Brian33 I am all for further decentralization that decreases the pressure on the toucan team, and for opening up avenues for other tokenized carbon assets to be included in the klima protocol. That seems like a logical progression and maturation that will be necessary for scale.
However, I don't think that BCT and MCo2 are meant to be parallel assets, right? MCo2 is a REDD credit, ie. a digital forest carbon asset that focuses on a distinct area of the world - which is many ayers more granular than BCT - ie. VCU (ie. BCT) -> nature-based VCUs -> REDD projects -> Brazilian REDD projects (MCo2); It feels extremely granular from an asset pattern level to structure MCo2 as a bond given that it doesn't even represent an asset class or index type, which would be natural first step of BCT alternatives.
I'm not opposed to including MCo2 as eligible to become BCT, but it doesn't feel the same as a BCT. It feels eligible to become a BCT.
I am additionally wondering if there is public criteria for which specific methodologies can become a MCo2? For Klima to accept MCO2 at the token level, it has to accept its underlying criteria, which isn't highly detailed in this proposal, which just lists a few verra project links in the comments. For example, if MCo2 decides to accept Gold Standard projects in its criteria, is there the possibility that these MCo2s could be bonded in a pool even though Gold Standard is not yet accepted to the Klima treasury? Since MCo2 is a fungible asset type, is there a way that the criteria of what is within a MCO2 can be sure to meet the criteria of Klima (as is done by the Toucan bridge)?
This relates to the underlying question of what is the hierarchy of inclusions criteria - is that still driven by the methodology inclusion criteria of the klima treasury? Can an asset, once included, divert from that inclusion criteria, or is bound by it? I don't know the answer here so looking for others opinions on these relationships.