Hacker News Reader

Comment by wcoenen | Hacker News Reader

> our credits are as high-quality as the best carbon removal technology, can scale up much faster, and are currently offered at 1/10th the price

I'm confused about this remark about price. Isn't there a market of buyers and sellers? Why would one sell carbon credits below market price?

View on HN

Precisely because credits are not really a commodity, so some buyers have preferences about what credits to buy and how much they are willing to pay. There are some subset of buyers and sellers who pretend that all credits are the same, but usually that's an excuse to pay for the cheapest possible credits (which in many cases achieve nothing).

Just wanted to say I agree that your credits are of much better quality than the average of what you usually find on the market. Carbon credits right now are like the new (but also old?) shitcoins.

I have a startup in this space but we mostly do MRV, always looking for solutions like yours to link to our clients and contribute to this new economy. Send me an email (check profile) to get in touch!

If these credits are higher quality as claimed, then they should sell at a higher price, not lower.

Selling high quality credits at a higher price isn’t really accomplishing the goal of maximising climate impact.

If you just want to get rich, work in finance.

Selling at a higher price means more revenue, more revenue means the business can expand faster, faster expansion means climate impact of refrigerants gets solved faster.

If selling at a higher price meant more revenue, everything would be priced infinitely high.

Obviously, one cannot simply choose to sell above market price. But the context of the discussion was about the reason for selling far below market price.

You missed that its not below market price, its below market price for the quality. But most companies don’t buy based on quality of credits but based on how cheap they are so they can get away with polluting. This is counterproductive and pricing those credits higher will lead to them not being as useful as they can be.

And honestly: I find it very arrogant to think that you can show up and propose this “crazy idea” that “hey what if you guys made more money you could do more good”, as if that hasn’t been considered…

To move market demand to them. They’re offering a premium product at a deep discount. They could raise prices after their model is more proven, enabling them to scale up to pull more refrigerant destruction in.

It’s your usual market pricing adoption curve. And frankly, their solution is more effective than paying to not cut trees down.

Taking market share can be done with a 10% discount. But why a 90% discount? That doesn't make sense to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com