What started as a fight might turn into collaboration. Michele and ClimateCoin proposed to step back and discuss constructive cooperation. We appreciate it.
Dear Michele,
I’m sure you don’t mind making this discussion public, frank and open.
Organizers of Innovate4Climate did not have a slot for us to speak. We have attended New York Blockchain Week instead.
As for your primary concern, I am the one to address it. My academic background does not let using anybody’s work with no reference to it. I’ve made my primary research in 2014, and in 2015 started discussions with Ethereum team (George Hallam), DigixGlobal (Kai Cheng, Chng) on actual implementation, coding. In 2016 we’ve met with incredibly talented team, Airalab, led by Sergey Lonshakov, who actually made it a reality in August 2016. First tokens backed by carbon credits were issued and traded in March 2017. Up to date 1,6 million tokens representing carbon credits have been verified, originated and issued in DAO IPCI under Blockchain Climate Standard (BloCS).
Unlike ClimateCoin, DAO IPCI actually issued the “First Carbon Backed Crypto Asset”, the solution is actually working for almost two years, verification, generation of carbon credits-based tokens is performed on public blockchain not someplace else, it is decentralized, open sourced, transparent and free. Anyone can use it without asking our permission or paying us money with proper reference to DAO IPCI. There is no interest, motive or reason to steal anybody’s work and ideas.
At least not on our side.
DAO IPCI is not a climate program per se. It is an impartial open-sourced public blockchain platform.
BloCS developed by Russian Carbon Fund with my help is the first climate program operating in DAO IPCI. And it has been there for two years with first carbon credits issued over a year ago.
It was nice talking to you in Barcelona but I don’t know what specific work that I have allegedly used you mean. Frankly, no offence, I have not read one of your works. I’ve based my research on the works of Ronald Coase, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, John Palmisano with proper references.
Sincerely,
Anton Galenovich, PhD
P.S. Thank you for providing the link to the paper. I have looked through and the concept is exactly the opposite to the DAO IPCI concept. Compare your idea:
“A single institution for the issuance of the certifications must be established in order to safeguard the equivalence of the reductions with their certification wherever they happen. A single international market for the certifications exchange must be guaranteed and connected with existing markets. A single organisation must be in charge of collecting the due certifications at the end of the timeframes, thus representing the monitoring institution for the accomplishment of the duties and the place for the parties’ reductions to be deposited by the end of each timeframe”
to ours (Whitepaper 5.0):
“Decentralization is ensured at the key level of different mitigation programs operating in the same digital environment. There are no technical restrictions as to who may launch an autonomous mitigation program in DAO IPCI. Existing mandatory or voluntary, large and small programs of diverse scopes of activities and jurisdictions, as well as businesses, NGOs and individuals may create independent DAO to implement specific programs and projects and perform transactions in DAO IPCI. Independent mitigation programs within DAO IPCI may interlace and form a web of DAOs that share selected modules and protocols with their peers.”
“Other than tokens representing mitigation instruments type of token, represents an internal currency for internal markets of independent programs, essentially a payment/utility token. Operators of independent programs, DAOs, may issue this type of tokens arbitrarily.”
It is all about decentralization vs “single institution”
http://ipci.io/