5 Comments

What kind of assumptions/constraints led you to believe ~10% of carbon offsets being swallowed by the protocol? And how would the DAO guarantee bad actors (say, a big polluting country/gov't or company) won't interfere with the protocol?

Expand full comment
Oct 27, 2021Liked by Luca Prosperi

How would they interfere? Buy buying up loads of Klima and then selling it or something? Pump and dump?

But they would miss out on all that APY. Even bad actors don’t hate APY

Expand full comment

Yeah, trying to figure this out myself. I really like Klima DAO's approach to incentivising a push toward sustainability. So, I'm doing some inverse thinking here. As Munger supposedly once said "All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.”

The nature of DeFi means that this market would be accessible to anybody. If I were a polluter needing to buy carbon offsets, and ever increasing carbon offset prices began affecting my bottom line, I would expect to start looking for ways to try to depress the price of Klima/BCT to buy myself some time (if it becomes large enough to have a high direct impact on real carbon markets). (I know lots of "ifs")

Agree with you, "pump and dump" could be one way...i'm sure there are more that i have not thought of yet...

Expand full comment
author

Awesome Marco, although mathematicians and logicians came way before Munger with their proof by contradiction.

I think polluters will just swallow it and pay more, and improve their activities in the meanwhile. The real issue I see for Klima is that the BCT/ carbon offsetting market is opaque at best, prone to manipulations, and the DAO might lose their focus and start attacking other assets to become 'the Olympus of Polygon' - which would be a different proposition.

Expand full comment

Solid post bro. Love the Greta reference. 😂

Expand full comment