►
From YouTube: Why The World Needs Decentralized MRV - Rim Jeong
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Hi,
I'm
rim
from
open
forest
protocol,
I'm
heading
community
development,
and
I
will
be
talking
about
why
the
world
needs
decentralized.
Mrv,
though
I
may
be
preaching
to
the
choir
today,
based
on
our
conversations
yesterday
but
in
I
am
still
excited
and
I'd
like
to
maybe
start
off,
to
set
the
tone
with
a
video
if
it's
ready,
I'm
gonna
give
the
cue
like
this.
B
B
B
A
A
Yesterday,
I
don't
know
if
many
of
you
were
present,
but
there
was
a
very
lively
roundtable
discussion
on
tokenized
carbon,
which
touched
upon
a
lot
of
challenges
and
potential
we
see
for
the
space.
One
thing
I
think
we
all
identified
as
underpinning
the
discussions
on
the
markets,
was
the
scaling
of
supply
of
high
quality
carbon
credits.
A
What
keeps
us
from
this
right
now
is
the
bottleneck
created
on
the
mrv
side,
mrv,
meaning
measurement,
reporting
and
verification
of
the
data
that
comes
from
these
carbon
removal
projects,
that
is
to
say
the
proper
measurement
and
accounting
of
impact.
As
such,
it
is
indeed
the
maxim
that
you
cannot
prove
what
you
do
not
measure
whether
it
is
carbon
verifying
impact,
transparent,
accounting,
financing
of
more
carbon
removal
projects.
It
all
starts
with
mrv.
A
A
Not
only
do
trees
have
the
peculiar
nature
of
absorbing
carbon
dioxide,
but
they
also
ensure
biodiversity,
habitation
and
resources
for
multiple
forest
dependent
species
and
the
human
communities
around
them.
So
they
actively
so
planting
trees
and
conserving
them
matter,
because
they
actively
mitigate
and
rectify
the
negative
changes
of
climate
change,
and
hence
you
see
so
many
ngos,
companies
and
governments
today
pledging
to
plant
more
trees
or
restore
forest
cover,
but
it
is
not
enough
that
one
plants
trees.
A
You
have
to
measure
the
impact
you
are
creating
monitor
that
your
forts
haven't
burned
down
that
they
grow
healthily
and
aren't
diseased.
You
also
have
stakeholders,
like
donors,
investors,
maybe
governmental
bodies
that
want
to
know
where
their
funds
are
going,
that
you
are
indeed
doing
what
you're
saying
you're
doing
with
their
funds.
A
This
in
turn
creates
an
additional
demand
and
necessity
for
better
collecting,
reporting
and
use
of
data
from
these
forests,
because
you
have
to
not
only
calculate
how
much
carbon
is
being
sequestered,
but
also
have
to
establish
systems
of
checks
and
balances
so
that
we
don't
have
situations
like
these
just
one
example.
This
is
published
through
a
study
by
propublica
one
example:
project
in
cambodia
that
had
been
issued,
48
000
tons
of
carbon
credits
in
advance
in
2008.
A
The
monitor
in
that
land
area
in
2017
it
turned
out
already
46
percent
of
the
area
was
only
46.
46
of
the
area
was
still
for
one
parcel
being
entirely
forested.
It
was
due
to
a
civil
war
that
was
going
on
and
a
lot
of
the
land
had
been
replaced
with
urban
areas,
so
without
rigorous
mrv,
without
full
transparency
of
what
happens
on
the
ground,
we
render
all
good
intentions
futile
to
reiterate.
A
A
Right
now,
both
forest
project
development
and
carbon
markets
are
plagued
with
inefficiencies
due
to
the
fact
that
we
are
dealing
with
the
closed
system
when
it
comes
to
mrv
today,
we
rely
on
basically
two
to
three
main
bodies:
to
have
your
project
certified
and
accredited
for
carbon.
So
to
illustrate,
let's
say
you
want
to
develop
a
forest
project.
This
is
what
an
example
of
a
current
process
would
look
like.
This
is
an
example.
A
Oh
sorry,
this
is
an
example
of
the
process
at
gold
standard.
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
this
for
the
sake
of
time,
but
I'll
point
out.
Some
of
the
things
that
may
be
particularly
interesting
so,
for
instance,
there's
a
long
process
in
order
to
just
to
get
to
the
very
verification
stage.
To
begin
with,
one
of
the
things
is
the
minimum
requirement
for
your
land
size,
so
developers
will
typically
not
work
with
projects
under
3000,
acres
or
1200
hectares.
A
You
also
have
to
probably
take
away
three
to
fifty
percent
of
the
value
generated
from
your
projects
to
these
developers
for
their
services
methodology
wise.
You
have
to
apply
and
be
registered
and
use
one
of
their
registered
methodologies,
and
then
a
single
gatekeeping
independent
third
party
must
so
they
send
specialized
agents
to
your
field
in
order
to
collect
data.
So
it's
very
labor
intensive.
It
also
drives
up
the
cost
of
the
mrv
process,
and
then
you
need
to
have
a
independent
third
party
to
verify
the
findings
of
this
development.
A
So
it's
a
very
long
and
arduous
process
just
to
get
there
very
time
consuming
and
very
not
much
cost
effective
for
projects
that
don't
meet
the
1200
hectare
requirement.
A
lot
of
projects
can
still
apply,
but
they
will
not
do
it
because
there
is
a
curve
when
it
comes
to
forest
projects
and
for
profit
profitability.
A
If
you
don't
get
to
at
least
a
12
hectare,
1200
hectare,
minimum
requirement,
you
simply
are
not
going
to
break
even
on
your
forest
project,
at
least
when
you're,
using
mrb
to
the
legacy
system
kind
of
quickly
do
a
rundown
of
a
comparison
between
the
legacy
mrv
system
and
what
ofp
is
trying
to
do,
which
is
a
decentralized
mrv
model.
The
verification
costs
in
the
legacy
system
averages
about
50k.
A
So,
in
sum,
what
I'm
trying
to
deliver
is
that
the
time
cost
resources
and
centralization
involved
in
the
legacy
system
means
first
and
foremost,
a
lack
of
access
to
the
existing
system
from
most
forest
project
owners.
It
also
means
for
existing
projects
or
new
projects
that
are
eligible
for
the
process,
a
slower
timeline
and
worse
equity,
which
also
affects
long-term
sustainability
of
their
projects.
A
This,
then
turns
around
to
affect
the
scaling
of
forest-based
climate
solutions
by
making
it
economically
less
competitive
than
deforesting
an
area
to
use
for
agriculture
or
grazing,
so
the
current
system
creates
an
mrv
bottleneck
vera
and
gold
standard.
Just
to
give
a
just
brief
overview
together
have
verified
less
than
250
forest
projects
during
their
entire
existence.
A
A
A
At
ofp
we
say
we
decentralize,
mrv
or
rather
open
up.
The
current
closed
system
through
a
communal
approach
to
the
verification
of
forced
data.
Here
is
how
the
ofp
mrv
process
works.
Forest
operator
registers
registers
their
project
on
ofp.
The
forest
project
operator
sets
up
their
monitoring
zones
and
sample
points
which
is
then
registered
on
chain.
As
an
nft
field,
agents
assigned
to
a
specific
forest
plot
go
into
the
field,
they
record
the
height,
circumference,
geolocation
and
pictures
of
the
sample
points
using
our
mobile
app.
A
Data
has
been
collected,
the
forest
project
operator
sent
data
to
validators
and
we
have
a
network
of
validators
who
bring
satellite
drone
gis
lidar
technology
in
order
to
cross-reference
the
data
from
the
ground
and
you
the
data
that
they
are
getting
from
their
technology
to
verify
these
claims
and
then
the
entire
validation
history,
which
happens
every
six
months
in
the
beginning
and
then
annually
from
then
on,
is
recorded
transparently
and
immutably
on
chain
for
anyone
to
see
whether
it's
the
next
validator
in
the
next
validation
period
or
it's,
the
general
public,
who
wants
to
actually
verify
that
trees
are
being
planted,
and
the
claims
made
are
true
so
by
bringing
mrv
on
chain
by
decentralizing
its
process
through
a
network
of
stakeholders,
we
open
up
the
bottlenecks
in
the
current
mrv
system.
A
A
The
main
bottleneck
outlined
before
was
that
the
current
system
is
in
effect
not
allowing
small
to
mid-size
landowners
or
project
owners.
A
seat
at
the
table
and
discouraging
new
forest
projects
from
being
created
when
we
look
at
the
forest
projects
that
have
committed
to
using
ofp,
we
get
a
chart
that
looks
like
this.
A
As
you
can
see,
most
of
our
projects
have
a
landslide
that
falls
far
below
the
1200
hectare.
Minimum
requirements.
We
see
legacy
processes.
In
fact,
our
smallest
projects
are
actually
0.25
hectares
or
0.48
hectares.
We
have
even
a
regenerative
agriculture
project
in
india,
which
is
only
0.02
hectares
projects
that
would
have
not
qualified
for
vera
or
gold
standard
now
have
access
to
a
free-to-use
mrv
platform
which
they
can
use
with
minimal
requirements.
A
A
By
opening
truth,
we
mean
that
in
utilizing,
blockchain
technology
and
building
systems
which
code
in
conditions
and
incentivize
mechanisms
for
truthfulness,
we
are
making
the
factual
truths
of
forests
about
them
being
there
that
plant
trees
are
planted,
they
have
not
been
wiped
out,
are
open
to
all.
Openness
should
be
the
modus
operandi
of
all
decentralized
mrv
systems.
Your
mrv
methodology
should
be
open
for
review.
A
Your
code
has
to
be
open
source
and,
more
than
anything
as
a
database,
every
data
point
recorded
and
verified
should
be
immutably
transparently
and
publicly
stored
for
all
to
see
attached
to
the
unique
identity
of
each
project.
So
we
no
longer
say
trust
us
trust
us,
because
we
have
authority
and
we
have
expertise
but
trust.
Only
the
data
itself,
our
layer
of
truth,
is
open
and
accessible
to
all,
so
that
you
can
verify
the
data
for
yourself
and
see
if
this
is
true
or
not.
A
Finally,
with
mrv
as
the
fundamental
layer,
we
are
able
to
envision
a
new
paradigm
for
an
economy
based
in
nature.
For
instance,
we
envision
a
results-based
financing
platform
called
open
forest
starter.
We
where
we
would
be
able
to
connect
all
the
projects
on
our
platform
with
the
potential
donors
or
investors
who
are
interested
in
pre-financing
these
projects
and
execute
the
payments
automatically
via
smart
contracts
based
on
the
delivery
of
impact
goals.
So
this
may
be,
after
planting
how
many
seedlings
that
they
promised
to
after
producing
how
many
carbon
credits
or
after
x
period
of
time.
A
In
short,
we
argue
that
the
world
needs
decentralized
mrv
to
open.
What
is
closed,
access,
truth
and
consciousness?
We
need
to
disrupt
and
break
in
order
to
open
what
is
currently
closing
off
the
potential
and
necessity
that
forests
have
in
mitigating
climate
change
and
our
part
is
in
providing
the
means
to
do
that.
A
At
this
point,
I'd
like
to
share
that
in
the
following
week,
ofp
will
go,
live
on
mainnet
to
make
the
first
step
in
realizing
all
of
the
vision
outlined
above
our
phase,
one
will
be
launching
in
phases
our
phase.
One
will
concern
the
mobile
app
and
the
dashboard
for
project
operators
and
will
be
launching
next
week.
During
this
time
we
will
be
onboarding
about
16
of
the
total
50
projects
committed
to
ofp
around
the
world,
and
they
will
have
a
six
month
window
to
validate
make
their
first
data
upload.