Key Takeaways:

• Oneshot endeavors to leverage carbon markets to expedite the reduction of emissions through its Open Carbon Protocol platform.
• The platform aims to enhance transparency and scientific rigor in documenting climate claims, challenging the conventional perception of carbon credits as commodities.
• It can be seen as a little like a buy-side registry, a body that provides assurance on offset quality from a scientific basis but with fees paid from the buy-side, and therefore with cleaner incentives than traditional registries.
• Methodology development undergoes rigorous evaluation by independent experts, ensuring integrity and impartiality.

Introduction

The landscape of voluntary carbon credits is undergoing rapid evolution, driven by the emergence of new policies, advancements in technology, and the entry of new stakeholders into the market. Oneshot, a climate startup, represents a novel approach within this dynamic environment. We spoke with Thomas Annicq, the CEO & Co-founder; Rio Richardson, the Head of Product; and Christopher Fort, Head of Financial Innovation at Oneshot.

cCarbon: Thanks for joining us today. Could you start us off with a brief introduction about yourselves?

Thomas: Hi, I am the CEO and Co-founder at Oneshot. I am from Belgium and moved to the US for business school. This is my third venture. It is my first climate startup and what really drove me to carbon markets was their potential to bend the emissions curve in the short term.

Rio: I am the Head of Product here at Oneshot. Before this I was doing my MBA at MIT. I have worked at a number of sustainable retirement startups and in product development and strategy. Currently, I am leading the development of the Open Carbon Protocol platform.

Christopher: I am Chris, the Head of Financial Innovation. I come from a markets background, I was a proprietary derivatives trader for 14 years and wanted to go where sustainability and markets meet. I also spent some time at MIT where I was a Sloan Fellow, where I was introduced to Thomas and Rio.

cCarbon: Thomas, could you give us a concise overview of what Oneshot is trying to achieve?

Thomas: Our primary goal is to leverage carbon markets to help bend the emissions curve as quickly as possible. We focus specifically on the documentation of the carbon credits themselves. We’re not reinventing the wheel, but we’re providing a new flavor of the existing standards and registry infrastructure. Our platform, the Open Carbon Protocol, aims to provide a more transparent and scientifically grounded framework for documenting climate claims.

cCarbon: What’s the problem you’re addressing?

Thomas: The carbon markets have been operating under the assumption that voluntary carbon credits are commodities. In compliance markets, governments certify emissions reductions. In voluntary markets, independent organizations provide that certification. That’s problematic if the science doesn’t back it up. Tonnes are no longer tonnes. That would be less problematic if we don’t treat them as commodities anymore. These projects are vastly different. A reforestation project has little in common with the destruction of refrigerants. They have radically different risk profiles.

We think carbon credits are more like bond instruments or even equities. Thus, they require distinct documentation. Our Open Carbon Protocol platform builds scientific consensus and allows independent experts to establish standards transparently. The important point is that for a buyer it is very difficult to understand the assumptions that have been made and where the risk lies. Our goal is to provide buyers with the right information for them to assign risk to the credit themselves.

Registry Operations

cCarbon: What’s your approach to methodology development and registry operations?

Thomas: The first step is methodology development, akin to an academic journal process. When an idea for a carbon credit is proposed     , a panel of independent experts is assembled      to evaluate it. We don’t set standards ourselves; we merely provide the platform. We’ve adopted the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) recommendations. Next, the registry infrastructure handles project validation. Project developers submit information, and independent third parties verify it, ultimately judging if it meets the criteria.

Rio: We’re careful to separate decision-making from registry incentives. An independent body reviews methodologies, which keeps us unbiased and focused on integrity. As a registry, we aren’t incentivized to promote specific methodologies just for revenue.

CCarbon: You mentioned separating decision-making from the registry process. How do you maintain quality control over methodologies and avoid potential conflicts of interest? How does transparency factor into your operations?

 Thomas: Transparency is key. We disclose all parties involved in methodology development to foster confidence in the process. While the initial review is anonymous, we later publish the names and affiliations of contributors for accountability, even if the methodology isn’t approved. That information stays in the industry to understand for the future.

Our aim is to provide a buyer with enough information to assess a credit’s risk and assign a confidence level. Buyers can then make more informed decisions, avoiding surprises down the line.

We ensure that experts reviewing methodologies aren’t directly involved in developing or financially benefiting from them. Developers who propose methodologies don’t get a vote, and if they have a vested interest in a particular methodology, they don’t participate in the final voting. Their expertise is valuable but needs to be balanced with impartiality.

cCarbon: What kind of experts contribute to your panels, and where do you find them?

Thomas: Knowledge exists across academia, nonprofits, sophisticated buyers, rating agencies, and insurance companies. We have both voting and non-voting experts. Rating agencies and insurers are given non-voting seats to ensure their voices are heard. Sophisticated buyers are also invited but can choose whether they want voting rights.

Fee Structure and Market Interest

cCarbon: What about the fee structure? How does it differ from traditional registries?

Thomas: We charge fees only when a buyer purchases credits. This aligns our incentives with facilitating high-integrity climate action rather than pushing through as many credits as possible. Our registry infrastructure separates standard setting from credit issuance, so we’re not in control of which methodologies get approved.

cCarbon: Who has expressed interest in this? Who are your emerging clients?

Thomas: For the first methodology that came through the Open Carbon Protocol, which is marginally producing oil and gas wells, J P Morgan has pre-purchased all the credits. Other than that, tech companies are always the first movers on this.

However, we believe our core audience is new entrants in the market looking for high integrity credits but don’t have consultants and advisors to figure out what they’re buying. We helped a UK tech company that wanted to buy credits but didn’t know how to approach the market by simplifying things for them.

Oneshot in the VCM

cCarbon: Can you explain your perspective on the voluntary carbon markets and where does Oneshot fit within the broader carbon market landscape?

Thomas: We are advocating for a reframing from using credits as offsets to using credits as assets on the balance sheet. Imagine explaining carbon offsets to a child. It is confusing. But if you take a ledger approach, where emissions are liabilities. You can build up assets like carbon credits to balance these liabilities, you remain responsible for both. If a discrepancy arises, you can rectify it

As to where we fit in the market, we’re fostering competition of ideas in this market. We believe that competition drives innovation and quality. We’re not aiming to replace existing standards but to offer an alternative that aligns incentives properly and helps set a higher bar.

Chris: The market is at a turning point. We need a dynamic system to adapt to new scientific findings, ensuring credits remain credible. This requires transparency and collaboration. By offering an open and consensus-driven approach, we’re enabling buyers to make informed choices confidently.

cCarbon: Avoidance and removals, do you see that as a versus or is it a spectrum? Do you think the market has digested the problem of additionality in a sense, and permanence becomes the new metric of focus?

Thomas: We believe the world doesn’t have the luxury to pick one over the other. We need both and we need both of them as quickly as possible. The reduction bucket today is often overlooked, there’s lots of exciting ideas and projects that exist.

Chris: A permanent reduction is amazing, in our view. We are diligent in evaluating additionality, leakage and other risks as well. All else being equal, we feel a permanent reduction is a stronger and less risky claim.

Future Outlook

cCarbon: These are longstanding challenges you’re aiming to address. What’s next for Oneshot?

Thomas: We’re continuing to refine the Open Carbon Protocol and expand our network of experts. Our focus is on providing a transparent marketplace where buyers can diversify their portfolios and developers can receive fair recognition for high-quality projects. We’re also exploring new financial instruments that appropriately value these diverse credits.