Moss Carbon Credit MCO2
CC-4
Score Breakdown
Integrity
missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions are not found in the extracted record because no documents were available
inferred The project is described as an avoidance credit type, but permanence, leakage, and baseline integrity cannot be assessed without source documents
Transparency
missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or MRV error checks are available in the extracted record due to missing documents
missing Registry completeness and eligibility indicators (e.g., CORSIA/CCP) are not found in the extracted record
Claim Safety
missing Over-crediting risk cannot be evaluated because baseline method, leakage justification, and any default factors are not found in the extracted record
inferred Double-claim/eligibility risk cannot be screened because CORSIA/CCP status is not found in the extracted record
Documentation
missing No evidence documents were provided (0 documents used), indicating severe documentation gaps
missing Low extraction confidence suggests the underlying source(s) were poorly readable, reducing reliability even if documents exist elsewhere
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
No project documents were captured in the extracted record (evidence document list is empty), so additionality testing, baseline method, leakage treatment, and any permanence provisions (e.g., buffer pool or reversal reporting) are not stated in available documents. With no verification/monitoring reports available, it is also not possible to confirm whether any material findings or corrective actions occurred. This results in a very low integrity score driven by evidence gaps rather than confirmed deficiencies.
Transparency
Transparency is very limited because the extracted record contains no documents and therefore no VVB identity, monitoring period, or quantified MRV checks (e.g., claimed vs verified emission reductions). Registry-relevant fields such as eligibility indicators are also not found in the extracted record. The low extraction confidence further increases the likelihood that key transparency details were missed.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is weak because the extracted record provides no basis to assess over-crediting controls (baseline selection, reassessment timing, leakage deductions/justification, or usage monitoring assumptions). Eligibility and double-claim risk screening cannot be completed because CORSIA/CCP status is not found in the extracted record. In the absence of evidence, conservative scoring is applied to reflect elevated greenwashing risk.
Documentation
Documentation quality is extremely poor: zero documents were used and the evidence document list is empty, indicating that core project records (PDD, monitoring reports, verification reports) were not available in the extracted record. Minimum extraction confidence is low, implying at least one key document was poorly readable and reducing confidence in completeness. This triggers the documentation gate risk (documentation below 3.0 would cap transparency post-scoring).
Overall
There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but the absence of any documents and the low extraction confidence create a major reliability problem. Scores are therefore driven primarily by missing evidence rather than confirmed project weaknesses. Given documentation is far below 3.0, transparency would be capped by the gate rule after scoring, reinforcing the low overall assessment.
Audit Analysis
The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality attributes (additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV performance) cannot be substantiated. Given the low readability flag and zero documents captured, the project should be treated as high uncertainty and high over-crediting/greenwashing risk until primary sources are reviewed.
Project Description
MOSS aims to promote the preservation of the environment through a market solution, which includes democratization and development of the carbon credit market through MCO2 tokens. In order to make this happen, MOSS buys carbon credits from high-quality environmental projects in the Amazon Forest (projects that emit, certify and sell credits) and that avoid or capture CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Moss allows companies and individuals to buy these credits on its 100% digital platform, making a historically complex process simple and transparent using blockchain. The credits are certified by global institutions, such as VCS Standard, Social Carbon and CCB Standards, which gives them credibility and guarantees that the emission of one ton of carbon equivalent was avoided in certain year. Moreover, the credits are blockchain encrypted to ensure there are no duplicate sales. Buyers can use the credits to neutralize their carbon footprint. MOSS’s mission is to combat climate change and preserve the Amazon Forest. In just one year since it was founded, MOSS has traded more than 1.3 million carbon credits and indirectly preserved 1MM ha of the Amazon forest (equivalent to the size of Lebanon).
Red Flags
- No project documents were captured in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing verification of additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring claims
- Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable and increasing the risk of missing or misread critical details
Credit Vintages
Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.
Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2023 (non verificato).
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide and link the core VCS documents (PDD, monitoring report(s), verification report(s), and issuance/registry pages) so additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV can be independently checked
- Improve document readability/scan quality and re-extract key fields (VVB, monitoring period, claimed vs verified ERs, leakage deduction/justification, and any findings/corrective actions) to resolve the low extraction confidence
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 assessment found
Permanence provisions not evidenced
Leakage treatment not evidenced
Baseline method not found
Safeguards not evidenced
CORSIA/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
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 →