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.