amazon and, along with traditional/incumbent developers, generating carbon credits in the legacy system. @Moss is agnostic (probably as Klima is) as for the final use or what buyers do with credits, as long as supply is continuously removed from the system, generating a favorable demand/supply imbalance for developers and raising the price of carbon credits -- this can be done via traditional offsetting by companies and individuals, or via staking to a blackhole. We don't care, we want carbon credits to be valued at the highest price possible, so as to deter / remove incentives for emissions.

      Dear Brian33: many thanks for your points and questions.

      1) We have no problem with allowing users to tokenize and mint MCO2, but do believe strongly that our curation and project selection adds significant value to our tokens. We see many projects that do not pass our due diligence being sold / distributed by peers globally. The main challenge here is that Brazil, being the world's largest NBS potential supplier, has many challenges concerning the analysis of the legal ownership of land. Our challenge, that @Moss is solving via the building of an application called DCS (Decentralized Carbon System) and a data lake with all the legal and notary office information on rural properties in Brazil, is to digitally assess the quality of a project via algos (and not manually as is done nowadays). Thus decentralization for NBS in Brazil goes through automating legal analysis and creating a legal due diligence network for the checking of properties, and we are working on it. Once we can program these legal requirements into an algo / protocol for a DAO, we will gladly open MCO2 minting for any users of Klima or whichever other system.
      2) We are working on this and should have a solution promptly, easy to solve.
      3) we can commit to stake for six months and we would gladly bond LP tokens

      Moss

      How does Moss determine when to introduce new supply? Is there a target price for the token, a target supply, or some other factor? Currently $MOSS is $10, but VCUs off-chain are 30-40% cheaper. Also, how does Moss introduce the new supply? Do you sell it into the markets, such as Coinbase?

      Like many others here, I'm a layman and have not yet seen sufficient answers to questions from others (@SBax_Regen , @RainbowWarrior , @Sirob and even @Brian33 for example) for me to be able to have a well informed opinion on this.

      IMO this is the way to go before moving it to an official KIP:

      RobXRP An AMA would be the first logical step, followed by answers to the questions asked in above messages.

      I'm generally in favour of diversifying the assets backing KLIMA and of opening more avenues for liquidity of different carbon/nature assets on Polygon.
      However, until there's an AMA and some further answers to some of the questions already raised, I would not be in favour putting this forward as a KIP.

        RainbowWarrior

        Price will need to up even more in order to enables previously unviable projects, if people are sitting in the middle taking a slice of the pie as they always have. This is not necessary in the case of KLIMA DAO. There is no need, or justification presented that explains why Moss sitting between the projects and the Klima treasury is necessary.

        This is not an efficient market, and more efficient markets consume more, that means direct connection between project and treasury. If the project can't bridge and bond themselves fine... then tom, dick or harry can do it, there's no need to have a company in the middle, what's the point?

        I think the point is that you pay people in order to motivate them to do work that makes markets more efficient. i.e. Tom, Dick or Harry are more likely to bridge tokens for projects who are unable to do it themselves if you pay them to do so - I don't see that as inherently bad.

        If people with the necessary skills were willing to contribute those skills to carbon projects pro bono, that would be great. However, it seems to me that the purpose of Klima is to create an ecosystem which distributes monetary rewards to incentivise non-polluting/pollution-reducing behaviours. So it feels a little strange to say "monetary incentives are OK in this part of the ecosystem, but they're not OK in that part (i.e. paying people for helping projects to bridge carbon credits).

        Price will need to up even more in order to enables previously unviable projects, if people are sitting in the middle taking a slice of the pie

        This is true, but I think it's over-optimistic to expect inefficient markets to magically become efficient if you prevent people from taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities (in this case, taking a fee for bridging carbon credits for projects without the skills to do it themselves).

        As long as there's a route for projects to be able to do this themselves, rather than pay someone else to do it for them, then I don't see a problem with the existence of middlemen. Granted Moss projects don't have that option, but thanks to Toucan and others, Moss is not the only route to getting carbon credits on chain.

        I'd rather see more companies coming into this space and trying to make a profit, than fewer companies which are ideologically purer. I think the former approach is more likely to lead to a thriving and innovative ecosystem of decarbonisation projects.

        SBax_Regen The scrutiny expected by the author of this post is valid. In essence, we want a proper due diligence to be done for all emerging partnerships.

          I know that banks in Latin America have a pretty significant say in project development of all sorts. Is there anyway we can do our due diligence by going to the banks in Brazil and verifying all of the literature that has been posted on the verra registry website. I know small businessfolks in that part of the world are very respectful and mindful of the committees formed by local banks that provide loans for such projects--there is always an environmental representative. It would be nice to know that there is an overarching level of respect for that process.

          I'm glad to see we are partnering with some professionals by way of Skybridge, OneRiver, and Moss; but I'd like to get a team and do an on-the-ground assessment; maybe we can get a team of folks and fly to Brazil and interview some people in the local banking institutions to make sure everything is legitimate.

          The subprime mortgage crisis was the result of folks not asking tough questions. We are dealing with powerful folks with powerful connections--from Scaramucci at Skybridge to Eric Peters at OneRiver, and the folks at GOL airlines. Historically, for whatever reason, executives in airlines always have powerful connections. Let's ask tough question, and make sure the paper we are buying is not empty.

          In addition, let's review the ESG section of the investor relations tab of GOL. As flights pick up once COVID abates, it looks like they will need to buy more carbon credits.
          "The Company also has an action plan to comply with the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Measures planned by GOL are in line with the positioning of the Brazilian Ministries of Infrastructure and Foreign Affairs, the Civil Aviation Secretariat (SAC) and the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC), that proposed that Brazilian aviation shall join the offsetting scheme as from 2027, when participating in CORSIA will be mandatory."

          http://ir.voegol.com.br/conteudo_en.asp?idioma=1&conta=44&tipo=67422

          Look at this too:
          http://ir.voegol.com.br/conteudo_en.asp?idioma=1&conta=44&tipo=67413

          They have a disclosure mechanism in Brazil. Fascinating. I don't see this with United Airlines
          Look at how pathetic United Airlines IR section is:
          http://crreport.united.com/

            FluctusLux

            FluctusLux MCO2 -> KLIMA -> BCT -> USDC

            Klima is going to have this problem with every new asset so instead of fragmenting asset liquidity to two different pools (a KLIMA pool and a USDC pool), it may be better to have a KLIMA->USDC pool.

            Sepeth We are open to whatever scrutiny and due diligence desired. We have already posted here for those concerned about risk of double spending (zero), but here goes again our public, verifiable, Verra links for retired credits - which correspond to outstanding tokens + burned tokens : https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/rpt/myRpt.asp?r=205&idSubAccount=9464
            https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/rpt/myRpt.asp?r=205&idSubAccount=10246
            https://registry.verra.org/mymodule/rpt/myRpt.asp?r=205&idSubAccount=10003

            @mcuban @SBax_Regen @RainbowWarrior

            The information is also available on MCO2 smart contracts