Thanks. This is helpful. Some thoughts and answers that come up after reading your response:
Do you need a blockchain? A Database?
We are “betting the farm” on proof-of-stake solving the energy problem in the near future. If that doesn’t happen, we will probably try bundling off-chain transactions, but that does indeed sound painful. Our long-term goal with blockchain is to remove ourselves (and everybody else for that matter) as gatekeepers to participation in carbon removal trading. Our thesis is that market forces will drive down costs and spur increased investment in carbon removal, and using blockchain as a global trading platform will inspire greater trust in the market.
Is content-addressing suitable as your ground truth?
I think large swaths of our data, thought not all of it, are appropriate for content addressing. Specifically, we are creating a commodity token called a “Carbon Removal Credit” (CRC) which represents a certain about of carbon having been removed. The data collected during the removal process serves as proof of removal and so each CRC will be linked to the data that proves it’s legit. Storing all that data in the Ethereum blockchain is cost prohibitive, so IPFS and eventually FileCoin, become interesting mechanisms for decentralizing access to that data. This actually brings up another implementation detail question: what is the most storage efficient way to link to data in IPFS from a blockchain?
Are you prepared to invest the time to grow with a new technology?
This is actually my biggest concern. Once our financing situation is taken care of, investing in IPFS becomes a lot more compelling. But while we are trying to keep lean, I’m reluctant to spend cycles on tech that is still baking. Part of my motivation for asking the original question was to suss out just how many cycles we might need to spend