TCO2 token contracts still carry all the attributes and metadata of the NFT, making them specific to a given project and vintage. This is crucial because voluntary market carbon credits trade at very different price points due to credits of a certain type or with specific attributes being more sought-after than others. This system guarantees that a soil carbon project with additional certification can be priced higher than a large-scale renewable energy project.
Together, the TCO2 contracts deployed on Celo and Polygon create a standardized meta-registry of carbon credits.
TCO2 is the general term for fungible tokenized carbon credits. When you fractionalize a BatchNFT, the ERC20 token will have TCO2- as a prefix, followed by an information-rich name that includes the registry of origin, the project, the vintage, and so on.
For example: TCO2-GS-0001-2019
However, there's one downside to this: because they are specific to a single project and vintage, TCO2 tokens are not very liquid. While in the example above it makes sense to discriminate between the two tokens, what if we want to create a liquid market for soil carbon where all soil carbon credits are treated equally? This would allow deep liquidity to be aggregated, key for fair and efficient price discovery for a specific type of carbon asset—something we are struggling to find in the "real world".