Climate Action DAO

A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) governed by blockchain-based smart contracts and token-weighted voting that coordinates collective action toward climate change mitigation, adaptation, and environmental sustainability through transparent, democratic mechanisms for funding climate pro…

Semantic Classification

Content

Climate Action DAOs represent an innovative intersection of blockchain technology, decentralized governance, and environmental sustainability, emerging as a key component of the Regenerative Finance (ReFi) movement. These organizations leverage smart contracts to create transparent, democratic systems for collective climate action, addressing coordination failures in traditional environmental governance where disparate actors (governments, NGOs, corporations, individuals) struggle to align incentives and mobilize capital efficiently toward shared climate goals.

Unlike traditional climate organizations with opaque decision-making and high overhead costs, Climate Action DAOs operate through on-chain governance where token holders propose, debate, and vote on climate initiatives, carbon credit purchases, project funding allocations, and treasury management strategies. All transactions, votes, and treasury balances are publicly auditable on the blockchain, ensuring accountability and reducing corruption risks. Smart contracts automate execution of approved proposals, eliminating administrative delays and reducing intermediary costs by 60-80% compared to conventional grant-making institutions.

The total market capitalization of climate-focused DAOs exceeded $500million\ast \ast in2025,with\ast \ast KlimaDAO\ast \ast managingthelargestcarboncredittreasury(over\ast \ast 20milliontonnesC{O}_{2}etokenized\ast \ast ),\ast \ast GitcoinClimateSolutions\ast \ast distributing\ast \ast$15 million+ to 250+ climate projects via quadratic funding, and Celo Climate Collective coordinating $100 million carbon-negative blockchain infrastructure. These organizations demonstrate that decentralized coordination can achieve climate impact at scale, though challenges persist around governance capture by large token holders, verification of carbon credit quality, and regulatory uncertainty.

Core Mechanisms of Climate Action DAOs

Governance Token Distribution:

• Purpose: Tokens represent voting power and align participant incentives with DAO mission

• Allocation models:

• Airdrop to climate project contributors (Gitcoin GTC token to past donors)

• Bonding carbon credits or liquidity provision (KlimaDAO KLIMA token via bonding BCT/MCO2)

• Retroactive rewards for verified climate impact (Optimism RetroPGF, Celo cLabs grants)

• Quadratic funding participation (Gitcoin Grants)

• Risks: Whale dominance (large holders controlling votes), sybil attacks (fake identities for airdrops), mercenary capital (extractive liquidity mining)

  Proposal and Voting Systems:

• On-chain voting: Snapshot (gas-free voting), Governor Alpha/Bravo (on-chain execution), Tally (governance dashboard)

• Quorum requirements: Typically 5-15% of circulating supply must participate for valid vote

• Voting strategies: Simple majority, supermajority (66.7%), quadratic voting (diminishing returns for large holders)

• Delegation: Token holders delegate voting power to subject-matter experts or active community members

• Time-lock: Executed proposals delayed 24-72 hours to allow community reaction and emergency veto

  Treasury Management:

• Assets held: Stablecoins (USDC, DAI), carbon credit tokens (BCT, NCT, MCO2), native tokens (KLIMA, GTC)

• Diversification strategies: 50-70% stablecoins for operational stability, 20-40% carbon credits for mission alignment, 10% native token for incentives

• Yield optimization: DeFi protocols (Aave, Compound) for treasury interest, liquidity provision on Uniswap/Curve

• Spending proposals: Community votes on grants (10-500k USDC per project), carbon credit retirements (1,000-10,000 tonnes CO₂e), operational expenses (development, audits, marketing)

  Impact Verification and Metrics:

• Carbon credits: Third-party verification (Verra VCS, Gold Standard, Climate Action Reserve) before DAO purchase

• Project milestones: Deliverable-based funding tranches with community review

• Impact dashboards: Dune Analytics, Token Terminal tracking tonnes CO₂e retired, funds distributed, projects funded

• Greenwashing prevention: DAO members audit projects, blacklist low-quality credits (e.g., REDD+ projects with reversal risk)

  Major Climate Action DAOs (2024-2026)

  KlimaDAO (Polygon, Launched 2021)

• Mission: Accelerate carbon credit price appreciation to make polluting expensive

• Mechanism: “Carbon-backed currency” where KLIMA token backed by 1+ tonne CO₂e, treasury accumulation via bonding

• Treasury: 20 million tonnes CO₂e (peak), $400millionmarketcap(2021),declinedto$15 million (2024) amid broader DAO bear market

• Impact: Retired 17 million tonnes CO₂e, drove carbon credit tokenization boom, exposed low-quality credit issues

• Governance: 15,000+ KLIMA holders, proposals via Snapshot, 4% quorum requirement

• Criticism: Token price crash (99.5% from peak), mercenary liquidity mining, questionable carbon credit quality (REDD+ projects)

  Toucan Protocol (Celo/Polygon, Launched 2021)

• Mission: Bridge voluntary carbon credits to blockchain for transparent, liquid carbon markets

• Products: Base Carbon Tonnes (BCT), Nature Carbon Tonnes (NCT) tokenized carbon pools

• Scale: 27 million tonnes CO₂e bridged, $150 million market cap (2024)

• Integration: KlimaDAO (primary buyer), Celo (carbon-negative blockchain), Uniswap (liquidity pools)

• Governance: Toucan DAO with TCO2 governance token (launched 2024)

• Challenges: Verra ban on tokenization (May 2023, reversed Nov 2023), regulatory scrutiny

  Gitcoin Climate Solutions (Ethereum, Launched 2022)

• Mission: Fund open-source climate technology via quadratic funding (QF)

• Mechanism: Community donations matched by sponsors with QF algorithm (favors many small donors over few large)

• Impact: $15 million distributed (2022-2025), 250+ climate projects funded (renewable energy software, carbon accounting tools, climate education)

• Notable projects: Hypercerts (impact certificates), ReFi DAO coordination, MRV (measurement, reporting, verification) tools

• Governance: GTC token holders vote on matching pool allocations, grant categories, anti-sybil measures

  Celo Climate Collective (Celo Blockchain, Launched 2021)

• Mission: Offset Celo blockchain’s carbon footprint and fund regenerative finance

• Treasury: $100 million (cUSD, CELO) from protocol transaction fees

• Mechanism: Automatic carbon offset of every transaction (0.001% transaction fee to climate fund)

• Projects funded: 30+ regenerative agriculture, reforestation, renewable energy in developing countries

• Governance: Celo token holders propose climate initiatives via governance forum

  Regen Network (Cosmos, Launched 2021)

• Mission: Ecological data marketplace for verified environmental outcomes

• Products: Regen Registry (MRV for carbon, biodiversity, soil health), ecocredits (tokenized ecological benefits)

• Scale: 500,000+ hectares monitored, 1 million tonnes CO₂e verified

• Governance: REGEN token voting on registry methodologies, credit approval, treasury allocation

• Innovation: Remote sensing + IoT integration for automated ecological monitoring

  Quadratic Funding for Climate Projects

  Quadratic Funding (QF), pioneered by Vitalik Buterin, Zoë Hitzig, and Glen Weyl (2018), represents a mathematically optimal mechanism for public goods funding by prioritizing projects with broad community support rather than large individual donors. The formula calculates matching funds as the square of the sum of square roots of individual contributions, creating quadratic returns for projects with many supporters.

  Mathematical Example:

• Project A: 1 donor × $100=\surd 100=10\to 10^2=$100 match

• Project B: 100 donors × $1=(\surd 1\times 100)=100\to 100^2=$10,000 match

  Despite equal total donations ($100), Project B receives 100× matching funds due to broader support, incentivizing grassroots mobilization over plutocratic influence.

  Gitcoin Climate Rounds (GR13-GR18, 2022-2024):

• Total distributed: $15 million to 250+ projects

• Donor participation: 50,000+ unique contributors

• Matching pool: $2-3 million per round from sponsors (Protocol Labs, Ethereum Foundation, Polygon)

• Top categories: Renewable energy software (15%), carbon accounting tools (12%), climate education (10%), regenerative agriculture (8%)

  Challenges in QF for Climate:

• Sybil attacks: Fake identities splitting donations to game matching algorithm

• Collusion: Donors coordinating to funnel funds to specific projects

• Verification: Ensuring funded projects deliver claimed climate impact

• Solutions: Gitcoin Passport (proof-of-humanity via stamps), BrightID (social graph verification), milestones-based disbursement

  Governance Challenges and Solutions

  Plutocracy Risk (Whale Dominance):

• Problem: Large token holders (whales) control votes, extracting value or directing funds to pet projects

• Mitigation:

• Quadratic voting: Vote cost increases quadratically (1 vote = 1 token, 2 votes = 4 tokens, 10 votes = 100 tokens), reducing whale influence

• Vote delegation: Whales delegate to subject-matter experts (e.g., climate scientists vote on carbon credit quality)

• Reputation-weighted voting: Combine token holdings with participation history, expertise credentials

  Low Participation:

• Problem: <5% voter turnout typical, enabling minority rule

• Solutions:

• Incentivized voting: Governance mining rewards for participation (Compound COMP distribution)

• Conviction voting: Voters lock tokens for periods (1 week → 1x weight, 12 weeks → 4x weight), favoring long-term commitment

• Liquid democracy: Delegated voting with instant recall, enabling passive holders to empower active community members

  Governance Attacks:

• Flash loan attacks: Borrow massive token amounts to pass malicious proposal within single transaction

• Mitigation: Time-locks (24-72 hour delays), quorum requirements, proposal deposits (slashed if malicious)

• Hostile takeovers: Acquire >50% tokens to control treasury

• Mitigation: Circulating supply caps, gradual token unlocks, multi-sig emergency pauses

  Regulatory Uncertainty:

• Securities classification: DAOs issuing governance tokens may violate securities laws (SEC Howey Test)

• Tax treatment: Unclear whether DAO treasuries subject to corporate tax, token holders to capital gains

• Legal liability: Who is liable if DAO-funded project fails or causes harm?

• Emerging frameworks: Wyoming DAO LLC (legal wrapper for DAOs), Cayman Islands Foundation Company

  Current Landscape

  The Regenerative Finance (ReFi) movement represents the most significant expansion of climate-focused blockchain activity, with ReFi DAO Alliance coordinating 50+ DAOs managing over $1 billion in climate-aligned treasuries. This explosion stems from converging trends: (1) DeFi maturation providing infrastructure for treasury management and carbon credit liquidity, (2) regulatory clarity on token classifications in key jurisdictions, (3) corporate ESG mandates driving demand for transparent carbon offsetting, and (4) Web3 for Good narrative attracting mission-aligned developers and investors.

  KlimaDAO’s trajectory illustrates both promise and pitfalls. Launched October 2021 with vision of “carbon-backed currency,” KLIMA token bonding mechanism accumulated 20 million tonnes CO₂e within 3 months, creating largest voluntary carbon credit treasury. However, token price collapsed 99.5% (peak $3,500\to$15 by 2024) as mercenary liquidity providers exited, exposing unsustainable ponzinomics. Critics argue KlimaDAO primarily enriched early insiders rather than climate impact, whilst defenders cite 17 million tonnes CO₂e permanently retired—equivalent to annual emissions of 3.6 million cars.

  The Verra tokenization controversy (2023) demonstrated regulatory fragility. Verra, world’s largest carbon standard, initially banned REC tokenization citing concerns over unregulated speculation and double-counting risks, crashing Toucan Protocol’s BCT token 60%. Verra reversed course 6 months later with controlled pilot programs, but damage persisted: institutional carbon buyers retreated, and blockchain REC platforms pivoted to alternative standards (Gold Standard, Climate Action Reserve). This episode underscores that Climate Action DAOs operate at the whim of off-chain carbon registries maintaining veto power over tokenization.

  Gitcoin Climate Solutions achieved more sustainable impact through quadratic funding rather than speculative tokenomics. GR15 (2023) distributed $3.2 million to 120 climate projects with 15,000+ donors, demonstrating community legitimacy. Notable funded projects include Hypercerts (impact certificates protocol enabling retroactive funding), dClimate (decentralized climate data marketplace), and MRV Collective (open-source measurement, reporting, verification tools). Gitcoin’s success stems from subordinating token speculation to public goods funding, avoiding KlimaDAO’s mercenary capital trap.

  Celo Climate Collective demonstrates blockchain’s potential for passive carbon offsetting at scale. Every Celo transaction (30 million+ monthly) automatically funds climate projects via 0.001% transaction fee, accumulating $100 million treasury without speculative token mechanics. This “climate-as-infrastructure” model avoids governance complexity by hard-coding carbon neutrality into blockchain protocol, though critics note lack of democratic accountability in fund allocation.

  Academic Context

  Decentralized Autonomous Organizations emerge from institutional economics, public choice theory, and mechanism design research addressing collective action problems (Olson 1965, Ostrom 1990). Climate change exemplifies a tragedy of the commons: rational individual actors under-invest in mitigation due to diffuse benefits and concentrated costs. Traditional solutions—government regulation, Coasean bargaining, Pigouvian taxation—suffer from enforcement costs, political capture, and information asymmetries.

  Blockchain-based DAOs offer an alternative governance paradigm leveraging cryptographic enforcement (smart contracts execute agreements without trust), transparent information (all actions publicly auditable), and exit rights (token holders sell if dissatisfied, disciplining governance). Vitalik Buterin’s “Notes on Blockchain Governance” (2017) argues DAOs reduce principal-agent problems by aligning stakeholder incentives through token ownership, whilst Hsieh et al. (2018) demonstrate that on-chain voting increases participation rates 10-100× over traditional shareholder votes due to reduced transaction costs.

  Quadratic Funding, formalized by Buterin, Hitzig, and Weyl (2018) in Liberal Radicalism, provides a mechanism design framework for optimal public goods funding. The authors prove QF achieves Pareto-efficient allocation when preferences are truthfully revealed, with matching funds proportional to the square of the sum of square roots of contributions. Gitcoin’s empirical application (2019-2025) demonstrates QF viability for climate public goods, though Patel & Szuromi (2023) document persistent sybil attacks reducing efficiency by 15-30%.

  Carbon credit markets, foundational to Climate Action DAOs, originated from Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (1997) operationalizing Coase Theorem (1960): assigning property rights to atmospheric carbon enables market-based solutions to emissions reduction. Blockchain tokenization addresses long-standing market failures—double-counting, opaque pricing, fragmented registries—by creating immutable, interoperable carbon credit ledgers (Howson 2020, Klöck et al. 2024).

  UK Context

  The United Kingdom’s approach to climate-focused DAOs balances innovation support through regulatory sandboxes with caution regarding speculative tokenomics and unverified carbon credits. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) classifies governance tokens as either securities (if investment contract with profit expectation) or utility tokens (if primarily governance rights), with climate DAOs predominantly falling into grey areas requiring case-by-case assessment.

  UK Climate DAO Activity remains nascent compared to U.S. and European counterparts, constrained by (1) conservative regulatory environment favoring traditional finance structures over decentralized governance, (2) limited venture capital in Web3 climate tech (0.5% of UK VC funding versus 3% in U.S.), and (3) VAT complexity on carbon credit trades. However, Innovate UK funded blockchain climate pilots through Smart Sustainable Plastic Packaging Challenge (£60 million, 2020-2024) and Industrial Decarbonisation Challenge (£170 million, 2018-2024), with DAOs managing grant distribution for select cohorts.

  North England Climate DAO Initiatives

  Manchester Climate Partnership explored DAO governance for city-scale carbon budgeting (2023-2024 pilot), proposing token-based voting on municipal climate investments by residents, businesses, and institutions. The £500,000 BEIS-funded trial tested Snapshot voting for allocating £5 million Low Carbon Neighbourhoods Fund across 12 community projects. Results showed 65% higher participation versus traditional consultations, though concerns emerged over digital exclusion (30% of residents lacked blockchain wallets) and governance token concentration (property developers acquired disproportionate influence).

  Leeds Climate Commission partnered with Celo Climate Collective for carbon-offset integration into Leeds City Council procurement (2024-2025). Suppliers offsetting emissions via Celo blockchain receive preferential bidding weights in council contracts (£2.3 billion annual procurement). Early results demonstrate 12% emissions reduction across 50 participating suppliers, though scalability limited by carbon credit cost volatility and supplier technical capacity.

  Sheffield Retrofit DAO (hypothetical proposal, 2025) envisions decentralized funding for residential energy efficiency retrofits via quadratic funding. Homeowners contribute £100-£500, matched by council budget using QF algorithm, with smart contracts releasing funds upon verified installations (heat pumps, insulation, solar panels). Governance token holders (residents, contractors, council) vote on approved technologies and installer certification. Awaiting council approval pending FCA guidance on token classification.

  Newcastle Waste-to-Energy DAO (conceptual, 2025) proposed by Newcastle University Digital Institute for community ownership of anaerobic digestion facility. DAO structure enables 10,000 local residents to collectively invest £500-£5,000 (minimum £50,000 capital raise) for biogas production from food waste, with energy revenues distributed as stablecoin dividends. Regulatory barriers include FCA securities classification (collective investment scheme requiring authorisation) and Environmental Agency permitting complexity for decentralized ownership structures.

  UK Regulatory Barriers and Opportunities

  Securities Regulation: FCA’s cryptoasset taxonomy (2023) creates compliance burden for climate DAOs issuing governance tokens. If tokens entitle holders to treasury distributions (dividends) or price appreciation dependent on DAO efforts, they qualify as securities under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, requiring prospectus (£500,000-£2 million cost) and FCA authorisation (6-12 months). Most Climate Action DAOs avoid UK entity formation, operating as overseas foundations (Cayman, Switzerland) with UK community participation.

  Carbon Market Regulation: UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) and voluntary carbon markets operate independently from blockchain, with Gold Standard and Woodland Carbon Code as dominant UK standards. Neither standard permits tokenization, limiting UK Climate DAO activity to international carbon credits (Verra, Gold Standard International). UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (2027 implementation) may create opportunities for blockchain-based carbon accounting to verify embedded emissions in imports.

  Charity Law: DAOs pursuing climate impact may qualify as Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIOs) if structured for public benefit without private gain. This provides tax exemptions and public trust, but prohibits token holder dividends, restricting revenue models to grants and donations. Oxford Climate DAO (hypothetical, 2025) proposed as CIO-wrapped DAO for quadratic funding of university climate research, navigating legal ambiguity by treating tokens as non-transferable voting rights rather than tradable assets.

  Future Policy Developments: HM Treasury’s Future Financial Services Regulatory Regime for Cryptoassets (consultation, 2024-2025) proposes proportionate regulation for decentralised finance, potentially creating climate DAO exemptions if solely governance (non-investment) focused. Committee on Climate Change recommended exploring blockchain for Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) in 2023 Progress Report, signaling government openness to technology adoption if robustly governed.

  Future Directions

  Climate Action DAOs are poised for significant evolution driven by regulatory maturation (EU MiCA, UK Financial Services Act amendments), technological improvements (Layer 2 scaling, privacy-preserving carbon accounting), and integration with traditional climate finance (blended finance structures combining DAO treasuries with institutional capital).

  Hybrid DAO-NGO Structures emerge as compromise between blockchain transparency and regulatory compliance. Organizations like Regen Foundation (DAO + Swiss foundation hybrid) and Gitcoin Holdings (US for-profit entity + DAO coordination) demonstrate viable models: off-chain legal entities handle fiat banking, employment contracts, and regulatory filings, whilst on-chain DAOs manage community governance, treasury allocation, and impact verification. This separation allows regulatory compliance whilst preserving decentralized decision-making.

  Real-World Asset (RWA) Tokenization expands climate DAO scope beyond digital carbon credits to physical assets: reforestation land rights, renewable energy installations, conservation easements. Centrifuge and Goldfinch pioneered RWA lending markets; climate DAOs could similarly tokenize forestry projects, enabling fractional ownership and automated revenue distribution. However, legal challenges persist: property rights recognition, bankruptcy procedures, jurisdictional enforcement of smart contracts.

  Impact Measurement and Verification remains critical bottleneck. Current carbon credit systems rely on manual audits (annual site visits, paper documentation), vulnerable to fraud and delays. Hypercerts protocol proposes impact certificates encoding verifiable outcomes (tonnes CO₂e sequestered, hectares reforested) with retroactive funding mechanisms: projects deliver impact first, DAOs reward afterwards based on verified results. This flips traditional grant-making (upfront funding, uncertain outcomes) to output-based financing, reducing moral hazard.

  Interoperability with Traditional Climate Finance unlocks scaling potential. World Bank Climate Warehouse (blockchain platform for carbon credit tracking) demonstrates institutional adoption, whilst BIS Innovation Hub Project Genesis explores tokenized green bonds. Climate DAOs could serve as on-chain liquidity providers for institutional carbon buyers, bridging DeFi efficiency with traditional finance capital depth.

  Challenges and Open Questions

  Governance Centralization: Despite decentralized rhetoric, most DAOs exhibit oligarchic control—KlimaDAO’s top 10 wallets controlled 40% of supply (2024), Gitcoin’s GTC concentrated among early insiders. Solutions include progressive decentralization (gradual token distribution over years), reputation-weighted voting (combine holdings with expertise), and rage-quit mechanisms (minorities exit with proportional treasury share).

  Carbon Credit Quality: Blockchain transparency doesn’t guarantee environmental integrity—tokenized carbon credits inherit quality of underlying offsets. DAOs must implement rigorous due diligence, excluding projects with high reversal risk (forestry in politically unstable regions), non-additional baselines (renewable energy in countries with zero fossil fuel alternatives), or social harms (forced displacement for conservation). On-chain reputation systems (Verra project ratings, community reviews) could crowdsource quality assessment.

  Regulatory Arbitrage Risks: DAOs register in permissive jurisdictions (Cayman, Panama, Marshall Islands) to avoid securities regulation, potentially enabling money laundering or tax evasion under climate impact veneer. Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements conflict with blockchain pseudonymity; climate DAOs must balance privacy rights with anti-financial crime compliance. Expect regulatory crackdown on unregistered token offerings marketed as climate investments.

  Plutocratic Governance Persistence: Quadratic voting and delegation mitigate but don’t eliminate whale dominance. One-person-one-vote systems require Sybil-resistant identity (Proof of Humanity, BrightID), raising privacy concerns. Futarchy (decision markets where prediction accuracy determines influence) and conviction voting (time-weighted voting power) offer alternatives, though unproven at scale.

  Sustainability of Tokenomics: KlimaDAO’s collapse demonstrates unsustainable incentive structures. DAOs require long-term revenue models: transaction fees (Celo’s carbon offset fee), service fees (Regen Network’s MRV marketplace), protocol-owned liquidity (DAOs as liquidity providers earning trading fees). Dependency on token price appreciation for treasury growth creates Ponzi-like dynamics.

  Research & Literature

  DAO Governance and Mechanism Design:

• Buterin, V. (2017). Notes on Blockchain Governance. Available at: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2017/12/17/voting.html

• Buterin, V., Hitzig, Z., & Weyl, E. G. (2018). Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3243656

• Hsieh, Y.-Y., Vergne, J.-P., Anderson, P., Lakhani, K., & Reitzig, M. (2018). Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), 14. DOI: 10.1186/s41469-018-0038-1

  Carbon Markets and Climate Finance:

• Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44. DOI: 10.1086/466560

• Howson, P. (2020). Building trust and equity in marine conservation and fisheries supply chain management with blockchain. Marine Policy, 115, 103873. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103873

• Klöck, C., Nuñez-Jimenez, A., & Lam, L. (2024). Carbon credit tokenization: Opportunities, risks, and governance challenges. Nature Climate Change, 14, 120-127. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-023-01912-5

  Collective Action and Public Goods:

• Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press.

• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

  Quadratic Funding Empirics:

• Patel, V., & Szuromi, N. (2023). Quadratic funding in practice: A case study of Gitcoin Grants. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 215, 187-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.09.012

  ReFi and Blockchain Climate Action:

• ReFi DAO. (2024). State of Regenerative Finance Report 2024. Available at: https://refidao.com/reports/2024

• Toucan Protocol. (2023). The Carbon Reference Currency: Bringing Transparency to Voluntary Carbon Markets. Toucan Technical Whitepaper v2.1.

  UK Climate Policy:

• Committee on Climate Change. (2023). Progress in Reducing UK Emissions: 2023 Report to Parliament. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2023-progress-report-to-parliament/

  References

  1. Buterin, V. (2017). Notes on Blockchain Governance. Available at: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2017/12/17/voting.html

  2. Buterin, V., Hitzig, Z., & Weyl, E. G. (2018). Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3243656

  3. Committee on Climate Change. (2023). Progress in Reducing UK Emissions: 2023 Report to Parliament. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2023-progress-report-to-parliament/

  4. Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44. DOI: 10.1086/466560

  5. Gitcoin. (2024). Climate Solutions Impact Report 2024. Available at: https://www.gitcoin.co/climate

  6. Howson, P. (2020). Building trust and equity in marine conservation and fisheries supply chain management with blockchain. Marine Policy, 115, 103873. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103873

  7. Hsieh, Y.-Y., Vergne, J.-P., Anderson, P., Lakhani, K., & Reitzig, M. (2018). Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), 14. DOI: 10.1186/s41469-018-0038-1

  8. Klöck, C., Nuñez-Jimenez, A., & Lam, L. (2024). Carbon credit tokenization: Opportunities, risks, and governance challenges. Nature Climate Change, 14, 120-127. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-023-01912-5

  9. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press.

  10. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

  11. Patel, V., & Szuromi, N. (2023). Quadratic funding in practice: A case study of Gitcoin Grants. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 215, 187-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.09.012

  12. ReFi DAO. (2024). State of Regenerative Finance Report 2024. Available at: https://refidao.com/reports/2024

Provenance