Our previous article delved into future scenarios for our network, discussing emerging trends, possible trajectories for Regen Network, and the cultural and institutional strategies needed to reach the successful “Ministry for the Future” state. This mindset is best exemplified by the Regen Foundation and its csDAOs program, which emphasizes the decentralization of power to communities — ensuring that the regenerative revolution, open-source technology, ecological and web3 policies are all community-owned and governed.
In this piece, we focus on the investment activities of the Foundation around “open source technological development aimed at ecological applications in blockchain, remote sensing, IoT, machine learning, and fintech”, and two other aspects: “rewarding regenerative ecological outcomes” and “incentivising accurate ecological data to be produced and shared”.
Foundation Financial Health
The foundation was designed as the main investor in the network development, holding 35% of the initial issuance — ~25% of the total $REGEN token supply at the time of writing. It was intended to select and onboard local ecological communities and methodology developers, putting regenerative income and governance rights in their hands.
The initial fundraising campaign organized by RND happened in 2019 and collected $10.5M from ~200–400 individuals. The token price at all-time high was ~$6, and about $0.06 at the time of writing after a long bear market.
The Foundation is constantly fundraising for its administrative budget for a team of 4 people. It has a runway till Q1 2025 (monthly burn rate of $22k), not accounting for $REGEN tokens. The Foundation also stakes its tokens and now holds even more tokens than at the start (35M → 47M). Additional funding was also provided by Biome Trust and Ripple.
Foundation Investments Analysis
With ~10% staking rewards, current holdings can yield 4.7M $REGEN by year end. Each cohort receives 2.5M $REGEN (5 × 500k). 2 cohorts are launched and 2 more are planned by end of year.
Cohort 1: Non-web3 People and Organizations (2022–2023)
4 of 5 are active within the $REGEN ecosystem — building methodologies or participating in governance. The staking yield at current prices is ~$250/month per csDAO; total collected rewards are ~$50–100k for all participants since 2022.
| Project | Activity | Tokens Held | Ecosystem Benefits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commons Stack | UBI, HODL | 100k $REGEN ($7.5k) | TEC, ABC, Praise, Trusted Seed, RegenScore |
| OPEN Team | HODL 2 years | 225k $REGEN ($17k) | Tokenomics, validator, technical dev |
| Kulshan Carbon Trust | UBI, HODL | 20k $REGEN ($1.5k) | Building Biochar methodology |
| Terran Collective | HODL 1 year | 120k $REGEN ($9k) | Built Hylo — governance and peer learning platform |
| Smart Agro Germany | UBI, HODL | 110k $REGEN ($8.3k) | Small holder farmer methodology in Cambodia |
“UBI” = constant activity (mostly withdrawing rewards); “HODL” = held for longer periods.
Cohort 2: Active Regenerative Work (2024)
4 of 6 build within the $REGEN ecosystem. Activity analysis pending as they just completed initial setup.
| Project | Ecosystem Work |
|---|---|
| Foundation for Regeneration | Carbon methodology / urban city planning credits for Regen Marketplace |
| Ekonavi | Validator + agroforestry credits via permissionless credit class |
| Chatafisha | Plastic methodology + impact NFT dapp |
| Shamba Network | dMRV systems in East Africa |
| Earthist Network | Hemp methodology, DAO DAO pilots, validator |
| Canopy Collective | Nature interpretation centers, VR tools, community reserve for Bugun Liocichla |
Other Investments (pre-2024)
- Kado (infrastructure investment) — saved 60% of tokens ($7k)
- Cerulean (internal VC) — ~4M $REGEN program-related investment ($300k)
- Tokenomics WG — $10k
- CosmWasm Upgrade — ~$25k in $REGEN
Next Steps
Define the Funding Needs of the csDAOs
Recurring income is a nice start, though ~$250/month may not be enough to push local impact. Specific liquidity pools for csDAOs and extra matching funding (with the coop bank proposal, grants, philanthropic organizations, chains, etc.) could be of great value.
$REGEN Retribution Model
As csDAOs draft their own charters in return for staking, we could suggest ideas connected with ecosystem funding or token integration. For example, a part of eco-credit revenues could be shared back to the community pool for further project funding — as could holding $REGEN in treasury or lending to pools.
Improving Metrics for Further Analysis
Standard metrics: quantity of tokens, staking history, and governance participation. Given Regen is now closer to an “app chain” with a clear purpose statement around eco-social regeneration, we could make amendments.
For example, Sharamentsa in Ecuador appears to positively influence the token price even though they don’t hold any tokens — their project integrity seems to be driving the token price up.
Proposed metrics:
Financial:
- Value of ecocredits produced or sold
- Project type (individual pilot, data service provider, dMRV, etc.)
- Staking / Saving / Investing %
Engagement:
- Governance participation (Commonwealth, Hylo, or X)
- Presence of the project page
- Participation in other working groups
This research is co-authored by Max Semenchuk (Regen Tokenomics) and Nena Jain (Regen Foundation). Special thanks to Will Szal and Austin Wade Smith.