Raise funds for more realistic and powerful WEB3 climate solution projects

[ Special Issue 92 of Web3Matters Matt Weekly]

It feels like GG21's desire this time is to expect the development of the project to have an impact in the real world. The words "real-world impact" can be seen everywhere. Not only did the community fundraising round launch the pioneering first-round integration Regen Coordi-Nation - a three-party integration of recommended local nodes (ReFi DAO), local chapters (GreenPill) and Celo Public Wealth (Celo PG) ; in the climate solution The new standard (GG21 Key Changes) has also been used on the project. The adjustments in direction and details make people feel that the team behind the project in front of them is enthusiastic (as if they are serious about seeing whether the project can reduce Greenhouse gases, but someone in the discussion forum said clearly that they did not dare to apply because of this sentence ) Now I will take you directly from the background of the project to look at this round of fundraising for climate solutions.

The backend of the Climate Solution fundraising round includes six people from different countries called CCN (Climate Coordination Network) .

There are nine categories of climate solutions: Renewable Energy - Oracles & dMRV - Carbon Accounting - Climate Activism/Education - Nature-Based Solutions - Ocean-Based Solutions - Climate Adaptation/Climate Resilience - Supply Chain solutions - Built Environment/Transportation

Before the fundraising started going online, CCN announced the impact ranking of this fundraising project - the project and impact score (impact score) , and made the evaluation process public ( GG21 Grant Review Process ), telling everyone who is looking at the ranking Before that, let’s take a look at three reasons why the CCN team continues to use impact metrics and measurement tools:

1. Ensure that future climate funding rounds attract additional matching funds
2. With practical effects in the real world
3. For the proposer, the CCN team and the general public, only by being able to understand the actual effects of a project can we make wise decisions, ensure the effectiveness of our actions and create substantial changes in reality (even more so) Just to promote climate change).

(He Lang feels: He has the right goal.)

So what are the new standards (GG21 Key Changes) for the GG21 climate solution project? For a complete explanation, please refer to the ranking page . There are four points. Here are only two points:

In terms of qualifications (not focusing on Hypercert, but following Karma GAP) the proposer must be on Karma GAP and have two milestones (above) in development and updates since GG20.

The number of climate projects in this round is limited to 70, which means only the projects with the top 70 impact scores will go online. Of course, CCN still encourages projects that cannot be launched in this round to participate next time, so they have provided follow-up methods and assistance - on the public evaluation process page, we will wait and enter the content of the page.

Let me first talk about the advantages I feel so far: this evaluation process and the "influence score" give Heat Wave an additional reference when looking at the project - not just someone who is concentrating on the project and thinking about it with him. Generally speaking, the practical effects of the project can help the entire community develop in a forward and more mature direction over time.

At the same time, another advantage of making these evaluation standards public is that we can think about and measure the follow-up. Just like in real life, some indicators have good intentions and can help more projects achieve their goals. At the same time, there will also be intentions that are merely formal and lack comprehensive consideration of the substance. So ideally, the indicators may be rolling . Good intentions constantly remind everyone of the importance of core and substance, and of course there are technical targets that must be achieved.

Now let’s enter this public impact evaluation process: CCN Grant Review Process page .

There are two levels, the first is the core qualification (yes or no), and the second is the evaluation of the project itself.

Let’s use Google Translate to briefly browse the core qualification standards for the first level:

• Is the project less than at least 3 months old?

• Does the project exhibit evidence of being a scam?

• Is the project primarily a token launch or NFT project to raise money for a liquidity pool (project must provide evidence through impact tools that there is clear evidence of action and climate impact)?

• Does the owner have more than one project in the round (both projects will be rejected)?

• Does the project fail to show a clear and primary focus on being a climate solution?

• Is the project outside of the realm of viability (fails to prove it's viable)?

• Does the project have a Karma GAP profile with a minimum 2 Karma GAP milestones and updates?

- Will the implementation time of the project be at least less than 3 months?
- Is there any evidence that the project is a scam?
- Is the project primarily a token offering or NFT project aiming to raise funds for a liquidity pool (projects must provide evidence of clear action and climate impact via impact tools)?
- Does the owner have multiple projects in this round (both projects will be rejected)?
- Does the project fail to clearly and primarily focus on climate solutions?
- Is the project beyond the scope of feasibility (failure to demonstrate feasibility)?
- Does the project have a Karma GAP configuration file with at least 2 Karma GAP milestones and updates?

There are seven questions in the second level, and the fourth question is quite good and in-depth, and can help the proposer think about it, and even look at his project in a more macro perspective:

Question 4. Climate Impact (from 1 to 5)

• What is the project's impact today plus the potential to deliver climate impact as evidenced by metrics?

(google translate) What is the project’s current impact and potential for climate impact as evidenced by indicators?

If a project has been going on for two or three years, if it is still meaningful today, or if there are empirical indicators or potential in the future - that's good, and you can start to revise the direction of your plan.

Let’s look at the third question again. This question generally asks about measurable and measurable effects:

Question 3. Impact over the past 12 months (from 1 to 5)

• Has funding this project resulted in measurable impact as described in the Impact Summary over the past 12 months?

(google translate) Over the past 12 months, has funding for this program produced a measurable impact as described in the impact summary?

Regarding this kind of measurable and observable effect, we have encountered a situation in practice: self-declaration/under-reporting is easy to meet the standard/in order to get the budget every year, some people in the system will play safety cards (some people are arrogant) Misreporting) will not help the progress of affairs in the long run.

What Nuanlang thinks of is that he hopes passionate proponents will not be afraid of over-reporting. If they fail to meet the standards, they can explain the reasons, including their own learning and experience, which will be nutrients in the future.

Questions five to seven are respectively: project size, team evaluation, innovation and specificity - these seem to be carried out by the CCN team in a formal way.

At the same time, all six members of the CCN team have avoided evaluating projects in which they or their partners have participated.

So we got the 70 projects in this GG21 Climate Solutions funding round - the top 70 in the impact assessment.

It must be said that the projects that were introduced in the previous heat waves were almost all in the top 70 this time - I didn’t go backstage to watch the community process, so I thought it was just these projects again (lol). Currently, there are two recognized projects that were not qualified in the first round, one is $Earth ( x: solarpunkdao ), and the other is PROJECT FOR ECO ‚Äì RESTORATION AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT THROUGH SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (A project for Climate Solution, Sustainable environmental protection and Women empowerment through Self-Help groups) As mentioned at GG19, there are also women's empowerment training in remote areas of Asia .

The proposer can write to CCN to request feedback. However, currently there is no way for Heat Wave to inquire about the content of the proposer's proposal. And although $Earth has not passed the qualification, it is currently a fundraising project on the shelves . It is very likely that there was an oversight in the backend hosting.

In summary, there are a few projects with high scores that do seem to be quite solid, while others may not be certain (referring to the score and content look and feel). Some projects with poor scores are still very pragmatic, and some look very powerful (managing large areas of land). , various ecological plans can be made) On the contrary, there is great pressure and temptation to resist. It is difficult to say whether it will become a special ecological center or a forest and grassland back garden for a few people. But sincere prayers and blessings.

You can also take a look at the influential projects after the CCN evaluation and review. Is it refreshing or pleasing to you? Are they in line with the spirit of the standards they published? Here are seven projects with an impact score of four or more in daily reality (the scores published on the evaluation page, not the amount):

Atlantis (4.143)

Bangalore Microgreens (4.071)

Bloom Network (4.643) (It must be said that it is really heavyweight, local and female power)

Change Code: Piloting a SolarBond for Sustainable Economic Growth in Tanzania (4.214)

Elephant in the Room Strategic Climate Solutions (4.047) (This was originally classified as a hard-core combat direction by Heat Wave in coordinating and countering a large number of fossil fuel advertisements and false information, but CCN recorded it as a decentralized campaign organization in GG19. Team , not sure whether it includes elections - I really can’t say that their vision is not broad enough or they are just talking)

Solarpunk Nomads: 2 new vehicles, 2nd Route and Solarpunk Hub in Italy (4.357) ( This project was first introduced to Web3Matters in the 27th special issue of Matt Weekly )

The Solar Foundation Decentralized solar energy for underserved communities (4.429)

---

Finally, here are the compiled reference materials for the GG21 Climate Solutions fundraising round:

#GG21 Climate Solutions Round Impact Ranking Results

CCN Grant Review Process

[Heat Wave Anthology] GG--Public Fundraising for Climate Projects

GG19 Grantee Database