Carbon Credit Collection
CC-2
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions were not found in the extracted record due to missing documents.
inferred Project is described as avoidance, but permanence/leakage/baseline cannot be assessed without the underlying reports.
Transparency
missing No registry- or MRV-relevant details (VVB, monitoring period, verified vs claimed reductions) were found because no evidence documents were captured.
missing Low extraction confidence reduces confidence that the public record was accurately captured.
Claim Safety
missing CORSIA/CCP status and key over-crediting controls (baseline and leakage justification) were not found in the extracted record.
inferred Country/region is stated as EU ETS, but this does not substitute for project-level eligibility and accounting evidence.
Documentation
missing Zero documents were used in extraction, leaving the assessment unsupported by primary sources.
missing Low extraction confidence suggests document readability/quality issues even if sources existed.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No project documents were captured in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline method, leakage treatment, and any buffer/reversal provisions are not stated in available documents. With no verification/monitoring reports available, there is no evidence on whether any material findings occurred or whether corrective actions were required. Given these evidence gaps, integrity is scored very low.
Transparency
The extracted record includes no evidence documents, so key transparency items such as the VVB name, monitoring period, and claimed versus verified emission reductions are not stated in available documents. Minimum extraction confidence is low, which further reduces confidence that the underlying public record (if it exists) was reliably captured. Transparency is therefore scored very low (and would be capped post-scoring if documentation is below the gate threshold).
Claim Safety
Without any extracted project documentation, there is no basis to assess over-crediting controls such as baseline selection, leakage justification, or any default factors used. Eligibility indicators such as CORSIA eligibility or CCP status are not stated in available documents, increasing greenwashing and double-claim risk by uncertainty. Claim safety is therefore scored very low.
Documentation
No evidence documents were provided in the extracted record and the number of documents used is zero, indicating a severe documentation completeness failure. Minimum extraction confidence is low, implying at least one key source was poorly readable and increasing the likelihood of missing critical details. Documentation is scored near the floor.
Overall
There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but this is largely because no documents were captured to compare across sources. The dominant issue is the complete absence of primary documentation combined with low extraction confidence, which undermines all other dimensions. Note: under the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency after scoring.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV) cannot be substantiated. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting and weak claims is high by default due to lack of evidence.
Project Description
Proven and transparent proof of the right to unretired Quality Carbon Credits, minted as an ERC-20 token on Polygon for optimal energy efficiency and liquidity. Backed by a diversified collection of quality carbon credits (1 Carbon Credit = 1 ton of carbon). Real-time publication of carbon credits is backing the collection. Provenance is maintained to track carbon credits back to their origin projects. Full transparency of project details, including name, type, description, region, vintage (date), and even associated sustainable development goals (SDGs). Diversified price exposure with increased liquidity. Documents: https://carbon.credit/api/getPubFile?id=12
Red Flags
- No official documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring.
- Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable and increasing the risk of missing or incorrect facts.
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2023 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide the Gold Standard PDD, validation/verification reports, and the latest monitoring report so additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV can be evidenced and cross-checked.
- Provide registry extracts (issuance/retirement records) and explicit statements on CORSIA eligibility and CCP status to reduce double-claim and greenwashing risk.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
No additionality evidence found
Avoidance type but not evidenced
No leakage treatment found
No baseline method found
No safeguards evidence found
Eligibility/CCP status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Registry Documents
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →