Request for Comment - KLIMA X MOSS collaboration
GO FOR IT, GO!
Cooperation is important at on-chain carbon market. Cause we have a same goal . So , i vote yes on it .
Yes, Lets do it!
In favour of this for sure, 2022 here we come!
- Edited
Sirob As I am not an expert on what is going on, I would, as I don't have any better option, defer my yes/no to Sirob. He is clearly on the right path and seems to be asking the right questions.
I do not think it is good enough for random people to simply agree or disagree on these types of decisions. Knowledgeable expertise needs to be utilized.
I would rather propose that a professional and science based council be formed to vet these types of proposals.
As someone that is certainly not knowledgeable enough to make an educated decision, I would think this would be required from a DAO like KLIMA so that people like me could feel comfortable voting on things like this.
RobXRP fully agree. I wonder if it would perhaps be possible to implement a delegation system for voting similar to what ENS DAO has done? I have no knowledge on these matters and don’t want Klima to be susceptible to third parties taking advantage of the layman like me with hidden agendas in this complex ecosystem. (To be clear: this is not an accusation of anyone at this stage!)
Introduce KLIMA-MCO2 and MCO2 bonds
- Edited
I'm fully in favour of adding more assets to the treasury. And while I'm not an expert on the except strengths & weaknesses of MCO2 tokens (Sirob seems to raise some good questions), I just wanted to highlight one other point. We currently have about 60m liquidity in the KLIMA/BCT pool and 50m in the BCT/USDC pool. With this proposal we would add KLIMA/MCO2 liquidity - but is MOSS and/or KLIMA planning on creating a pool that would facilitate easy trading of MCO2 to stablecoins/other crypto assets?
If not, then people looking to trade/sell MCO2 will have to go MCO2 -> KLIMA -> BCT -> USDC. Not only is this hugely inefficient in terms of trading fees, it also means that we will be routing all selling pressure through the BCT/USDC pool which will depress the BCT price, the RFV of KLIMA, and thus in the end the KLIMA price itself.
I'm not advocating that KLIMA introduces a MCO2/USDC pool, but it would be good to clarify what MOSS plans to develop in terms of future pools to facilitate trading on Polygon.
As it stands, I would feel better about introducing just the MCO2 bonds for now and only at a later stage KLIMA/MCO2 bonds.
- Edited
Sirob Most of our clients are already asking how they would bond our MCO2 tokens. We are focusing right now on new kinds of assets like nft.moss.earth where moss will allow land ownership to preserve and generate carbon credits in the future. We believe we will be a marketplace where we connect suppliers to demand (like Klima treasury).
We do several steps to define if we buy from the projects, the most important ones are :
First - Land ownership - is everything right with land? There are several examples of land possession on reserves and not allowed areas. We visit the projects as well. Use sources like car and notary offices to check land possession from the project owners
Second - Additionality - using our algorithms and sources like forests at risk and google earth to define if the projects are creating real preservation.
@Sirob all data are public please check this transaction: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6bf4229852aeb925fe3544eb5110a8636771778016eaec50415726d6581c57e5#eventlog
@Sirob
Please, find attached the answer of MDD concerning the use of Dinamica EGO. MDD has sent to GP an extensive answer explaining that the project proponent had not used the mentioned software to project deforestation but only to determine the location of said deforestation in the RRL, something which is totally recommended by the software developers. However, they have totally disregarded our explanation, which is very clear and distorted Britaldo’s sayings
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mSKL2JoZQ72aShwEeMq0nW_M80mL2rcW/view?usp=sharing
The beauty of the Toucan bridge is, that the credits which are bridged, only live on-chain and are retired in the respective registries (so far only Verra). This ultimately prevents double spending and makes trust audits (which are never 100% fraud robust; e.g. EY's Wiredcard audits) obsolet. Because on-chain credits can never leave the blockchain ecosystem, except they are burnt.
Is @Moss planing to apply the same bridging approach and if not, why should the current bridging system be favorable?
How exactly is the double spending issue addressed? Is Moss holding a trust account within the Verra (or other) registries, where the carbon credits are stored? Could @Moss elaborate the bridging process a little bit more in detail? Or is there some documentation about it?
Isdatcool and Sirob Moss was the first one to retire credits on verra and put it on chain. Toucan, they have decentralized more things and we believe in their model including to improve ours and also we have used their bridge sometimes:
Right now you can check our retirement accounts and check all the credits created on chain:
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
https://real-time-attest.trustexplorer.io/moss is the realtime representation of our retirement accounts.