I’m excited to share an update on Regen Network Development (RND)’s current perspective regarding the permissioning of credit class creation on Regen Network. As we look back over the last 2 years of Regen Mainnet, we see the current moment as an exciting turning point for the network and would like to invite the community into an active conversation about the future of credit class creation on Regen Network.
Context & Background
Currently, the creation of credit classes is managed through an on-chain allowlist of credit class creators. In August 2021, when we introduced the ecocredit module, we sought feedback from the community regarding our proposal to launch the module with a permissioned approach. This meant that credit class creation was only permitted by a fixed set of wallet addresses. The list of addresses is managed via on-chain governance by the REGEN token holders. To date, the only address that has applied to be in this Credit Class Creator Allowlist is Regen Network Development, acting primarily on behalf of Regen Registry.
Would each of the “Other Proposals for Consideration” be separate on-chain proposals? These all sound like important decisions for the community to discuss.
I think it’s smart to implement the update to the required fee in REGEN. Is the goal to maintain a dollar based equivalent? If so, could it be a monthly governance based adjustment to keep it more or less pegged to a dollar amount. Such as $100. Seems to be the number in the example.
The suggested credit types seem like a good start.
Id like to understand more the pros and cons of making credit types optional vs required.
For the RND dev team or other golang developers (cc @ryanchristo@corlock | RND)
How hard would be be to add a “credit class bond” in which both the class itself as it is created, and future credit admin roles (and even issuances) can be “bonded” with clearly outlined rules for “social slashing”. In this way the market can see the backing and assurance easily as credit quality is collateralized, and we can increase utility for $regen.
I don’t think implementing a “credit class” and “credit admin” and “credit issuance” bonds need to be a blocker to implementing permissionless credit classes, as I am of the opinion that filtering is enough for the first round of quality assurance. However in the medium term bonding credit classes, important roles and issuances is something I would be a big proponent of.
Thanks @corlock | RND for a great write up. Fees:
To share my perspective about fees, I think we should certainly raise the fee, and I think 1500-2000 regen is a good rate.
Credit Types
There are two sources I would look for to pull a list of credit types from if we decide we should pre populate the ledger with a set of pre approved credit types. One is the work of Sophia Leiker on a taxonomy for ecosystem services. The other is the Taxonomy of ecological benefits being worked on by the Lexicon and BxC working group. I’ve linked the taxonomy here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16QwlMfJ7h9C5-9yTt-WQWfmSwhy6afNhnv23xRkDbHc/edit#gid=1028002018. One last note on the list of pre approved credit types: it is important to understand that there will be many biodiveristy unit types (not just one) and that there may also be a diversity of credit types associate with environmental stewardship credits. For those interested in the deeper context of environmental stewardship credits please review the archive on Regen Registry’s hylo group: https://www.hylo.com/groups/regen-methodology-development/post/62086. I am curious what @Ned Horning thinks about the specific detail of prepopulation (or using governance to approve credit type by credit type as a healthy restraint) related specifically to Environmental Stewardship units.
Great thread, allowing permissionless credit class creation will foster innovation and bring a diverse set of credit originators to Regen Marketplace! I agree that it is important to peg the fee against a dollar amount at frequent intervals to keep in line with volatility. 2000 Regen or a peg to ~$150 seems approximate to me and would be my vote.
True gamechanger by Regen and look forward to discussing further and implementation! This gives the world an opportunity to post their ecocredits no matter their size and do their part!
I am excited about permissionless credit class as it creates a more Ethereum-like experience for credit issuance, putting the power of using the tools we have built in the hands of the community and removing barriers to entry. I believe lots of small projects and nonprofits will benefit from the functionality.
I believe this is the right direction for scaling access to markets from the supply side.
The movement towards other organizations contributing trusted standards to the ecosystem is important for a number of reasons but one is that it could allow groups within a trusted community (e.g. Native American communities) to align creation efforts with their community values and goals. The ability to align methodologies to localized conditions could have a significant influence over how methodologies take shape. On the demand side I think it’s going to be important to have transparency for these standards and creating organizations so that buyers can both filter by and understand the reasons for buying credits developed by specific groups/standards.
Regarding quality, it’s my opinion that audit-ability should play a significant role to garner trust in any credit. The practical ability to audit credits varies wildly but if methodologies can move in this direction, where possible, new tooling could help conduct automated checks of what the data module is reporting on. I realize the mechanisms for auditing are outside the scope of this proposal but I would like to see some additional metadata on the credit class (or other construct?) that could be used to reference the audit-ability of the credit. This could be (just initial ideas):
Machine audit-able (boolean yes/no)
Scope of audit-ability (list of primary indicators)
Link to automated audit system (url)
Process for auditing (text)
Fundamentally it would be optimal if a buyer could sort through credits by groups they trust, impact areas they care about, methodologies they prefer, and verifiability.
I’m excited to see how permissionless credits unlocks greater community participation and allows credit creators to iterate on designs.
Quality assurance is clearly critical here, how will marketplace users evaluate credits to ensure they comply to their standards? How can we inspire trust? Ideally transitioning to a permissionless system should not create an additional burden for buyers. How can we differentiate credits, ensure transparency around the level of rigor, review, and reporting associated with a given credit?
Solutions might include additional tooling for exploring credits and associated data, creating and enforcing data standards per credit class, and new user experiences that clearly convey this information.
This is an exciting proposal. It is a bit scary too! I mean, allowing anybody to create Credit Classes and eventually issue credits? Madness!
But of course this is the promise of decentralized web. And it fits into the spirit of Regen Network’s aims to empower ecological regeneration. If we remove more barriers to enter the market, we enable so much possibility. Yes, there will be low-quality credits. Maybe even scams. But there will also be small landholders finding a path to funding their best practices. Maybe they will be able to get their neighbors to join them. There will also be high-quality credits from world-class leaders in regeneration.
I feel this brings the work of funding regeneration closer to those who know best - the land stewards. They can participate in defining what is a good practice for their local ecology. If the market agrees, their credits will be more valuable. If the market says their methods are unsound, they will be less valuable. If the market decides “data be damned - I can tell this land steward is doing the right thing!” then so be it.
So I fully support this. I don’t know if the bear market timing is optimal, but maybe it is. Start with the most engaged credit issuers, and evolve the marketplace to be ready for the bull.
Who knows what kind of ecocredits people will come up with? Can’t wait to find out!
This is a strong move, good but with some risk especially around quality/spam.
It will open the doors, especially to smaller, hopefully local based community projects which I find really exciting.
The fee needs to increase as already mentioned.
Exciting times!
From my perspective, this is the natural next step in the “progressive decentralization” we mapped out back in the whitepaper, and makes a lot of sense!
Some people have asked: how do you ensure high quality credits if there isn’t a central authority? My answer would be: this approach puts process over outcome for credit issuance. In other words, trust and authenticity will be a result of accountability, participation, and auditability, as opposed to as a result of authority.
One question I’d love to hear some more discussion around: what are potential risks that we anticipate with this shift, and how might we manage them?
One other thing I’d like to call out regarding the “quality” question.
I think that it is often assumed that quality is an objective attribute of a credit class, methodology, etc. When this assumption is made, the conversation next goes to the question of: how do we create an institution that enforces our paradigm around quality?
I would suggest that quality is actually highly subjective. For example, there is a community of people who believe that grasslands methodologies are “high quality,” and direct air capture methodologies are “low quality.” Simultaneously, there is another community that believes the inverse: that grasslands methodologies are low quality, and direct air capture methodologies high quality.
I’d just like to call out that the move to permissionless can allow for these two communities to co-exist on one common set of core infrastructure, that maintains data standards, etc. across the board, regardless of what camp you’re in. Monolithic credit issuers always are of one specific paradigm, and have a bias against other paradigms. The permisionless route allows us to serve a world that spans multiple paradigms, without needing to cast a judgement on who is right and who is wrong (an inherently polarizing approach), but which gives all members of the community the data necessary to determine for themselves how the would classify the quality of a credit.
During the Environmental Stewardship community meeting on 25 July had a healthy discussion about concerns related to permissionless credit classes. A recording of the meeting can be viewed here and the Passcode is VF?0x1U5
We need to do more than simply provide tags/filters so buyers can easily identify the origin registry and perhaps navigate other features (benefits, location, scale…) related to project credits. I expect it’s going to be important to be proactive with regard to media attention. My suggestion would be to initially pitch permissionless credit classes as an experiment. It would be nice to see a headline like “Regen Registry is trialing a novel community approach using credits to support ecosystem regeneration” in the next few months rather than something like “Project hosted by Regen Registry proven to have negative ecosystem impact”. If we have to defend ourselves with a rebuttal to the second headline we’ll be climbing a very steep and slippery slope. Noting our perspective around “quality” will also be important. Whatever narrative we choose we should get the message out to the general public in a big way.
One question that hasn’t been outright addressed is the concept of clear fraud. Given that we are proposing a 100% permissionless use of tools that allow for anyone to create a credit class, register a project, and issue credit batches, what happens if it’s blatant fraud?
Is there some process that needs to be in place community-wide so we can call out, inquire about, and then address clear fraud? Or, is this a choose your own adventure where buyers are responsible for the liability of their purchases, not the network? I would argue that given the platform terms of service, it’s a “buyer beware” environment already, however, some community consensus around what the community process might be in this scenario, could be a good safeguard, even if it is primarily a social consensus mechanism.
ie. can the community vote at the token holder level to revoke a credit standard, project registration, or credit issuance onchain and/or to remove it from visibility in the marketplace through a governance vote? or does that inherently infringe on user autonomy? I’m pro radical autonomy personally, but that’s a personal philosophy and may not be the best approach for the network at-large, and our collective community-driven desire to have real world ecological impact be the heart of what Regen Ledger is used for and incentivizes.
Thoughts? It may be wise to play “devil’s advocate” in this discussion, as a primer for how we would react if this scenario arises.
Exciting to see this discussion happening on permissionless credit class creation. At Regen, this concept has been a long-standing topic, embodying many of the values we hold dear—accessibility, autonomy, collaboration, decentralization, experimentation, governance, sovereignty, frontier science, etc.
I fully support permissionless credit class creation as a concept, recognizing it as an innovative experiment. It presents, however, a confusing possibility for many of our users and risks diverting focus from our immediate goal of getting Registry projects on chain. My main hesitations and concerns revolve around the timing and expectations we set for launching permissonless credit classes. I am part of the Registry team but not speaking for the team.
With timing, I think it is appropriate to wait until most current Registry projects have landed on Regen Market, 3-5 months. This would allow for the following:
the continuation of dialogue on permissionless credit classes, enabling the community to learn, engage, debate (many community members do not find Commonwealth accessible or find the timeframe to participate too short)
Focus the full attention of the team and community on Registry projects.
Utilize learnings from Registry projects to inform the launch of permissionless credit classes.
I propose that we state our intentions clearly to maintain trust and transparency over time with permissionless credit classes. Initial ideas might include:
Providing status checks: honest and forthright updates on permissionless credit classes and credits, highlighting successes, failures, learnings, and statistics.
(Resonating with Ned’s thoughts on language), acknowledging that this is an experimental approach with potential unintended consequences in public communications
as Sarah Bax shared, outlining a clear process for managing fraud
With this in mind, I started a comparison of permissionless credit class vs Registry credit classes with the goal of a
I want to state for the record that if permissionless crediting is enacted, LOA plans on bringing this to our bioregion for the development of eco credits in our region in partnership with regional nonprofits and other institutions through the lens of the regional climate action plan. We are in active discussions on this front.
If permissionless credit class is enacted, I will work with a broad portfolio of projects that I designed in Pittsburgh to finally design their credits and bring them to market, getting them new funding for their work. Right now, I am blocked in doing so because the Regen Registry process is too long and cumbersome for them to find a philanthropy funder to support it. I would finally be able to use the tools at Regen Network for the projects I created, which was the entire reason I joined this team 4 years ago in the first place.
It was always intended to be the case that credit classes would be permissionless on Regen Network. Please make it so.
Hi all, at Nebular Summit, part of my live presentation was showcasing how you use the testnet tools to issue a credit class, project, and credit batch, ie. using this functionality live for a real world project that I created, Hilltop Urban Farm. I’m sharing the video here for the community to review this video, in case these concepts seem abstract.
Here’s a real world example of how to use permissionless credit classes, as well as a real world project that I will personally use this functionality to issue credits for (start at 11:46 ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bYHZ-z6hlA