While I am fully in favor of separating interests of Carbonmark and KlimaDAO. I am completely opposed to funding it to the tune of 3MM USDC. Why is $3MM needed? This is an irresponsible amount of funding to be taking from the DAO. Ultimately, there's no accountability to deliver on any sort of metrics of success and the 3MM is handed to the org as a speculative bet in an uncertain time in the market.
For this to be done properly, I'd rather see a proposal that outlines specific milestones and metrics of success that unlock tranches of funding. Clear objectives, achievable milestones, funding that's allocated in stages.
In the proposal’s current form, Carbonmark would not meet any reasonable milestones that could be set out by the DAO. The biggest retirements and offsets that occurred in the history of the DAO came from personal connections to larger orgs, none of which came during the time of Carbonmark or from the team that currently works on it. These were all largely done in 2021 and early 2022.
This is why it's important to keep this funding tranche incredibly well documented and marked with high quality objective milestones. Otherwise we are speculating on the potential of a product that has yet to create tangible value for the DAO. KlimaDAO is in the business of facilitating carbon markets and not funding speculative ventures. The reality of the situation is that even the markets top leaders in offset sales are having a hard time selling anything in this saturated market. Believing that Carbonmark can come close to that or even more naively, believe that we can outperform market leaders is not only misplaced and will be very costly for the DAO. The data so far shows exactly this, it is costly and to date has produced no sizeable results.
To justify further spending on this, I want to see strict assurances of success put in place such as milestone based funding. So that if they are not met, the DAO can halt funds, reduce spending if there are no results and protect the interests of the DAO.
I completely understand and agree with the notion of separating, the commercial need for this is clear. However, funding should be a separate discussion entirely with more strict assurances put in place. My interest here is to protect the DAO and ensure its longevity and its success.