I've had a good look at the Toha website and I'm deeply impressed with the innovation involved. I'm very interested to understand if Toha can be aligned to post-growth thinking.
A shift to a post growth economy involves nature regeneration, which requires funding and therefore mechanisms for moving funds between parties and an exchange of value. Buying the data that demonstrates contribution to regeneration in a specific network, supply chain or region seems a fair exchange for councils, governments and businesses that have set targets. However, VC funding, impact investing, speculative investing and biodiversity credits are all mechanisms of the growth economy. So I have a few questions from a post growth perspective, so I can understand Toha in ways that I have not been able to garner from the website.
1. Toha Foundry is VC-backed. What is the VC exit plan?
2. It seems likely that TOHA holders, who have governance rights, would vote to allow TOHA tokens for biodiversity offsets. Why not block that possibility?
3. How is the matter of longevity/durability of regenerative outcomes taken into account in the lifespan of TOHA tokens?
4. What is meant by the phrase " true value of environmental action"? It seems like projects most desired by investors will attract more money? How are communities taken into account, to channel funds to their preferred projects?
5. Is large scale speculative investment seen as the most likely way to fund larger or a greater number of projects?
6. How is future use of project areas accounted for in the impact outcomes? For instance, is the ecological prioritised over the socio-ecological? Are the experts being engaged on building the templates a mix of physical and social scientists?
7. Are cultural outcomes involved? Should cultural outcomes be valued in a marketplace?
While regeneration outcomes are likely, I don't yet see how Toha's model challenges the growth-oriented economic paradigm. It seems more like Toha is trying to show that a growth economy approach can be regenerative. I'd love to understand the post-growth attributes, if these can be separated out. Thanks.
Hi Jennifer, thanks for your wide-ranging questions! I'll answer these from my perspective, with the caveat that my perspective may differ from other perspectives in the Toha Network, because we're sure to have diverse views on some of the very interesting themes you touch upon. With that said, some responses...
JW - 1. Toha Foundry is VC-backed. What is the VC exit plan?
DH - To transition to a cooperative structure over time, which enables members to share the risks and rewards of Toha’s collaboration infrastructure. This transition is already well underway for our regional venture, East Coast Exchange, which is transitioning to a collective ownership model with an initial stake by Te Runanganui o Ngāti Porou, and other regional leaders still to be announced.
JW - 2. It seems likely that TOHA holders, who have governance rights, would vote to allow TOHA tokens for biodiversity offsets. Why not block that possibility?
DH - It is common for markets to have rules and regulations which prohibit certain activities. For instance, new NZX participants must fulfil anti-money laundering compliance requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. Similarly, the Toha marketplace will be regulated to ensure that activities do not misalign with its objectives, undermine its integrity, or generate perverse outcomes. Although Toha has not yet launched a fully-fledged marketplace, we expect to produce rules and guidance to uphold trust and integrity.
JW - 3. How is the matter of longevity/durability of regenerative outcomes taken into account in the lifespan of TOHA tokens?
DH - TOHA is a network token which grants rights, including governance and data rights. In other words, TOHA enables the settlement of payments, or transaction fees, to unlock those rights. This includes the right to verifiable data for claimable impacts that entities want to disclose. It’s really here, in regard to claims, that the durability of regenerative outcomes is important - e.g. we do not want companies making the claim that a transient impact was permanent.
- In regard to how durability is managed in claims, this is ultimately managed by the claim template development process. We mobilise experts to develop claims which have scientific integrity, which includes taking scientifically defensible positions on how long an impact should last (i.e. durability) to be valuable. Obviously there is no single answer to this — it will change depending on the ecological function or indicator that we’re focused on. There will be a good case to align with global standards, or local benchmarks like QEII / Ngā Whenua Rāhui covenants. Also some claims might actually be transient — e.g. emissions reductions from uptake of regenerative agriculture practices — and then subsequently captured by emissions intensity reporting claims. In short, no single answer, which puts responsibility on having a scientifically robust process.
JW 4. What is meant by the phrase "true value of environmental action"? It seems like projects most desired by investors will attract more money? How are communities taken into account, to channel funds to their preferred projects?
DH - By referring to "true value" on the Toha website, I believe what was meant was the familiar point that conventional economic accounting tends to exclude (or externalise) much of the non-financial benefits of environmental action.
- As for what investors desire, this varies significantly. Of course, some expect financial profitability, but by no means all, which is just as well because some of what needs to be paid for is unlikely to generate a direct financial return. Fortunately, there are other motivations at play - including risk avoidance, preserving social licence and regulatory compliance. These may involve indirect and intangible benefits, which the Toha system is designed to formalise as claimable impact, but not necessarily a direct financial return.
JW - 5. Is large scale speculative investment seen as the most likely way to fund larger or a greater number of projects?
DH - Most of what Toha is facilitating is direct investment into nature regeneration and repair. There may in future be opportunities for speculative investment as secondary markets emerge for trading of digital assets, but this is primarily for the purposes of managing stability and price in the system. The major driver of investment is expected to be impact.
JW - 6. How is future use of project areas accounted for in the impact outcomes? For instance, is the ecological prioritised over the socio-ecological? Are the experts being engaged on building the templates a mix of physical and social scientists?
DH - Toha is not prescriptive about who should develop templates, but that is precisely to ensure that the system is open to diverse knowledges, including mātauranga Māori, as well as physical and social sciences. Our instincts are socio-ecological, underpinned by a te ao Māori view that the separation of humans and nature is part of the problem. Toha has a vision of resilient and regenerative food systems, tiaki kai, where people and whenua are mutually flourishing. The Toha system is designed to be inclusive to the diverse knowledges that could uphold that vision.
JW - 7. Are cultural outcomes involved? Should cultural outcomes be valued in a marketplace?
DH - Yes, we already have claims templates in our development pipeline which formalise Māori knowledge and practice for regenerative action. This is an important element of Toha system design. Our system is also designed with regard to Indigenous data sovereignty to ensure that that data is not exploited and that benefits are shared with frontline communities who created and collected the impact data. I recommend the CARE principles as a starting point: https://www.gida-global.org/care
JW - 8. While regeneration outcomes are likely, I don't yet see how Toha's model challenges the growth-oriented economic paradigm. It seems more like Toha is trying to show that a growth economy approach can be regenerative. I'd love to understand the post-growth attributes, if these can be separated out. Thanks.
DH - The Toha Network is full of people who are interested and actively engaged in these questions, both from inside and outside of the academic construct of "post-growth" economics. Like any community, we have a diversity of perspectives (as well as shared values), so there is no single paradigm to subscribe to.
- One framework which resonates widely within the Toha Network is tauutuutu. It is about reciprocity, and the growth of mana and generosity through mutual exchange. This comes from Māori economic traditions and best seen in that light, although may well have cross-cultural resonances with post-growth thinking. See here: https://ourlandandwater.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Tauutuutu_WhitePaper_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
- In terms of how Toha interacts with the current economic paradigm, there are many strategies for transformative change, which work with or against existing systems. Direct confrontation is one strategy, but not the only one. One way of thinking about this, which we discuss in our forthcoming white paper, is that Toha is pursuing an interstitial strategy. Rather than try to substitute existing power structures outright, we are developing alternative structures in the interstices, especially the places where conventional systems have failed or withdrawn. Nature regeneration is one such "interstitial space", because of the way it is externalised by conventional economics. Another is post-cyclone East Coast region, where conventional funding and infrastructure processes are failing to deliver on the community-led vision of a more holistic, nature-based, regenerative approach to recovery and long-term resilience building. These are spaces where new economic possibilities can be trialled and scaled up, and hopefully create different economic futures that grow over time.
Hi Paul, we will address this in a future post. However, to give some clarity now...
MAHI->TOHA swaps will occur at the TOHA market price, modified by the Time Value of Action (TVA) multiplier. The earlier MAHI is earned, the greater the value of TOHA it can be swapped for. You can play around with the TVA multiplier here: https://mahi.toha.network/#calc
I've had a good look at the Toha website and I'm deeply impressed with the innovation involved. I'm very interested to understand if Toha can be aligned to post-growth thinking.
A shift to a post growth economy involves nature regeneration, which requires funding and therefore mechanisms for moving funds between parties and an exchange of value. Buying the data that demonstrates contribution to regeneration in a specific network, supply chain or region seems a fair exchange for councils, governments and businesses that have set targets. However, VC funding, impact investing, speculative investing and biodiversity credits are all mechanisms of the growth economy. So I have a few questions from a post growth perspective, so I can understand Toha in ways that I have not been able to garner from the website.
1. Toha Foundry is VC-backed. What is the VC exit plan?
2. It seems likely that TOHA holders, who have governance rights, would vote to allow TOHA tokens for biodiversity offsets. Why not block that possibility?
3. How is the matter of longevity/durability of regenerative outcomes taken into account in the lifespan of TOHA tokens?
4. What is meant by the phrase " true value of environmental action"? It seems like projects most desired by investors will attract more money? How are communities taken into account, to channel funds to their preferred projects?
5. Is large scale speculative investment seen as the most likely way to fund larger or a greater number of projects?
6. How is future use of project areas accounted for in the impact outcomes? For instance, is the ecological prioritised over the socio-ecological? Are the experts being engaged on building the templates a mix of physical and social scientists?
7. Are cultural outcomes involved? Should cultural outcomes be valued in a marketplace?
While regeneration outcomes are likely, I don't yet see how Toha's model challenges the growth-oriented economic paradigm. It seems more like Toha is trying to show that a growth economy approach can be regenerative. I'd love to understand the post-growth attributes, if these can be separated out. Thanks.
Hi Jennifer, thanks for your wide-ranging questions! I'll answer these from my perspective, with the caveat that my perspective may differ from other perspectives in the Toha Network, because we're sure to have diverse views on some of the very interesting themes you touch upon. With that said, some responses...
JW - 1. Toha Foundry is VC-backed. What is the VC exit plan?
DH - To transition to a cooperative structure over time, which enables members to share the risks and rewards of Toha’s collaboration infrastructure. This transition is already well underway for our regional venture, East Coast Exchange, which is transitioning to a collective ownership model with an initial stake by Te Runanganui o Ngāti Porou, and other regional leaders still to be announced.
JW - 2. It seems likely that TOHA holders, who have governance rights, would vote to allow TOHA tokens for biodiversity offsets. Why not block that possibility?
DH - It is common for markets to have rules and regulations which prohibit certain activities. For instance, new NZX participants must fulfil anti-money laundering compliance requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. Similarly, the Toha marketplace will be regulated to ensure that activities do not misalign with its objectives, undermine its integrity, or generate perverse outcomes. Although Toha has not yet launched a fully-fledged marketplace, we expect to produce rules and guidance to uphold trust and integrity.
JW - 3. How is the matter of longevity/durability of regenerative outcomes taken into account in the lifespan of TOHA tokens?
DH - TOHA is a network token which grants rights, including governance and data rights. In other words, TOHA enables the settlement of payments, or transaction fees, to unlock those rights. This includes the right to verifiable data for claimable impacts that entities want to disclose. It’s really here, in regard to claims, that the durability of regenerative outcomes is important - e.g. we do not want companies making the claim that a transient impact was permanent.
- In regard to how durability is managed in claims, this is ultimately managed by the claim template development process. We mobilise experts to develop claims which have scientific integrity, which includes taking scientifically defensible positions on how long an impact should last (i.e. durability) to be valuable. Obviously there is no single answer to this — it will change depending on the ecological function or indicator that we’re focused on. There will be a good case to align with global standards, or local benchmarks like QEII / Ngā Whenua Rāhui covenants. Also some claims might actually be transient — e.g. emissions reductions from uptake of regenerative agriculture practices — and then subsequently captured by emissions intensity reporting claims. In short, no single answer, which puts responsibility on having a scientifically robust process.
JW 4. What is meant by the phrase "true value of environmental action"? It seems like projects most desired by investors will attract more money? How are communities taken into account, to channel funds to their preferred projects?
DH - By referring to "true value" on the Toha website, I believe what was meant was the familiar point that conventional economic accounting tends to exclude (or externalise) much of the non-financial benefits of environmental action.
- As for what investors desire, this varies significantly. Of course, some expect financial profitability, but by no means all, which is just as well because some of what needs to be paid for is unlikely to generate a direct financial return. Fortunately, there are other motivations at play - including risk avoidance, preserving social licence and regulatory compliance. These may involve indirect and intangible benefits, which the Toha system is designed to formalise as claimable impact, but not necessarily a direct financial return.
JW - 5. Is large scale speculative investment seen as the most likely way to fund larger or a greater number of projects?
DH - Most of what Toha is facilitating is direct investment into nature regeneration and repair. There may in future be opportunities for speculative investment as secondary markets emerge for trading of digital assets, but this is primarily for the purposes of managing stability and price in the system. The major driver of investment is expected to be impact.
JW - 6. How is future use of project areas accounted for in the impact outcomes? For instance, is the ecological prioritised over the socio-ecological? Are the experts being engaged on building the templates a mix of physical and social scientists?
DH - Toha is not prescriptive about who should develop templates, but that is precisely to ensure that the system is open to diverse knowledges, including mātauranga Māori, as well as physical and social sciences. Our instincts are socio-ecological, underpinned by a te ao Māori view that the separation of humans and nature is part of the problem. Toha has a vision of resilient and regenerative food systems, tiaki kai, where people and whenua are mutually flourishing. The Toha system is designed to be inclusive to the diverse knowledges that could uphold that vision.
JW - 7. Are cultural outcomes involved? Should cultural outcomes be valued in a marketplace?
DH - Yes, we already have claims templates in our development pipeline which formalise Māori knowledge and practice for regenerative action. This is an important element of Toha system design. Our system is also designed with regard to Indigenous data sovereignty to ensure that that data is not exploited and that benefits are shared with frontline communities who created and collected the impact data. I recommend the CARE principles as a starting point: https://www.gida-global.org/care
JW - 8. While regeneration outcomes are likely, I don't yet see how Toha's model challenges the growth-oriented economic paradigm. It seems more like Toha is trying to show that a growth economy approach can be regenerative. I'd love to understand the post-growth attributes, if these can be separated out. Thanks.
DH - The Toha Network is full of people who are interested and actively engaged in these questions, both from inside and outside of the academic construct of "post-growth" economics. Like any community, we have a diversity of perspectives (as well as shared values), so there is no single paradigm to subscribe to.
- One framework which resonates widely within the Toha Network is tauutuutu. It is about reciprocity, and the growth of mana and generosity through mutual exchange. This comes from Māori economic traditions and best seen in that light, although may well have cross-cultural resonances with post-growth thinking. See here: https://ourlandandwater.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Tauutuutu_WhitePaper_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
- In terms of how Toha interacts with the current economic paradigm, there are many strategies for transformative change, which work with or against existing systems. Direct confrontation is one strategy, but not the only one. One way of thinking about this, which we discuss in our forthcoming white paper, is that Toha is pursuing an interstitial strategy. Rather than try to substitute existing power structures outright, we are developing alternative structures in the interstices, especially the places where conventional systems have failed or withdrawn. Nature regeneration is one such "interstitial space", because of the way it is externalised by conventional economics. Another is post-cyclone East Coast region, where conventional funding and infrastructure processes are failing to deliver on the community-led vision of a more holistic, nature-based, regenerative approach to recovery and long-term resilience building. These are spaces where new economic possibilities can be trialled and scaled up, and hopefully create different economic futures that grow over time.
Can you explain to me a bit further how a MAHI converts to a TOHA?
Hi Paul, we will address this in a future post. However, to give some clarity now...
MAHI->TOHA swaps will occur at the TOHA market price, modified by the Time Value of Action (TVA) multiplier. The earlier MAHI is earned, the greater the value of TOHA it can be swapped for. You can play around with the TVA multiplier here: https://mahi.toha.network/#calc