RobXRP I have the same concerns
KIP-6: Introduce MOSS bonds
CryptoKnight As do I.
The AMA didn’t help either tbh. It was announced just a few hours in advance and I don’t think some of the more vocal and apparently more educated people questioning this proposal were present. Brian did a good job of relaying some of the questions that had been asked offline but it left no space for follow ups and further discussions.
The fact that Moss’ CEO disappeared without explanation after a few mins, leaving their CTO alone to offer essentially the same explanations previously given on the forum, was also not very reassuring.
He made some interesting propositions, but at this time it feels that we are basically “investing” in an idealized future version of Moss and not in the current one. Which is fine, as long as we are aware that that’s the case and we believe the promises being made are not just empty VC-pitching BS.
That being said, I’m tempted to vote in favour of this proposal. My (extremely) uneducated opinion is that the upsides of diversifying our treasury and potentially attracting more liquidity seem to make up for the risks this might introduce.
There are other partners out there that I think are more aligned with some of KLIMA’s values, but maybe at this point in time Moss is the best we can have?
Always for better Klima
what a nice suggestion!
Absolutely for, thx
I am unable to vote yes or no because I do not have enough information to make an informed decision even though I've read the materials and explored the MOSS website. I'm new to DAO voting but this appears to be an important decision for the DAO/protocol to just have what feels like a random vote (or am I missing something?). I see a lot of folks commenting "let's do it" (or the like) but what is your rationale? On the surface MOSS looks very interesting but It would be great if community members with more experience, context, and knowledge could summarize their position on the proposal, pros/cons etc. From my perspective I think of the following things:
- Is this a "safe to try" proposal? i.e. what is worst case scenario for making a wrong decision. If that is minimal then an open vote seems reasonable but if a wrong decision could adversely impact the KLIMA project that feels risky to me to decide based on an open vote without more information.
- Is there a strategic or critical time constraint to this decision? (i.e. overall this process feels rushed). This has come up over the holidays when a lot of people have disconnected. Also, related to point #1, if a wrong decision could adversely impact the KLIMA project I think it makes sense to slow down and allow enough time for more dialogue and the due diligence required.
- I'd feel better if I had a few projects to choose from one rather than just one. Nothing against MOSS (I'd like to learn a lot more about them) but are there other options that would be a better fit to diversify the KLIMA treasury?
- What is happening next with Toucan? There is already an established relationship/partnership with that protocol so do they have something in the works soon that should be considered?
Definitely pro-collaboration
There's 2.8 million MCO2 in circulating supply. VCS compliant. Let's get on with absorbing them and driving their price moonwards.
- Edited
I chanced upon Moss Earth few months back when I was doing research on Klima and carbon credits, and the way I understand the project, Moss Earth fulfills two main roles:
1) Acting as a 3rd party intermediary to connect projects that produce carbon credits to buyers who require these credits to offset their emissions. By tokenizing the carbon credits on the blockchain, Moss Earth makes the transaction process more transparent and prevents double-counting. The price of MC02 also allows for price discovery of the price of 1 tonne of carbon credit, which is almost 30% higher than BCT.
NB:
Just purely looking at the type of credits that are onboarded via both Toucan and Moss, I personally feel that part of the reason why the price of MCO2 is higher than BCT is due to the quality of the environmental projects that the respective carbon credits stem from. For MCO2, they selectively obtain carbon credits from preservation, reforestation and carbon sequestration projects. For BCT, the only gateway requirement is Verra certification of 2008 vintage and above, ie. Non-selective and pretty much the lowest class of carbon credits out there.
2) By linking up with other projects / businesses that utilize MCO2, Moss effectively creates a secondary market for carbon credits, whereby the credits could go to consumers who want to offset their carbon footprint, or to non-business entities who would like to do their part for the world by buying up the credits, and in so doing, hopefully drive up the price of carbon and incentivize polluters to look to other ways to reduce emissions.
While I’m not sure how creating a MCO2/Klima liquidity pool helps create more demand for either, I do believe in the vision of both projects, and that the inclusion of MCO2 in Klima DAO’s treasury will make the backing of Klima more robust, hence I will be voting yes.
- Edited
Although KlimaDAO does have the ability to post snapshot votes without explicit need of a forum post, we felt like that having this style of governance (RFC-> KIP forum post -> official snapshot vote) allows for the community to be vocal about their thoughts on the proposal.
Regarding risk to reward, we've discussed this internally, and felt that the risk vastly outweighs the reward. If it were not, the KIP post would not have been created, or not without significant revision. On the project side, keep in mind this is a proposal pushed by MOSS itself, not KlimaDAO. If other carbon bridges decide to work with KlimaDAO, a separate RFC will have to be made.
We should be neutral to all bridges in my opinion. Toucan is a bridge as well, and we love working with them. however, a carbon currency should try to be agnostic to all carbon assets, so giving preferable treatment unless there is a clear incentive to do so isn't in the protocols nor the carbon market's best interest.
I do agree with you that the timing of this proposal is not ideal, but I do like that we are being proactive rather than reactive. It's very hard timing wise because any entity can create an RFC at any time, and if the community requests it, we should follow what they believe is best for the protocol.
Voting yes solely on the premise that introducing MOSS bonds will (hopefully):
1) Work toward the concept of "building a green asset economy totally on-chain", and
2) Promote collaboration within this niche of having to do the unfortunate work of applying a monetary value to our planet through pricing negative externalities.