KlimaDAO Forum

Speaking for the Product and Engineering team, we greatly appreciate the continued support and trust placed in us by the community as we build the critical infrastructure required to scale the global digital carbon market.

We've been hard at work building since launch and have doubled down on our commitment to open source by including the recently launched Carbonmark in our public KlimaDAO monorepo.

As always, you can view our development activity and code in GitHub:
https://github.com/KlimaDAO/klimadao/pulse/monthly

I am strongly for this proposal as it leverages our unique position to put KlimaDAO carbon assets to more efficient use that ultimately ends in the retirement of more carbon credits and provides a better experience for carbon market participants through better asset price certainty and availability.

As proposed, Retirement Bonds move KlimaDAO from strength to strength.

GolanTrevize I definitely see your point but I think the strategic value you're trying to maintain is moot in this case and more generally I think we should seek to provide value to our users first and foremost; namely, orgs that need to source and retire quality credits.

The issue here isn't the validity of NCT as an asset, it's the contention from which NCT was created. Fair enough, we're working with Toucan to remedy that but I don't feel this situation is a solid basis from which to derive general policy.

When it comes to governing the nature of our treasury, I think the true dividing line is the issue of material risk. As in potential financial risk, not potential business negotiation risk.

In this case, there is a difference between bonding for NCT which does generate real risk to the treasury, since it's dilutive (paid for with Klima) versus receiving NCT as a fee (non-dilutive) for a function that has an incremental cost of basically 0 (and is already implemented).

I think it's clear that receiving non-dilutive fees to the Treasury is not a financial risk.

As to the strategic negotiation risk; I think you're ultimately just trying to make a case that the stick is better than the carrot here, which is an issue of strategy and not of Treasury policy.

I truly believe that we'll ultimately be stronger for always keeping our end user in mind and building the best product we can for them, which in this specific case means creating the best retirement aggregator.

Tl;dr I'll be voting For this proposal so that our teams are empowered to build for our users.

sig What is Klima Infinity?

It's a program we're launching to incentivize long-term carbon custody and offsetting through the underlying tokenized carbon value growth of $Klima. It'll include important aspects such as an opt-in public pledge standard, a footprint v. carbon assets dashboard as a service and some other useful tools/incentives to help organizations on their journey to publicly offset their negative externalities. Stay tuned

I see this with being inline with the intent and purpose of KIP-3, so yes.