Stronger together.
Request for Comment - KLIMA X MOSS collaboration
I vote yes to introduce KLIMA-MCO2 and MCO2 bonds. I think the pair will help keep the LP under Klima's controll.
I just noted that, differently from Toucan bridge, credits from MCO2 still exist off-chain, correct? But apparently Moss has a good token model for the custody, with a REST API for access to credit information by independent auditor. This is important because we need to make sure that, once a token is burned on-chain, the credit is retired off-chain. So, in voting yes, we are also trusting that Moss Token model will be secure, to avoid double counting and a contamination of our treasury with tokens that are already retired off-chain.
I vote yes!
In favor
Introduce KLIMA-MCO2 and MCO2 bonds
Introduce KLIMA-MCO2 and MCO2 bonds please.
Excellent - 100% in favor! This will be a win-win for the entire community, climate and natural ecosystems we're all fighting to protect.
in favor
Vote for yes!
Immediate thoughts after reading this:
- they have amassed 3mn credits already, likely backed by these investment funds that they've shown. The VERs have not been retired and are held in custody in an SPV I assume. This means the double spending risk remains >0%. Do they get retired after a token has been retired by an end customer?
- REDD+ have historically seen very large issuance and avg prices between $4-$4.5 between 2019-2021
- On one hand, this is better quality than some of the stuff within BCT, on the other, REDD forestry in LatAm has had some issues with verification (one example in Peru - https://www.foodwatch.org/fileadmin/-DE/Themen/Windbeutel/Bilder/2021/Dokumente/foodwatch2021_Tambopata-offset-project_Assessment.pdf). There should be more scrutiny not only at the level of specific methodologies, but also validators and already verified credits.
- I don't know what projects MOSS has, but we certainly don't want another HFC-type problem. Not taking in low quality large issuance credits actually restricts supply and causes the price of the proper ones to go up a lot more.
- In Toucan's case, they don't profit from the price of BCTs. MOSS and their investors do profit from Klima's new demand. So the question is - does Klima need them more than they need Klima?
- They are in a way acting both as an arb player, a tokenization protocol and wholesale/retail seller and keep all the margin. Imo, Klima's ultimate goal is precisely to cut out the middlemen and their margin even if I understang that this won't happen overnight.
- Their audit report is not a company audit report on moss, rather a check and match between the Verra and Ethereum.
- Back to incentives, I get why they want to sell their stuff to Klima's users. What is Klima getting in return then? $30k plus bonding 15k of their tokens = ~$150k is all good, but is it worth the same for the DAO? Would they push their own clients and partners to actually bond their token and use Klima? Then it would make more sense.
- Edited
I'm generally in favor. I'd like to see how Sirob's questions are addressed.
After reading this, yes! Was hesitant at first but I like this for the overall trajectory of both projects
Unfortunately the proposal doesn't have an actual informal poll. But I vote in favor of MCO2 reserve bonds but not liquidity bonds. I think POL should concentrate on building the BCT-KLIMA and BCT-USDC based liquidity as it is right now. It is too early to start fracturing POL.
- Edited
IMHO it's not a matter who needs who, it's a matter of creating a new economy where we create value from things that protect and preserve earth. Why we choose to mine gold to create value. Our margins are only valid once, we observe several times where the opportunity to buy carbon credits is better on chain than off chain and it's open to anyone, now try to buy credits from traditional projects. It is not transparent like that. Lastly, we are working in a transparent and secure way to decentralize more.
100% yes for MCO2 bonds and Klima/MCO2 bonds