• General
  • Request for Comment - KLIMA X MOSS collaboration

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!)

    RobXRP
    100%..... Couldn't agree.... No disrespect but such proposals shouldn't be put to randoms with little or no knowledge of such matters like myself to vote on.

    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.

      Moss Right now, Brazil has 40 % of the global forests and Brazilians are allowed to deforest 20% of the lands. Highlighting corrected text.

      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
        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

        Moss Thanks. Could you please point me to the Verra record showing the retirement of all credits you've purchased so far? With Toucan, it is very easy to spot.

          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

              I have some questions and some concerns about this proposal, which are detailed below:

              • TIMING of this proposal - Why is this proposal being pushed 2 days before the Christmas holidays when both the Klima community is mostly offline for the holidays? This proposal deserves robust and authentic community discussions, especially including its carbon market expert representations. As such, it does not sit right that this proposal was posted at this time. Adding the first new asset to the Klima treasury is a big decision that deserves authentic community engagement.

              • COMMUNITY VALUES & DECENTRALIZED FINANCE - Should the first new carbon asset included in the klima treasury be moss? Is there a risk to adopting a heavily VC-funded, centralized exchange traded asset as the first expansion of the Klima treasury? Is moss a web3-first organization? Does that matter to the Klima community? Does the Klima community value community-engagement first, or just arbitrage and making money? Do our collective values demand of the Klima community that we are adopting co-creative and community supported protocols? What are the values of the Klima community beyond making money? What are the moss organizational values and how to they anticipate collaborating within the decentralized finance community moving forward? What decentralized exchanges will they be listing on? Do they have a decentralized exchange strategy? Why did they list on centralized exchanges first and not take a more community-centric asset listing approach? In a highly connected and highly collaborative blockchain-carbon protocol community, moss seems to be taking divergent tactics in comparison to the other highly defi and highly collaborative projects. Does that even matter?

              • CLIMATE EXPERT OPINIONS - What are the role of carbon market expert opinions in decisions around what types of new assets are adding to the Klima treasury? How are we incubating thoughtful, expert informed discussions in the context that the carbon market is extremely nuanced? What is the role of the average defi Klima holder vs. a Klima holder with extensive carbon markets experience in these discussions? Do those of us with extensive experience have an obligation to educate and inform the community when these proposals arrive? Does the Klima community even acknowledge the carbon markets expertise in its own community? Or, is this just a defi, sounds good, hi-five style of approving new assets?

              • RISKS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THE KLIMA PROTOCOL - What is the risk of not extensively scrutinizing new asset proposals to the legitimacy of the Klima treasury? What are the standards that new assets must meet in order to be included in the Klima treasury? Are moss assets the same quality, or lower or higher, than assets already in the treasury? How do we ensure we protect the validity of the protocol by having robust asset types discussions in public forums? Whose role is it to incubate these discussions? Are there standards that first need to be more clearly established before a proposal for a new asset can even be considered by the community?

              • UNCLEAR VALUE TO KLIMA HOLDERS - The value to moss in this proposal is the marketability of the moss token which increases if they can say it is accepted into the Klima treasury. However, what is the distinct value that Klima holders, especially HODLers, will gain from the acceptance of moss? The points I raise above highlight that there may not be full values alignment between moss and the klima community - what does the community think? What does the community expect from new asset proposals regarding clear community benefits and is there a role that organizations proposing new assets must first play within the klima community itself in order for its proposal to be considered?

              • UNCLEAR ROLES BETWEEN MOSS TOKEN AND BCT AND TCo2 - It is unclear in this proposal if moss is asking for moss token to be directly accepted to the Klima treasury, or if it is expecting to convert moss tokens into BCT to then convert into the treasury? If moss tokens aren't converted to BCTs, does this not put the stability of the BCT and its accompanying pools at risk? Are moss tokens not just the equivalent of a Tco2e NFT (ie. they are just tokenized VCUs)? Does Toucan support this proposal? Are they aware of this proposal? What is the tokenization architecture that moss has used? What chain and what protocol are they using the tokenize these VCUs? Is the technical tokenization design as strong as Toucan's? Does the Klima community need another alternative tokenized credit asset at this juncture? Does this create pool risk or risk to the legitimacy of the BCT asset? Greater clarity would be welcomed around these token and pool mechanics as they directly affect the profitability of community pools and the defi returns of the Klima community. Ensuring tokenization architecture meets a minimum viable criteria for global carbon accounting purposes ought to be further explored.

              • CAN WE LEARN MORE ABOUT MOSS - What are moss values? What is their organizational history? What is the structure of the carbon credit deals that allow them to have access to this volume of carbon credits? Since the community is less familiar with their work, it would be good to know more about them at this juncture to ensure transparency across community decisions-making.

              • CAN WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE TOKENIZED CREDITS - MOSS TOKEN? Are these just tokenized VCUs or is there some additional value-add that is not transparent? Has anyone looked deeply into the validity of these projects, their documentation and verification? Does that due diligence not matter if they are using the same Verra methodologies that are already accepted to the Klima treasury? Since they are trading higher than other carbon credits of the same type, does that indicate there is a value add of the moss token, tokenization generally, or that these assets are over-priced in the marketplace? Will the project developers that have developed these projects be fairly compensated within the deal structure of the moss token? Is this a simply arbitrage or are there other economic benefits these land stewards will receive? Do these land stewards have any role in the tokenization? Should they? Will they reap any of the economic upside of the defi rewards in klima? Are they included or have they been left behind? (I would ask these questions of any project development relationship, which I personally feel are critical values to explore regarding the decentralized empowerment of the role of land stewards in climate impact projects and ensuring economic parity in the marketplace include ALL actors).

              • CAN I GET A KLIMA ROADMAP? How will Klima evolve over time? Is there the expectation that Klima will accept multiple types of tokenized carbon assets? How will additional standards be proposed to the community to expand the inclusion criteria? Should we expect Klima to move beyond tokenized carbon? Who makes decisions? How are they made? Can we see the governance standards that the KlimaDAO proposes for how to conduct these proposals and inquiries? Can we put this proposal inside of the broader roadmap context during its consideration period?

              Disclaimer: These are my personal opinions, and not the opinion of any entity. I am asking these questions in order to incubate a ROBUST community debate, and to ensure that the community deeply considers the nuances and implications of this proposal. I have not yet formed a personal opinion as to whether I am for or against the proposal, however, I carry the concern that there is not a deeply informed discussion emerging.

                Moss tell me more about this statement - "we are working in a transparent and secure way to decentralize more."?