►
From YouTube: [Panel] Putting Carbon On Chain
Description
Gregory Landua (moderator), Paul Gambill, Peter Rosberg, Raphaël Haupt, Marcus Aurelius
A
A
Debate,
my
hope
is
to
try
to
get
straight
to
some
of
the
potential
controversies.
Although
who
knows,
we
may
end
up
having
quite
shared
ideas
about
things
we
actually
don't
know.
This
hasn't
been
run
through
completely,
so
we'll
be
doing
our
best
to
give
you
all
an
authentic
experience
of
the
state
of
the
conversation
on
tokenizing
carbon
and
the
industry
that
we're
all
trying
to
build
together.
So
I
think
I'm
going
to
let
everyone.
A
But
the
conversation
I
really
want
us
to
be
having
together
is
around
at
what
what
points
in
the
chain
of
tokenization
of
carbon
is
there
responsibility
for
the
quality
of
the
public,
good
outcome
that
is
being
exchanged,
and
why
is
it
at
that
particular
point?
So
so
we
can
all
kind
of
center
the
conversation
in
that
direction,
but,
let's
start
with
how
is
it
currently
working
with
your
approach
and
paul?
Let's
start
with
you
and
we'll
just
kind
of
go
across
and
then
we'll
bring
it
together
and
have
that
conversation
sounds
good
thanks,
gregory.
B
My
name
is
paul
gamble,
I'm
the
ceo
and
one
of
the
co-founders
of
nori.
In
my
background
in
software
I
got
into
crypto
in
2011
and
then
in
2015.
I
started
wondering
how
do
you
actually
solve
climate
change
and
so
doing
like
kind
of
a?
I
guess,
root
cause
analysis
on
it.
It
seemed
to
me
like
there
just
simply
were
not
enough.
People
who
are
removing
co2
from
the
atmosphere,
and
so
nori
was
founded
in
2017,
where
carbon
removal
marketplace
and
we're
an
end-to-end
solution.
B
B
I
think
the
thing
that
probably
sets
nori
apart
from
everyone
else
is
we
have
a
fundamental
philosophical
belief
that
carbon
should
not
be
traded,
and
so
the
entire
carbon
offsets
industry
has
been
designed
on
the
concept
that
carbon
credits
should
be
the
tradable
commodity
asset
that
are
used
to
facilitate
price
discovery
so
that
we
know
what
the
price
of
carbon
is
or
should
be.
But
in
practice
that
means
that
you
can
get
carbon
credits
trading
over
and
over
and
over
again,
which
doesn't
actually
reduce
the
amount
of
carbon
in
the
air.
B
It's
just
enriching,
middlemen
and
so
from
like
a
root
cause
analysis.
We
look
at
it
like.
We
need
to
be
creating
incentives
so
that
every
new
dollar
spent
results
in
net
new
carbon.
That's
coming
out
of
the
air
and
our
model
is
to
have
a
really
a
two
asset
system.
So
we
have
an
nft
that
we
call
the
nori
removal,
ton
nrt
and
that's
one
ton
of
co2,
that's
been
removed
and
sequestered
and
verified,
and
all
of
that
and
then
that's
sold
to
buyers
and
then
it's
immediately
retired.
B
So
the
nft
is
made
non-transferable.
That
buyer's
wallet
now
owns
that
carbon
forever
and
they're
not
allowed
to
resell
it,
but
we
do
still
want
a
tradable
commodity
asset.
So
we
have
another
token,
which
is
just
a
fungible
erc20
token,
the
nori
and
one
nori
always
purchases
one
ton
of
co2,
so
the
nori
price
will
fluctuate
based
on
supply
and
demand,
and
you
can
think
of
it
sort
of
like
a
gift
card
that
can
be
used
to
pay
for
a
ton
of
co2.
B
If
you
are
a
company
that
wants
to
offset
100
000
tons
every
year,
you
could
buy
300
000
of
these
lock
in
the
price
that
you've
paid
just
like
a
power
purchase,
agreement
works
and
then
use
them
over
the
subsequent
three
years.
So
that's
nori's
tokenization
models
that
we
and
to
answer
questions
quickly
like
we
believe
carbon
should
not
be
traded
and
a
two
asset
model
works
better
to
incentivize,
more
carbon
removal.
C
Cool,
thank
you
paul.
My
name
is
rafael.
Haupt,
I'm
one
of
the
co-founders
at
toucan
and
currently
the
ceo.
We
a
two
can
have
a
slightly
different
approach,
so
we
I
spent
two
years
kind
of
in
deep
research
kind
of
looking
at
the
market
trying
to
kind
of
crack
it
open
like.
Where
do
we,
like?
You
know
what
the
leverage
point
and
ultimately
we
took
a
very
pragmatic
approach
to
work
with
the
existing
supply.
That
is,
you
know
already
out
there.
C
So
we
we
chose
to
go
with
vera,
which
is
the
biggest
carbon
standard
currently
in
the
world
and
figure
out.
How
can
we
make
sure
that
the
carbon
credits
in
vera
can
move
on
chain
in
a
deterministic
fashion?
So
what
I
mean
by
that
is
that
the
asset,
which
is
the
carbon
credit
itself,
actually
moves
on
change.
The
the
blockchain
becomes
the
single
source
of
truth
of
what
is
the
state
of
this
asset,
and
so,
unfortunately,
there
was
no
way
to
currently
do
that
with
the
system.
That
vera
has
because
there's
only
two
functions.
C
You
can
either
transfer
credit
or
you
can
retire
it,
but
what
we
needed
is
some
kind
of
new
state
of
like
a
tokenized
state
that
would
allow
to
like
freeze
an
asset
on
the
registration
and
like
represent
it
on
chain.
So
in
the
tokenization
process
that
we
that
we
created,
we
asked
the
user
that
holds
the
carbon
credit
to
retire
it
in
the
legacy
registry,
the
registry
and
then
make
it
reappear
on
on
the
blockchain.
C
Essentially
as
a
token-
and
we
actually
have
you
know-
there's
multiple
tokens
in
our
system
as
well,
so
we
have
what
we
call
the
tco2
token,
which
is
essentially
a
digital
twin
of
the
carbon
credit
with
all
the
attributes.
Where
does
it
come
from
which
standard
without
which
measure
methodologies
are
being
used,
etc?
C
I
think
we
are
a
very
interesting
point
where
I
don't
think
that
we
would
be
sitting
here
well
at
least
a
year
ago.
I
didn't
expect
us
to
be
sitting
here
and
talking
about
this,
because
this
space
has
gained
a
lot
of
momentum
very,
very
quickly
and
when
we,
when
we
were
working
on
this
last
summer,
I
do
think
that
you
know
we're
very
much
still
looking
at
this
as,
like
you
know,
as
an
experiment
and
like
how
can
we
try
to
like
use
the
tools
that
we
have
in
web
3?
C
D
My
background
is,
I
spent
about
30
years
in
the
silicon
valley,
startup
scene,
so
some
great
stories
if
anybody
wants
to
catch
me
later
to
find
about
everybody
from
pets.com
to
everybody
anyway,
so
I've
been
at
ripple
for
four
years.
I
recently
moved
into
the
heading
up
the
product
strategy
for
carbon
markets,
and
what
that
means
is
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
solve
this
problem
of
tokenizing
and
bringing
carbon
credits
on
chain.
D
So
one
of
the
things
that
I'm
really
struggling
with
is
the
main
buyer
for
these
voluntary
credits
or
corporates,
and
what
do
the
corporates
want
and
they've
gone
beyond
this
check?
The
box?
I'm
gonna,
buy
a
carbon
credit
they're
really
interested
in
like
some
of
the
un.
You
know
sustainable
development
goals.
You
know
so
looking
at
like
what
what
other
co-benefits
are
they
getting
from
buying
this?
D
They
want
to
tell
a
story
about
how
they're
funding
a
project
and
why
so
that's
one
thing
that
I'm
looking
at
and
I
think
our
existing
system
of
you
know
more
fungible
tokens
or
a
little
bit
of
data
about
the
project,
isn't
quite
cutting
it.
We
need
to
be
able
to
have
really
advanced
searching
technologies
that
we
can
say.
D
So
I
want
to
be
able
to
fund
a
project's
development
of
bringing
carbon
credits
into
the
market.
One
way
I
can
do
that,
I
can
say:
hey
I'll,
buy
a
million
dollars
of
your
credits,
and
I
expect
those
credits
to
be
online
five
years
from
now.
So
how
do
I
tokenize
that
forward
purchase
and
do
it
in
a
way
that
doesn't
get
me
in
trouble
with
the
government
and
at
ripple?
D
E
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
haven't
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
yet
is
some
of
the
problems
that
exist
in
the
traditional
carbon
market.
Where,
when
you,
when
you
make
a
claim
that
you
have
offset
using
a
an
organization
like
vera,
you
would
get
like
a
pdf
certificate
as
the
proof
of
your
offsetting
activity.
E
These
credits
come
from
is
a
sort
of
social
consensus
among
the
consumers
of
the
credits
that
they've
been
produced
in
a
verifiable
manner,
and
it's
really
important
that
on
the
demand
side,
people
are
transparent
about
what
type
of
credits
they're
consuming
and
on
the
supply
side,
that
we
have
high
integrity
standards
like
vera
that
can
attest
to
the
integrity
of
the
projects.
Now
vera
has
some
issues.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
summarize
really
quickly
and
then
I
have
like
three
or
four
spicy
questions
that
maybe
that
may
be
different
than
the
one
that
I
was
starting
out
with
so
okay,
so
we
have
a
situation
in
which
there
are
both
attempts
and
examples
of
tokenizing
existing
carbon
credits.
We
have
examples
of
tokenizing
new
types
of
carbon
credits
that
represent
unique
claims,
which
also
regen
network
does
and
then,
and
we
have
innovation,
to
try
to
research
what's
sort
of
optimal
in
the
situation
taking
place
on
the
spectrum.
A
So
I
have
you
know
I
have
a
spicy
question
for
klima
for
marcus,
which
is
about
the
you
know.
What's
the
right,
you
know
and
let's
keep
it
brief,
because
I
don't
want
to
go
super
deep
in
this,
but
maybe
or
maybe
we
just
like,
pin
it
up
and
say
this
is
a
conversation
we
need
to
have,
but
maybe
we
don't
have
it
yet.
E
E
Well,
and
I
want
to
get
to
that
right
and
sort
of
what
what
is
the
role
of
klima
in
this
ecosystem?
Why
do
we
need
a
reserve
currency,
that's
backed
by
carbon,
and
you
know,
as
when
you
only
have
one
asset
like
the
base
carbon
ton.
You
know
the
liquidity
pairs
are
fairly
straightforward
right.
You
compare
that
with
usdc
or
your
stable
coin
of
choice,
but
what
happens,
as
you
add,
more
different
types
of
carbon
credit
different
pools,
like
the
nct
pool
that
launched
several
months
later.
E
So,
for
instance,
if
you
wanted
to
trade
your
ethereum
for
for
a
carbon
credit,
you
would
need
a
route
from
eth
to
the
carbon
credit
of
choice,
and
so
the
idea
behind
klima
as
a
reserve
currency
is
to
put
klima
in
the
center
of
those
liquidity
pairs
such
that,
if
you
want
to
enter
and
exit
the
carbon
markets,
you
sort
of
route
through
clima.
So
that
way,
if
you're
putting
usdc
as
your
input
or
matic
or
eth,
you
only
need
to
have
one
pair
between
that
source.
A
I
love
what
you
guys
are
doing,
and
after
all
of
these
years,
I
still
personally
really
don't
understand
the
distinction
between
a
coupon
that
is
a
voucher
for
a
carbon
credit
and
a
carbon
credit
itself.
Why?
What
is
the
difference
in
in?
In
a
way
it's
like
what
is
really
the
fundamental
difference
between
the
unit
and
the
floating
token,
and
why
is
that
important
for
all
of
us
to
understand
yeah.
B
It
goes
back
to
the
thing
I
said
in
the
beginning,
which
is,
if
we're
going
to
be
really
serious
about
aggressively
removing
as
much
carbon
from
the
atmosphere
as
quickly
as
we
possibly
can.
Then
we
need
to
be
redesigning
our
whole
carbon
systems
so
that
every
new
dollar
unit
of
money
spent
results
in
net
new
carbon
coming
out
of
the
air.
B
So
when,
when
you
have
like
the
way
this
stuff
evolved
was
in
the
late
1990s,
clean
development
mechanisms
developed-
and
there
were
frameworks
put
in
place
so
that
people
could
develop
carbon
trading
markets
and
the
designers
of
these
markets
wanted
a
tradable
commodity
asset,
because
that
is
how
the
econ,
like
the
economies
of
everything
operate.
So
we
need
that
in
order
to
facilitate
price
discovery,
but
when
you
have
carbon
credits
that
can
be
sold
and
then
resold,
so
you
have
a
project
developer,
who's,
doing
the
actual
carbon
project.
B
Buyer
is
saying
I
own
this:
now
it's
no
longer
going
to
be
available
for
resale,
and
so
you
you
get
this
weird
situation
where,
when
you
look
at
the
total
amount
of
like
trading
volume,
how
much
money
are
people
spending
on
carbon
credits?
The
secondary
market
of
the
resale
of
carbon
credits
is
significantly
larger
than
the
primary
sale,
and
so
from
nori's
perspective.
You
know
going
back
to
this
like
root
cause
analysis
like
there's,
no
demand
side.
B
Liquidity
problem
like
the
demand
is
like
nearly
limitless
at
this
point,
especially
if
you
consider
all
of
the
net
zero
commitments
that
big
corporations
are
making.
The
problem
is
that
there
are
not
enough
people
removing
carbon,
and
so
we
need
to
be
creating
our
system
so
that
the
incentives
are
driving
towards
those
people
like
if
you
have
a
carbon
credit
that
is
created
and
then
resold
six
times
over
you're
looking
at
less
than
10
of
that
total
amount
of
money
spent
going
to
the
actual
project
developer.
B
It's
because
of
the
claims
that
companies
make.
So
if,
if
you're
a
company
and
you're
making
a
net
zero
commitment
and
you
go
out
and
you
buy
a
bunch
of
nori
and
then
you
don't
you
don't
use
them,
you
don't
use
them
to
redeem
for
carbon
and
so
later
on.
You
sell
them
and
you
make
a
profit
on
that.
You
cannot
possibly
make
a
claim
that
you
offset
any
carbon.
B
The
the
the
difference
is,
though,
that
historically
there
have
been
many
cases
of
companies
that
buy
carbon
credits
and
then
don't
retire.
Them
make
some
sort
of
claims
about
them,
because
laymen
journalists
are
not
familiar
enough
with
this,
and
then
they
can
resell
those
carbon
credits
at
a
later
date.
They
sit
as
an
asset
on
their
balance
sheet,
but
that's
not
a
problem
so.
A
A
I
think
so
so
I
mean
there's
a
set
of
principles
here,
which
we
probably
all
agree
with,
which
is
that
we
want
people
to
only
be
able
to
have
make
claims
when
they,
when
it
there's
a
transparent
record
that
they're
the
ones
who
are
responsible
for
funding
the
the
change.
That's
taking
place,
the
carbon
removal
awesome.
We
want
a
system
in
which
there
are
there
are
there.
Are
there
are
incentives
directly
to
the
land
steward
or
who
or
or
the
the
remover
or
avoider
of
the
emissions
in
question?
A
There's
another
whole
debate
to
have
there
probably
okay
great?
How
do
we
design
that?
I
can
see
the
case
for
kind
of
a
simple
ux
story
for
a
farmer
to
be,
or
a
project
developer,
to
be
developing
the
nori
removal,
ton
nft
and
holding
it
as
they're,
watching
the
floating
price
and
not
choosing
to
allow
people
to
retire
it
and
therefore
having
an
upside
in
a
moving
market,
and
I
think
that
that
is,
I
just
want
to
disclaim.
I
think,
that's
completely
possible
with
the
with
other
approaches,
but
I
think
it's
an
elegant,
ux
experience.
B
They
don't
want
to
buy
carbon
from
offsets
from
5
10
20
years
ago,
so
they
got
to
pay
more
money.
Well
it
in
this
case,
though,
it's
trying
it's
trying
to
suit
that
balance
of
how
do
you?
How
do
you
give
the
project
developers
the
potential
price
upside
while
also
delivering
real-time
value,
to
the
buy
side?
And
so
that's
the
solution
that
our
two
asset
model
actually
provides
in
addition
to
insurance,
which
is
a
whole
other
thing
too?
Okay,.
A
So
I
I
also
want
to
get
into
the
I
mean
I
think,
just
sort
of
putting
a
pin
in
where
it
is
an
industry.
Where
are
there
really
substantive
conversations
to
have
not
necessarily
to
get
deeply
into
it,
but
I
so
I
think,
there's
a
pin
to
put
into
different
types
of
credits
that
may
have
that
may
need
different
price
discovery.
Mechanism
may
actually
be
different
commodities.
Carbon
removal
versus
avoided
emissions,
for
instance.
A
E
To
say-
and
I
want
to
hear
peter
yeah-
I
want
to
hear
people
yeah
controversial
thing.
I
typically
frame
this
in
terms
of
a
trade-off
between
fungibility
and
liquidity
right,
so
obviously,
the
more
specific
you
are
right
about
this
particular
vintage
of
this
particular
methodology
in
this
location.
The
number
of
credits
that
exist
with
those
specific
properties
is
small,
the
more
specific
you
get,
and
so
that's
where
the
pooling
concept
allows
you
to
strike
this
balance.
E
Now,
at
the
beginning,
the
pools
that
were
launched,
like
bct,
focused
on
the
current
state
of
the
market
in
the
traditional
world,
which
is
mostly
large-scale
renewable
energy
projects,
as
well
as
nature-based
avoidance,
which
is
where
nct
ended
up
launching.
But
the
way
we
look
at
this
is
that
over
time
as
the
market
matures
and
new
methodologies
scale
up,
such
as
cook
stove
conversion
or
mangrove
restoration,
that
you
would
create
additional
pools
that
model
those
new
segments
of
the
market
over
time.
A
So
yeah
so
there's
so
new
commodities
are
created
essentially
and
and
in
this
process
you
know,
the
the
stand-in
for
a
commodity
is
a
pool
which
has
some
challenges
like
lowest
common
denominator,
arbitrage
issues
and
some
other
things,
but
that's
the
proxy
for
sort
of
like
the
fun
fully
fungible
commoditized
unit.
Okay,
peter.
D
D
Project
I've
got
a.
I
got
a
cook
stove
buddy
he's
like
peter.
If
you
can
just
give
me
a
million
dollars
in
purchases
I'll
have
that
stuff
online
for
you
in
a
year
and
so
we're
buying
these
credits
with
the
intent
of
them
being
delivered
to
us
and
we're
really
looking
at
like
a
three
to
five
year
time
frame,
and
that
gives
that
producer
the
ability
to
generate
that
stuff.
D
We
get
it
three
to
five
years
and
we're
planning
on
flipping
that,
because
we're
figuring
out
what
you
know
we're
getting
a
discount
for
buying
it,
we're
doing
the
calculations
to
figure
out
whether
it's
going
to
go
up
or
down
direct.
Our
capture
is
kind
of
complicated
because
it's
a
thousand
dollars
now
it'll
be
250
bucks
in
five
years,
but
then
we
don't
want
to
be
totally
evil.
So
we
do
have
a
profit
sharing
for
reselling
this.
D
B
C
B
I
don't
actually
I
I
don't.
I
don't
know
what
exactly
you
guys
are
doing
with
respect
to
this,
but
I
will
say
from
from
my
personal
perspective,
like
the
the
market
has
placed
a
value
on
permanence
permanence,
meaning.
How
long
is
the
carbon
coming
out
or
being
avoided?
Personally,
I
don't
think
permanence
matters,
because
we
have
a
car
at
all
or
just
as
much
as
people
say
it
does
it's
time,
yeah,
it's
just
as
much
as
people
say
it
does.
B
A
A
Is
there
a
role
for
like
a
carbon
ton
year
like
like
yeah?
Do
we
so
so
the
evolution
of
this
may
be
sort
of
a
quantity
and
a
time
that's
right,
instead
of
sort
of
like
people
fighting
over
the
commodity
of
like?
Oh,
we
want
to.
You
know
like
the
the
the
features
of
permanence
and
additionality
and
other
things
and
trying
to
make
a
universal
standard
of
that.
We
may
be
creating
more
of
a
time,
and
you
know
like
a
time
unit.
Yeah.
B
Exactly
and
again,
they're
like
historically,
the
reason
that
this
is
even
an
issue
is
because
when
offset
markets
were
developed,
you
know
if
the
average
life
cycle
of
a
co2
molecule
in
the
atmosphere
is
100
years,
and
you
are
a
company
buying
avoidance
credits.
You
want
to
make
sure
to
be.
You
know
roughly
equivalent
that
the
amount
of
carbon
being
avoided
is
being
avoided
for
100
years,
and
so
that's
why
100
years
has
just
become
that
sort
of
arbitrary
default
standard
that
offset
registries
apply.
B
Actually,
if
you
look
at
like
practically
how
it
works,
because
they'll
they'll
estimate
out
the
total
amount
of
carbon
that
would
be
sequestered
over
100
years,
they'll
collapse
that
down
to
20
years
worth
of
vintage
credits
that
they
issue
over
the
years,
one
through
20.
and
so
you're
as
a
foreign
manager
you're
getting
income
over
that
time.
But
then,
in
years
21
through
100,
you
have
no
operating
income
from
the
forest.
B
A
C
Can't
maybe
just
like,
because
this
tonya
thing
is,
I
think,
super
relevant
for
when
you
talk
about
carbon
removal
right
because,
like
permanence,
is
the
big
like
problem
with
carbon
removals
like
how
long
is
it
going
to
stay
there?
Additionality
is
the
biggest
problem
for
avoidance
right,
so
I
do
think
like.
It
is
really
important
that
we
treat
those
two
things
separately,
because
they
have
a
very,
very
distinct
set.
C
Absolutely
absolutely,
I
think,
like
it's,
it's
two
different
things
policy
makes
you
treat
them
like
as
two
different
things,
two
different
strategies,
et
cetera,
because
it's
just
not
the
same
thing
just
like
to,
which
is
why
I
was
kind
of
like
trying
to
figure
like
trying
to
understand
the
role
of
the
nori
token.
In
that
concept,
which.
B
A
E
D
So
I
was
going
to
say
one
thing
on
permanence:
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
corporations
buying
something
and
then
assessing
the
risk
of
buying
it.
The
reputational
risk
right,
so
I
just
paid
for
this
forest
and
five
years
later
it
burns
down
or
in
some
cases
I
paid
for
the
forest
and
then
found
out
that
it
actually
burned
down,
but
it
was
still
in
the
registry
as
a
valid
forest
that
happened
in
california.
D
So
one
of
the
things
we're
looking
at
is
just
the
other
sdg
goals.
The
co
benefits
for
that.
So
I
may
invest
in
a
rainforest
project.
Maybe
I've
got
some
co-benefits,
helping
the
local
community
biodiversity
so
worst
case
it's
not
preserved.
I
still
feel
like
my
corp
as
a
corporation.
My
reputation
risk
is
minimized
because
well,
I
did
all
these
other
five
things
well,.
A
D
But
this
is
beyond
the
buffer
poll.
I
mean
assume
the
buffer
pool's
there,
but
let's
say
it
doesn't
cover
it
enough
or
you
still
have
this
reputational
risk
of
the
public
doesn't
care
your
force
burnt
down
right
and
maybe
maybe
it
was
covered
with
other
stuff,
but
having
those
other
sdg
goals
attached
to
it
allows
you
to
say
well,
look
yeah.
That
was
a
problem,
but
we
also
had
these
five
other
things
that
we
actually
did
do
good
and
contribute
to
the
community.
So
that
keeps
the
value.
A
So
now
we're
getting
into
the
place
where
my
original
question
is
pertinent
right,
which
is
where,
in
the
process
of
of
the
creation
of
these
digital
assets,
which
we
talk
about
in
terms
of
tokenization,
is
responsibility
for
legitimacy,
integrity
and
and
then
there's
different
dimensions
which,
which
we've
been
discussing,
which
you
know,
additionality
for
is,
is
paramount
for
avoided
emissions.
Permanence
is
paramount
for
reduction
co-benefits.
A
It
seems
to
be
an
emerging
quality
that
is
paramount
for
many
buyers
corporate
buyers,
but
who
bears
the
responsibility?
Is
the
marketplace
bearing
the
responsibility?
Is
it
the
project
developer?
Who
who
bears
a
responsibility?
Is
it?
Is
it
a
registry
that
bears
the
responsibility?
Who
is
it
everyone?
Is
it
all
everybody
and
nobody
who
bears
the
responsibility
in
in
the
tokenization
and
origination
pipeline.
E
I'm
happy
to
jump
in
first
here.
One
of
the
things
I
think
it's
important
to
learn
from
the
legacy
market
from
the
traditional
offset
market
is
that
there
is
a
market
structure
that
they've
come
up
with
that
has
developed
over
years
where
multiple
parties
are
involved
in
the
origination
and
issuance
process.
The
registries
play
a
really
important
role
in
setting
standards
sort
of
baseline
standards.
E
I
don't
think
that
there's
any
world
in
which
we
can
do
away
with
that
trusted
standard
aspect,
but
I
don't
think
that
the
registry
alone
should
be
responsible
for
this.
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
have
third
party
auditors,
like
the
vvbs
in
the
traditional
system
that
ensure
that
the
projects
that
implement
those
standard
methodologies
accepted
by
the
result.
A
C
Okay,
it's
three
because
there's
the
registry
itself
right
because,
like
you
use
registry
and
standard,
does
the
same
thing,
which
is
like
one
thing
that
I
don't
understand
is
like
yeah.
The
role
of
a
standard
is
to
essentially
have
a
governance,
governance
process
and
appoint
vvbs
like
you
know,
to
go
check
on
these
projects.
But
it's
like
it's
not
the
same
thing
as
running
a
tech
platform
that
like
keeps
track
of
like
how
it
registers
an
asset
which
registers
an
asset
just
keeps
track
of
it
right.
A
Is
the
registry
are,
I
mean,
I
think,
right
now?
Registry
is
sort
of
a
catch-all
phrase.
That's
used
to
describe
a
bundle
of
different
features
which
include
social
legitimacy
processes,
peer
review
processes
and
and
the
technology
needed
to
to
track.
Who
currently
has
the
right
to
exercise
a
credit
offset
claim
right
well,.
B
Here's
the
thing
about
the
registries,
one
I
I've!
Actually,
you
guys
have
used
the
language
you
know
these
are
the
like
vera
is
the
most
well
respected
one
out
there.
Vera
has
approved
thousands
hundreds
of
thousands,
if
not
millions,
of
junk
carbon
credits
that
had
no
impact
on
the
amount
of
carbon
in
the
atmosphere.
The
only
reason
that
they're
viewed
in
this
way
is
because
they've
been
around
longer
than
everyone
else.
They
have
no
divine
right
to
be
the
only
like
guarantor
of
certification.
B
The
other
thing
is
good.
The
other
thing
is
that
the
these
advanced
market
commitments
that
peter
was
referencing
they're
like
they're
moving
beyond
the
registries.
The
registries
are
becoming
less
and
less
relevant
every
day,
because
they
cannot
possibly
keep
up
with
the
demands
that
are
coming
from
the
corporate
world.
So
when
you're,
looking
at
925
million
dollars
from
the
frontier
climate
group,
not
a
single
one
of
those
is
going
to
projects
that
are
going
to
have
vera
certification.
B
So
I
sort
of
wonder
that's
something
I've
been
like
speculating
about
recently
at
what
point
do
we
just
move
on
from
those
registries?
And
it's
not
just
moving
on
from
it's
not
moving
on
from
the
concept
of
certification,
because
that
will
happen,
but
it
seems
like
it's
decentralizing,
in
a
way
where
buyers
are
no
longer
going
to
care
so
much
that
it
was
a
specific
stamp
of
approval
from
gold
standard
of
vera
and
more
on
doing
evaluation
and
diligence
on
the
certification,
different
certifications
that
are
happening.
I
mean
like
at
nori.
A
Well,
and
also
there's
an
interesting
function,
that's
been
that
I've
been
noticing
in
which
it
seems
like
corporate
buyers.
Ins
are
have
evolved
so
that
they're
no
longer
like
like
avera
or
gold
standard
credit
is
no
longer
enough.
They're,
looking
at
b0
or
silvera
or
other
third-party
audits
and
then
they're
choosing
from
those,
and
so
so
that,
like
there's
a
trust
migration.
B
A
E
B
D
The
point
I
wanted
to
get
sorry
I
I'd
like
to
just
say
you
know,
so
I
think
there's
space
for
registries.
I
think
there's
space,
for
you
know
verification
bodies,
but
yeah
the
the
more
expensive.
The
credit
is,
the
more
techy.
The
credit
is
more
new.
The
credit
is
there's
just
nobody
out
there
that
can
even
verify
right
various.
You
know
we
talk
to
companies
that
are
like
well
we're
in
the
process
of
getting
our
methodology
approved
by
vera,
but
there's
no
methodology,
for
you
know
bacteria
eating
methane
and
and
out
plastic.
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
think,
because
of
that
situation,
it
is
actually
the
responsibility
of
the
protocol
developer.
Whoever
is
like
putting
together
these
methodologies
for
measurement
and
verification.
Do
you
have
the
highest
standards
that
you
can
possibly
afford
to
have,
because
it's
not
no
one
else
is
going
to
come
in
and
take
care
of
that
for
you,
and
I
also
think
that
that's
very
much
related
to
the
concept
of
insurance
too,
which
we
we
kind
of
glossed
over
yeah
well,
yeah,.
A
There's
a
whole
another
pin
a
socialization
of
risk
associated
with
claims,
the
role
of
buffer
pools,
the
role
of
creating
financial
instruments
around
buffer
pools
and
risk.
I
think,
is
a
really
un
and
I
know
that
there
are
people
in
the
space
who
are
sort
of,
like
maybe
in
stealth,
doing
things
to
try
to
solve
that.
But
I
think
that's
a
really
important
piece
and
and
in
some
level
I
think
it's
probably
better
built
in
public
right
absolutely.
E
Yeah
the
point
I
wanted
to
get
at
by
bringing
up
the
market
structure
and
sort
of
laying
out
the
relationship
between
the
registries
and
the
standards
and
the
vvbs
is
that
there
is
an
inherent
concern
about
conflict
of
interest
in
these
markets,
because
you
know,
if
you
are
doing
the
you
know:
standard
methodology,
development
and
you're
running
the
registry
database
and
you're
verifying
your
own
project
or
choosing
the
partner
who's
going
to
verify
your
project.
Even
if
there
is
no
actual
conflict
of
interest.
E
The
perception
of
a
conflict
of
interest
will
undermine
the
commitment
of
buyers
to
trust
that,
and
so
I
really
think
it's
important
that
we
learn
that
aspect
of
separation
of
concerns
from
the
legacy
market.
And
maybe
there
is,
you
know,
an
opportunity
to
further
subdivide
and
create
more
clear
distinctions
between
the
standards
bodies
that
generate
the
methodologies
and
the
registries
that
run
the
the
underlying
database.
C
Because
pauline
right,
like
I
fully
agree
with
what
you
say
right,
I
you
know
we
see
like
vera-
is
becoming
a
bottleneck
like
there's,
so
many
projects
that
like
want
to
get
certified,
they
can't
get
certified
it
takes
years.
So
we
we
are
in
an
inflection
point
and
we're
going
to
see
a
lot
of
new
methodologies
being
developed
and
we
need
to
make
sense
of
the
world
right
and
I'm
what
I'm
like.
C
What
I
care
about
with
toucan
is
that
we
have
a
common
language
to
talk
about
carbon
on
chain,
preferably
because
I
believe
that
carbon
assets
are
best
to
live
on
chain
because
they're,
intangible
assets,
they're
just
a
bunch
of
data
and
stamps
and,
like
you
know
like
we
need
this
like
interoperable
layer
that
we
can
communicate
and
we
can
transact.
I
believe
in
that,
and
so
I
think
we
need
a
world
where
vera
nori
region
open
first
portugal
and
all
the
others
can
like
have
their
tokens,
have
their
credits
transact
on
the
same
platform.
C
C
I
do
believe
that
the
work
that
you
do-
and
you
know
the
work
you
do
is
super
important
and
I
do
think
that,
like
getting
you
know,
farmers
to
transition
to
regenerative
agriculture
and,
like
financing
that
transition
is,
is
really
important,
and
I
would
love
to
you
know,
have
the
possibility
to
have
the
nori
removal
tons
transact
like
in
the
same
system
than
the
two
tokens
as
well.
As
you
know,
we're
building
bridges
to
region
ledger
as
well.
B
A
I
agree,
I
think
I
think,
it's
time
to
start
wrapping
it
up.
So
luckily
we
are
going
to
get
to
spend
time
everyone
who's
interested
in
having
a
deeper
dive
conversation
that
is
more
inclusive
of
the
larger
audience
here
shortly.
So
mark
will
tell
us
when
and
where-
and
so
that's
where
so
so,
if
you
have
follow-up
questions,
if
you
have
comments,
if
you're,
energized
or
concerned
by
the
conversation
we'll
we'll
get
a
chance
to
start
to
dig
into
that
together
a
little
bit
later,.