There is an overlap among Web3, Regen, ReFi, Gitcoin, Supermodular, Hypercerts, Metacrisis.
I would like to cross-pollinate an idea, initially posted on Hypercerts Github:
Previously I was working on a new definition of value that accounts for externalities.
Accounting for externalities and accounting for impact = this is pretty much the same.
Based on my research and experience I am suggesting two improvements:
Workflow of evaluation
Noone knows the project better than the founders, participants, people on the ground. They have a much better understanding of the impact they are creating.
Then use Kleros jurors who will have a simple job:
- Yes, correct, the overall impact assessment is "reasonable"
- No, wrong, there are some issues
I know that Gitcoin was using Kleros in the past to evaluate if a project is a public good.
Using already experienced jurors solves the problem of finding evaluators of the impact - which is totally not scalable - see how Verra is doing it:
Related project: The Price of Impact Index: Benchmark Your Outcomes (that particular page went offline, currently only web archive version)
As of March 2023, the AI got to the point where the owner of the project can describe their activities in plain text - then autocompletion and autosuggestion for relevant quantified categories.
It’s about social pressure and providing incentives to buy positive impact certificates.
I can totally see the future when by law it will be required to compensate for historical damage.
Media attention and social pressure can force those who did the damage to compensate for it by buying positive impact certificates on the open market.
Providing demand for impact certificates = pretty big deal