• General
  • Request for Comment - KLIMA X MOSS collaboration

The process for bridging BCT and minting Klima is not that different from MCO2. Or do we really believe that carbon projects know how to use blockchain?

I am referring to the fact that anyone can buy credits off chain and tokenize them by bringing them over the Toucan bridge, and minting Klima.

With the Moss model:

  • only moss can tokenize the credits
  • they are credits that moss has selected and tokenized and they then sell to people, or moss themselves turn them into MCO2s

I'd bet every single BCT outstanding was generated by companies or people that have extensive blockchain experience (including @Moss ) and made money just as Moss did. Buying low and selling high. This arbitrage is largely over now, so the driver for future generation of assets for Klimadao must come from verticalized or integrated players, like Moss - That are working on the digital generation of NBS assets.

Opinion stated as fact. Arbitrage is increases as the price premium premium on chain increases. Unless you now think that the price of Klima isn't going to rise again. As the price of Klima rises, so does BCT and the arbitrage continues. The price at time of writing is $7.20 so please don't make sweeping statements that are untrue and pursue your own agenda.

And the tokens don't compete, they complement each other, they are different animals: BCT is any Verra credit from 2009 onwards, MCO2 is a curated pool of REDD projects in the Amazon forest, a lot more scarce by definition.

The moss token competes directly with the NBCT token which will be minted using the same decentralised methodology of bridging, where anyone can buy it offchain, bridge it and tokenize it.

We need a unified on-chain carbon market with deep liquidity, not many competing commodities which fragment liquidity.

    Yes - good quality credits in a strategic market for carbon. Good partner to grow with.

    Spike

    If someone finds a niche where they can make a profit by doing that, isn't that a good thing? Does it really matter if they're profiting by being a middleman if the carbon price goes up, and decarbonisation projects happen which wouldn't have happened otherwise?

    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?

    This sets a precedent whereby Klimdao will then start taking more retailer tokens into the treasury and this is a completely different path than what we have walked thus far IMO.

    Spike My understanding is that the journey from "I have a great idea for a decarbonisation project" to "Here are your BCT tokens for this year" is a multi-year process requiring a lot of specialist knowledge and interactions with several different organisations. If Moss have a way to streamline that process for qualifying projects, doesn't that mean they're enabling projects to go ahead which otherwise might have stalled or not started in the first place?

    As far as I understand Moss buys already existing carbon credits and tokenizes them, and sells them. They don't develop projects. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

    Spike I thought the plan was always to have multiple "pools" of tokenised carbon offsets - e.g. nature-based, direct air capture, etc. Are you saying that Klima should only ever be backed by BCT? Also, doesn't bonding the base carbon tokens for Klima have the effect of converting less liquid, heterogeneous carbon tokens into a more liquid, homogenous asset (i.e. Klima)? Or, have I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

    There are more pools coming on Toucan protocol, including the NBCT pool, and we will now have 2 NBCT pools instead of one with shallower liquidity. The MCO2 won't be compatible with the Toucan protocol, and any inter pool compatibility protocols that are developed under this approach. A better solution would be to put MCO2 token into the Toucan NBCT pool and put it into Klima that way IMO.

      RainbowWarrior The moss token competes directly with the NBCT token which will be minted using the same decentralised methodology of bridging, where anyone can buy it offchain, bridge it and tokenize it.

      From what I've seen, there's no public information regarding nBCT (nature-based BCT). Toucan hasn't released any details officially announcing a pool, and hasn't disclosed things like methodology accepted, year, and other requirements. We also don't know when this token will be released.

      I'm still learning about the carbon markets, but from what I understand, nBCT are for general nature-based carbon credits, and MOSS focuses on REDD credits specifically in Brazil, which in theory would have a higher premium. The size of the LP pools we create are largely based on demand, so if MOSS doesn't facilitate huge volume, we simply retain that pool and shift emissions to where we think is best.

      I would like to see from the MOSS team:
      1) Progressive decentralization: A timeline on when users could tokenize their carbon credits.
      2) More concrete proof of the carbon credits, visible to the community. Toucan has developed a system where anyone can verify the carbon credits are (though a little arduous as its very early on in the ecosystem). I've seen that there is a verification system, but if we can see the Verra credits themselves, I'd be much more comfortable in it.
      3) Further incentives for the KLIMA protocol to take in MOSS and/or KLIMA/MOSS LP. From the discord discussions as well as here, it seems that the community believes the MOSS is gaining the better side of the deal here. From moss's side, they are providing:

      • A commitment to bond 15k MOSS for KLIMA (Can we also get a commitment on how long this will be staked?)
      • 500k MOSS to pair with 500k KLIMA, shared between KLIMA and MOSS
      • 30k for marketing.

      I would propose that the LP that MOSS holds should also be bonded as well, so that the entire LP is in the treasury. Facilitating liquidity is the most important of out of the 3 commitments, and I'd rather that be the focus rather then the other 2.

        It's wonderful to see the awesome discussion and contribution by everyone. My question: Is the MOC2 token only forestry(redd+, ........) based token or do you guys intend to include other project types in the long run?
        I was scrolling through and seems like MOSS has acquired a very small amount of supply from the energy industry project as well.

        It was a test transaction at the beggining of the MCO2 token, we will keep focus on nature based solutions on amazon rain forest.

        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.