To me, the simple idea of carbon offsetting sounds like a semi scam. It's sort of like "you can now pay to feel a bit better or holier than thou for the amount of emissions you produce" While these companies might donate to organizations that try to tackle these problems, I still feel a bit odd about the concept.
If I remember correctly. There was a netflix documentary of a bunch of french con artists who basically used carbon credit exchanges to make a bunch of money. I can't remember exactly how the process was. But it was an interesting documentary.
I actually like the idea of people paying money to support causes, as opposed to the popular ethos that you have to "roll up your own sleeves" and get to work in order to do any good in the world.
I think it's rarely the case that the people who know how to do the best work are the same as the people who have the money to fund the work. It's usually two different groups of people. And the world is a better place if the funders can fund the do'ers.
Ofc there are always going to be problems that arise at the margins. VCs will sometimes fund scams like Juicero and Therano. Companies will sometimes buy bogus carbon credits. Average people will sometimes donate to ineffective charities. Etc. But I just think of this as an inevitable cost that is more than worth the good that is accomplished by these markets existing.
Oh yea, I don't have anything against the idea of donating to actual causes directly. Not everyone is called to do the same things.
I think the odd feeling that I get from these type of companies is that they are basically just the middleman, and the whole thing of carbon offsetting is not always too transparent (but it could be that I haven't looked enough into what each specific org does). I guess the good thing would be that they might make it easier for people to donate without them having to find specific charities.
But then at the same time, the big corporations that cause the biggest impact can use these as a PR stunt and avoid finding ways of lessening the impact. I guess is such a broad and complicated topic that can get more entangled the more you think about it.
And yea, the charities transparency is another big complex issue. 😅
I agree completely - its only a way to deal with a guilty conscious - not much different than the guy that beats his wife on a regular basic then makes a monthly donation to a domestic abuse shelter and thinks it somehow even things out - it doesn't.
After UST and LUNA died, I understood why serious investors said to "not invest more than 5-10% of your portfolio into crypto".
Just take a look at any stablecurrency post on Reddit/etc. from the last year. So many people recommended USDT as a good way to "save" your money.
So for any crypto project (including this one) I plan to use this simply guiding principle: Don't invest more than 5-10% of your income into it (combined with other crypto projects and currencies).
stablecoins don't usually have any problems but can go on a run if someone causes the issuer to demonstrate holders that their tokens are backed by fiat 1:1
To be in jail - he had to commit some sort of fraud. But apparently he didn't lie outright to investors the way Elizabeth Holmes of Thernaos did. He didn't commit securities fraud, wire fraud, etc by misrepresenting or fudging the company numbers. He was just very good at selling his vision and investors bought in - not a crime.
"More easily trading a broken product doesn’t make it any less broken." - This argument is a little misleading. The article he links to is an economist's opinion of how "carbon markets have great potential" even though he admits they *"have often failed to show that they lead to a reduction in CO2 emission."
They're not broken, the systems they operate within might be. Making carbon credits easier to trade could be a step in the right direction.
Agreed - what you say is true if one of the problems with the system is accessibility and/or transferability, which, according to the article, they are. The question is, will putting carbon credits on the blockchain actually make a significant impact in practice? Climate change is a global issue, the key is mass adoption, and I'm not sure this is likely to materialize...
I burned my fingers investing into too many altcoins, sticking since then only with BTC and Ethereum. The only altcoin bet on my side is IOTA and Polygon right now.
I have to say building for crypto is one of the worst decisions I've made on my IndieHacker journey. Almost 2 years down the drain building research tools for what? The industry is so scammy I don't even want to be a part of it any more.
Why is tokenization of carbon credits important? What if he just created exactly the same market place using an Oracle enterprise database - would he still be able to raise $70mm? Feels like A16Z is looking for projects to fund that validate the use cases of the blockchain beyond excitement of trading crypto assets (i.e. use cases that lend themselves to the productive economy rather than the speculative one)
I'd recommend the book even more. They changed a couple of things in the show so it might not paint the clearest picture of what happened. But it's a great show.
"Unlike stocks or cryptocurrencies, carbon offsets ultimately need to be taken off the market in order for them to have any lasting, traceable impact on a company or individual’s carbon footprint. " I don't understand this, can anyone explain?
If a company buys carbon offsets and holds on to them, in this case by storing NGT in their wallet indefinitely, then the carbon isn't offset. It's only offset when the tokens are destroyed and can't be sold on again.
Otherwise a company could store all their offset coins and sell them in case of bankruptcy, then the purchasing company would be reporting carbon offsets that were already reported by the first.
To me, the simple idea of carbon offsetting sounds like a semi scam. It's sort of like "you can now pay to feel a bit better or holier than thou for the amount of emissions you produce" While these companies might donate to organizations that try to tackle these problems, I still feel a bit odd about the concept.
If I remember correctly. There was a netflix documentary of a bunch of french con artists who basically used carbon credit exchanges to make a bunch of money. I can't remember exactly how the process was. But it was an interesting documentary.
I actually like the idea of people paying money to support causes, as opposed to the popular ethos that you have to "roll up your own sleeves" and get to work in order to do any good in the world.
I think it's rarely the case that the people who know how to do the best work are the same as the people who have the money to fund the work. It's usually two different groups of people. And the world is a better place if the funders can fund the do'ers.
Ofc there are always going to be problems that arise at the margins. VCs will sometimes fund scams like Juicero and Therano. Companies will sometimes buy bogus carbon credits. Average people will sometimes donate to ineffective charities. Etc. But I just think of this as an inevitable cost that is more than worth the good that is accomplished by these markets existing.
Oh yea, I don't have anything against the idea of donating to actual causes directly. Not everyone is called to do the same things.
I think the odd feeling that I get from these type of companies is that they are basically just the middleman, and the whole thing of carbon offsetting is not always too transparent (but it could be that I haven't looked enough into what each specific org does). I guess the good thing would be that they might make it easier for people to donate without them having to find specific charities.
But then at the same time, the big corporations that cause the biggest impact can use these as a PR stunt and avoid finding ways of lessening the impact. I guess is such a broad and complicated topic that can get more entangled the more you think about it.
And yea, the charities transparency is another big complex issue. 😅
I agree completely - its only a way to deal with a guilty conscious - not much different than the guy that beats his wife on a regular basic then makes a monthly donation to a domestic abuse shelter and thinks it somehow even things out - it doesn't.
After UST and LUNA died, I understood why serious investors said to "not invest more than 5-10% of your portfolio into crypto".
Just take a look at any stablecurrency post on Reddit/etc. from the last year. So many people recommended USDT as a good way to "save" your money.
So for any crypto project (including this one) I plan to use this simply guiding principle: Don't invest more than 5-10% of your income into it (combined with other crypto projects and currencies).
stablecoins don't usually have any problems but can go on a run if someone causes the issuer to demonstrate holders that their tokens are backed by fiat 1:1
Gotta appreciate his audacity. Still baffles me how he's not in jail and raising 70M from a16z instead.
To be in jail - he had to commit some sort of fraud. But apparently he didn't lie outright to investors the way Elizabeth Holmes of Thernaos did. He didn't commit securities fraud, wire fraud, etc by misrepresenting or fudging the company numbers. He was just very good at selling his vision and investors bought in - not a crime.
Yeah, pretty smart, that's difficult to pull off. I guess selling vision is what VC is all about, and he's an expert at doing that.
"More easily trading a broken product doesn’t make it any less broken." - This argument is a little misleading. The article he links to is an economist's opinion of how "carbon markets have great potential" even though he admits they *"have often failed to show that they lead to a reduction in CO2 emission."
They're not broken, the systems they operate within might be. Making carbon credits easier to trade could be a step in the right direction.
Agreed - what you say is true if one of the problems with the system is accessibility and/or transferability, which, according to the article, they are. The question is, will putting carbon credits on the blockchain actually make a significant impact in practice? Climate change is a global issue, the key is mass adoption, and I'm not sure this is likely to materialize...
I burned my fingers investing into too many altcoins, sticking since then only with BTC and Ethereum. The only altcoin bet on my side is IOTA and Polygon right now.
I wouldn't trust that guy at all
I have to say building for crypto is one of the worst decisions I've made on my IndieHacker journey. Almost 2 years down the drain building research tools for what? The industry is so scammy I don't even want to be a part of it any more.
Why is tokenization of carbon credits important? What if he just created exactly the same market place using an Oracle enterprise database - would he still be able to raise $70mm? Feels like A16Z is looking for projects to fund that validate the use cases of the blockchain beyond excitement of trading crypto assets (i.e. use cases that lend themselves to the productive economy rather than the speculative one)
Surely stinks haha
I would recommend watching WeCrashed... Tells you everything you need to know about him!
I'd recommend the book even more. They changed a couple of things in the show so it might not paint the clearest picture of what happened. But it's a great show.
So they will mine crypto to keep a decentralized record of carbon emission credits, thus causing even more emissions due to mining.
Sounds legit I'm sold :D
My exact thoughts when reading this!!
The project I believe is building on celo, a POS blockchain.
They might have seen that point coming but more likely, they got celo to fund them.
Side-stepping the subject, what a bold title by Vox!
"Unlike stocks or cryptocurrencies, carbon offsets ultimately need to be taken off the market in order for them to have any lasting, traceable impact on a company or individual’s carbon footprint. " I don't understand this, can anyone explain?
If a company buys carbon offsets and holds on to them, in this case by storing NGT in their wallet indefinitely, then the carbon isn't offset. It's only offset when the tokens are destroyed and can't be sold on again.
Otherwise a company could store all their offset coins and sell them in case of bankruptcy, then the purchasing company would be reporting carbon offsets that were already reported by the first.
This comment was deleted 3 months ago.