Carbon Integrity
Carbon credits that can degrade with evidence
Carbon Integrity
Carbon credits that can degrade with evidence. A carbon credit is not static. Fires, monitoring exceptions, reversals, and disputes can change credibility after issuance.
Carbon Integrity is strongest when treated as a governed state machine, not a static token. The object must carry enough identity to be trusted at mint, enough mutable state to reflect the real workflow, and enough audit history for a third party to decide whether the current state is reliable.
Strategic thesis
Why this wedge exists
A credit remains a living object. Monitoring events can change current integrity without erasing the history behind the original issuance.
The first buyer is Carbon project developers, verifiers, exchanges, and buyers. They don't need a generic blockchain story; they need a way to reduce disputes, speed approval, and make the current status of a workflow independently checkable.
State Dual manages
Parcel identity, methodology, monitoring evidence, verification status, degradation, adjustment, and retirement.
The important point is not the number of states. It's that each transition has an actor, an allowed action, evidence, and a durable audit record. That turns operational workflow into an inspectable object.
Token architecture
| Immutable identity | object_id, geo_anchor, measurement_method, issuer_id, created_at |
| Mutable state | current_zone, measurement_value, integrity_status, usage_balance, last_observed_at |
| Compliance rules | Location, measurement, or observation evidence must satisfy source rules. Out-of-zone or out-of-balance actions are rejected before state change. Physical exceptions stay attached to the token history. |
| Event sources | IoT sensor feed, meter or satellite observation, geofence check, regulator or verifier approval |
Example object schema
{
"template": "carbon_integrity",
"category": "Physical-world state",
"immutable": {
"object_id": "set_at_mint",
"geo_anchor": "set_at_mint",
"measurement_method": "set_at_mint",
"issuer_id": "set_at_mint",
"created_at": "set_at_mint"
},
"mutable": {
"current_zone": "updated_by_event",
"measurement_value": "updated_by_event",
"integrity_status": "updated_by_event",
"usage_balance": "updated_by_event",
"last_observed_at": "updated_by_event"
},
"rules": {
"allowed_states": ["Issued","Verified Active","Monitored","Degraded","Adjusted","Retired","Archived"],
"first_buyer": "Carbon project developers, verifiers, exchanges, and buyers",
"audit_required": true
}
}This schema is intentionally scoped. A credible first product should prove one object type, one core state machine, and a small number of high-value integrations before expanding into a platform.
User journey
- 1
Issuer: Issued
The Carbon Integrity object is created with immutable identity, owner, and rule metadata.
- 2
Operator: Verified Active
An event moves the object into "Verified Active", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.
- 3
Verifier: Monitored
An event moves the object into "Monitored", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.
- 4
Counterparty: Degraded
An event moves the object into "Degraded", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.
- 5
Auditor: Adjusted
An event moves the object into "Adjusted", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.
- 6
Automation: Retired
An event moves the object into "Retired", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.
- 7
Administrator: Archived
An event moves the object into "Archived", preserving the previous state and the actor that triggered the change.
Event model
Dual becomes useful when outside systems stop being passive records and start becoming evidence sources for state transitions.
- IoT sensor feed
- meter or satellite observation
- geofence check
- regulator or verifier approval
Each event should answer four questions: who produced it, which object it affects, which transition it requests, and which proof should be retained for audit.
Why not just a database?
Traditional system
A registry can record credits, but trust depends on shared evidence across developers, verifiers, buyers, exchanges, and regulators.
That's acceptable when one organization owns the full workflow. It breaks down when multiple parties need to trust the same current state without relying on a single application owner.
Dual stateful object
Dual separates immutable identity, mutable lifecycle state, compliance checks, and event history. Participants can inspect the current object state, verify the transition path, and use the same state as input to payment, access, reporting, or downstream automation.
90-day MVP
One project type, one parcel, one monitoring exception, and one retirement proof.
- Define the template and allowed state transitions.
- Mint test objects with realistic identity and ownership data.
- Wire one external event source into the Event Bus.
- Trigger one successful transition and one rejected transition.
- Expose a query view that proves current state and transition history.
Proof assets required
- Parcel-bound schema
- Degradation event
- Retirement proof
- Verifier role model
These assets are the difference between a concept note and a buildable wedge. Without them, the page is only a narrative; with them, it becomes a product specification.
Operating metrics
- observation freshness
- exception resolution time
- verified volume
- failed rule checks
These are the metrics that should be visible in the pilot dashboard. They also give sales, implementation, and investor conversations a concrete way to judge whether Dual is improving the workflow.
Commercial wedge
The first commercial motion should sell a narrow operational outcome, not broad tokenization. For Carbon Integrity, the wedge is: model one parcel. Price around the workflow value: fewer disputes, faster settlement, cleaner audit, lower fraud, or lower manual reconciliation.
Expansion should follow the state graph. Once the first transition is trusted, add the next actor, then the next integration, then the next reporting surface. That keeps the product grounded in workflow proof rather than speculative asset creation.
Risks and controls
- oracle/sensor trust. Control: define the trusted source, log every mutation, and keep manual override paths explicit.
- boundary disputes. Control: define the trusted source, log every mutation, and keep manual override paths explicit.
- latency between physical event and token update. Control: define the trusted source, log every mutation, and keep manual override paths explicit.
Implementation playbook
- Map the workflow: identify the actor responsible for each state and the evidence required for each transition.
- Create the template: split data into immutable identity, mutable state, and compliance rule fields.
- Mint sample objects: use realistic IDs, timestamps, owners, and source-system references.
- Connect one event: choose the event that makes the state change economically valuable.
- Reject one bad action: demonstrate that Dual blocks invalid transitions before downstream settlement.
- Expose audit: show current state, previous state, actor, timestamp, evidence hash, and rule result.
Build prompt
Create a Dual template for Carbon Integrity. Model immutable identity fields, mutable lifecycle state, compliance checks, and event inputs. Then emit one test object and move it through: Issued → Verified Active → Monitored → Degraded → Adjusted.
Include:
- object schema
- transition rules
- event payload examples
- one rejected transition
- audit query output
- MVP dashboard fieldsUse this as a scoped wedge: prove one governed state transition, one external event, and one audit query before expanding the workflow.
Start with the Dual quickstart →