The wiki concept sounds super useful, organizing information amongst regen groups, across bioregions or applications is a big challenge per status quo. My hope was that the wiki would help solve this, bring value to Regen community & be a tool that our team could use internally & to collab. I was also proud of Thomas in leading the way, suggesting to the community that we can build and asking for funds, resources & a mandate to do so. But… how has this played out?
The token payout. Certain representations were made insofar as not “dumping” this large chunk of coin. Were those representations accurate, did branched out use the tokens it received like it promised? If not, how detrimental to price?
Has the team built the wiki!? There are clear duties to fulfill one’s promises upon accepting payment, like happened here. The duties are owed to the community & pretty simple - do what you say, in exchange for $regen spend. Has branched out performed as promised, or at least made a good faith attempt? We require a report from Branched Out themselves to answer this question. I don’t want to be a hard ass or hurt, or punish. Its’ okay to not finish, or to have rough draft work. Its’ not okay to accept serious amounts of money then disregard one’s obligations & fail to report.
What is up with Savory controversy!? This is a tricky enough conversation without making judgment calls as to the moral character of thought leaders, lots ugly & competing interests talking “regenerative” grazing. The land use conversation is important to Regen, its’ important to me & my region. That conversation doesn’t happen when one side calls the other racists,
Without commenting on the specifics of your post (I share your questions), I wanted to take a moment to cross link to the conversation about improving our community spend proposal, decision making and accountability process that @αlphaβiota | LOA Labs was socializing here, as I think using this as a learning experience to improve our ability as a community to support community initiatives effectively is essential.
Hello Will Masters. Thomas from Branch Out here. To briefly answer your questions:
We didn’t “dump” our tokens, and previously addressed this question when we were first asked in the Regen Governance channel on Discord (February 15th). To reiterate: “the tokens were given to us unlocked because that’s how RND programmed the contract in question. In the absence of an immediate need to preserve the liquidity for our token launch, we unstaked and converted them as necessary - while quietly minimizing price impact - to continue to fulfill the community’s mandate on the other approved goals to the best of our decentralized, autonomous ability.”
Of course Climate Wiki exists. We’ve been hard at work on the Wiki for over a year now. We have given presentations showcasing Climate Wiki and our work on numerous occasions, including at ReFi Summit 2022, the video demo we submitted with our proposal, and most recently a community call in March 2023 as Will Szal mentioned.
We’ve had a closed beta application form available to fill out in the Regen #climatewiki channel on Discord since September 2022, and shared that form with RND Inc in August 2022 when they offered to help us increase community engagement. Our first community application was received over 6 months later. We are now moving from ‘closed beta’ to ‘open beta’, with Climate Wiki launching publicly in the coming weeks.
3-4) Our Savory Method reports were produced within the scope of our mandate to vet ReFi tokens, including RND Inc’s Grasslands Carbon Plus which is based on his method:
Are there any updates on the wiki being published @Branch Out ?
Are there any additional questions the community has regarding accountability?
Does the REGEN community feel like this organization is in alignment with the commitments they made with their funded proposal?