Phaedrus

  • Joined Dec 23, 2021
  • In my mind, this would be one massive step towards realizing Klima's long-term vision and potential for not just facilitating and growing on-chain carbon markets, but directly having tangible, real-world impacts. Getting to deliberate and direct these investments collectively also provides reinforcing value to Klimates working together as a DAO. I also feel that taking ownership not only positions us favourably with traditional VCM actors as others have said, but also makes Klima that much more readily understandable to a broad audience. Sharing the images and stories from the projects that we fund/own can speak much more directly to audiences that are still trying to wrap their heads around what the VCM is and how tokenization helps.

  • Heck yeah! Great to see Klima roll up their sleeves and get a little more hands-on and directly involved with the available on-chain carbon projects... this should bring continued growth in diversity and quality of the overall ReFi ecosystem.

  • Referencing POTK episodes in an RFC has to get some bonus points! Yes overall I think this is a great idea or at least question to ponder. I know we've talked about dMRV a few times in the podcast or office hours, and suspect it will be important for the on-chain carbon markets to eventually reach maturity. Will leave it to our real carbon giga-brains to comment on whether we could/should go down that route though. Either way, I'd be curious to hear more about wht you mean by personal data (or citizen science?) and how it would be used.

    • Definitely in support of this... the proposal is well-reasoned and supported by evidence. Any moves that make the protocol more sustainable and resilient are welcome. We're in this for the long-haul.

    • As a contributor from day one, I appreciate and echo the calls for increased transparency, and hope that these newly-clarified roles and responsibilities can be implemented in a way that addresses this. I also appreciate the concerns that those voting against have voiced... and I know these concerns come from a place of truly wanting to see the DAO succeed and achieve the greatest possible collective good.

      At the same time, I do not share all of these concerns or hold an absolutist view about how our beloved organization ought to be structured and operated. I feel decentralization is an ideal to aspire to, and a continuum. Not every project will require or thrive with the same type of governance, and more than anything I want Klima to find its "right fit"... which on the surface at least seems to be the intention of this KIP and of the "Decentralization Roadmap" project.

      That being said, I think the proposal as it stands is lacking some clarity around the "problem definition" and would like to see the specific issues this formalization of the "status quo" is designed to solve spelled out more clearly in the final KIP. Likewise, there are no "roles & responsibilities" spelled out for internal contributors and I would like to see some formalization of processes for contributors and community to have their voices heard beyond ongoing KIPs. How, when and where will contributors and community be heard?

      With these limitations of the proposal, I'm still comfortable casting my vote in support as I feel this formalization of roles and making our journey and process of decentralization explicit via the roadmap (hopefully similar to our APY reduction roadmap) are both positive developments.

    • Excellent - 100% in favor! This will be a win-win for the entire community, climate and natural ecosystems we're all fighting to protect.