Tokenised Carbon Credits
Tokenised Carbon Credits evaluated across traceable registry serials, retirement finality at the registry, vintage and methodology disclosure, and price against comparable credits.
8providers tracked
8ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)
12 November 2026Ranking snapshot
28 September 2026oldest read · due 12 NovIndependent. Evidence-based.We rank with a published method and sourced evidence. No one can pay to rank.How it works
Set your country and amount to see your costs ·
Your setup
What your country changes
Pick a country to see which carbon credit tokens serve it. Nothing is hidden — any that does not is listed with that reason.- 🇺🇸 United States
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇮🇹 Italy
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇳🇴 Norway
This affects provider availability.
Requirements (0)
Preferences (0)
Preferences re-weight Fit for you, which needs your country.
More filters
Funding & access
8 providers match your requirements
Out of 8 ranked providers. 0 excluded.
What this ranks
Ranked here: tokenised carbon credits, credits held as tokens that can be bought and retired, for a reader who needs a retirement a registry will actually recognise.Not ranked here: carbon credits that have not been tokenised, and tokens that do not represent a carbon credit.8 of the 8 assessed are ranked.Requirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works
Regen Network
How Regen Network was chosen
Leads this ranking on Registry serial traceabilityCosmos application chain
81 / 100 out of 100published score, #1 of all 8 worldwide
Evidence
High
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.Retirement finality at the registryRegistry serial traceabilityPrice against comparable credits
Why it leads
- Regen Network is 6 points ahead of Toucan Protocol, mainly because it scores higher on its registry serial link and its retirement finality.
- Best in this ranking on registry serial link and retirement finality
- Ahead of Toucan Protocol on registry serial link (+6.0 points) and retirement finality (+1.6 points)
Tradeoff
Vintage methodology: 1 point below the best in this ranking
Share
#ProviderPriceCompare
2
Carbon bridge and pool contracts
75 / 100 out of 100
3
Marketplace and API
72 / 100 out of 100
4
TH
Two-way carbon bridge
65 / 100 out of 100
5
Relaunched carbon protocol on Base
60 / 100 out of 100
6
OP
NEAR-based measurement and verification...
53 / 100 out of 100
7
C3
Polygon carbon pools UBO and NBO
50 / 100 out of 100
8
MO
Ethereum and Polygon token issued against...
43 / 100 out of 100
Compare providers (0)
See key differences in features, fees, security and more.
Price vs offchain
Price against comparable credits
20% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Price vs offchain (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Regen Network | 8 | 81 |
| Toucan Protocol | 8 | 75 |
| Carbonmark | 8 | 72 |
| Klima Protocol | 8 | 60 |
| Thallo | 5 | 65 |
| Open Forest Protocol | 2 | 53 |
| Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2) | 2 | 43 |
| C3 | 1 | 50 |
Registry serial link
Registry serial traceability
32% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Registry serial link (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Regen Network | 8 | 81 |
| Carbonmark | 6 | 72 |
| Toucan Protocol | 5 | 75 |
| Thallo | 5 | 65 |
| Open Forest Protocol | 3 | 53 |
| C3 | 2 | 50 |
| Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2) | 2 | 43 |
| Klima Protocol | 1 | 60 |
Retirement finality
Retirement finality at the registry
26% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Retirement finality (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Regen Network | 9 | 81 |
| Toucan Protocol | 8 | 75 |
| Thallo | 7 | 65 |
| Carbonmark | 6 | 72 |
| Klima Protocol | 4 | 60 |
| Open Forest Protocol | 4 | 53 |
| C3 | 2 | 50 |
| Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2) | 2 | 43 |
Vintage methodology
Vintage and methodology disclosure
22% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Vintage methodology (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Toucan Protocol | 8 | 75 |
| Klima Protocol | 8 | 60 |
| C3 | 8 | 50 |
| Regen Network | 7 | 81 |
| Carbonmark | 7 | 72 |
| Thallo | 5 | 65 |
| Open Forest Protocol | 5 | 53 |
| Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2) | 2 | 43 |
All 4 published criteria
Every ranked row’s score on each criterion, in the published order. Choose a column to order by it.
| Provider | ChainChoice Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Regen Network | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 81 |
| 2 | Toucan Protocol | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 75 |
| 3 | Carbonmark | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 72 |
| 4 | Thallo | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 65 |
| 5 | Klima Protocol | 1 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 60 |
| 6 | Open Forest Protocol | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 53 |
| 7 | C3 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 50 |
| 8 | Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 43 |
How this ranking works
How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which tokenised carbon credits were assessed and left out.
FirmThis verdict holds under every one-point re-read
See the arithmetic
Every published criterion was moved up and down by one point and the ranking re-run. The same product came first each time. The published rankings file
Why this score4 published criteria · leads 3 of 4
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10 out of 10Pts
Registry serial traceability7.7·88.2
Retirement finality at the registry6.2·97.5
Vintage and methodology disclosure5.3−174.9
Price against comparable credits4.8·85.1
Σ methodology points25.7/32
Each bar is the score on that criterion’s own 0–10 scale, never rescaled to the pool. The dark line is the best any product here reached on that axis. Wt is the most the criterion can add to the 86-point weighted total. Pts is weight × score × 32; the sum is the methodology score, and each weighted point behind the leader costs 2.6 on the displayed score. how these are weighted
Why it ranks first
Why Regen Network leads this category right now
Cosmos application chain that issues ecological credits under its own registry and tracks retirement as a distinct on-ledger balance. Strongest on retirement finality at the registry (9/10): Regen Ledger records retired credits as a balance separate from tradable and cancelled credits on the same ledger that issues them; batch C01-001-20150101-20151231-001 shows tradable 0, retired 20 and cancelled 0 through a public endpoint anyone can query. Weakest on vintage and methodology disclosure (7/10): Each Regen batch id carries its vintage window on the ledger, but the methodology sits in class metadata that takes a separate lookup; for class C06 it resolves to the Ecometric soil organic carbon methodology, version 1.1. Published price: No per-tonne price is published on registry.regen.network; its front page still carries only that "100,000 Ecometric ecocredits have already been sold". The Regen Ledger's own marketplace module publishes ask prices per credit.
Best for
Retirement finality at the registry — 9/10
Main tradeoff
Regen's integrity comes from issuing and retiring credits on its own ledger rather than through a bridge (the C03 class, whose bridged legacy credits were asked at 2 to 5 USDC on 2026-09-28, is the exception), which is also the thing that limits it: credits are issued under Regen's own credit classes, not Verra or Gold Standard, so a corporate buyer whose disclosure framework names a recognised registry cannot substitute a Regen ecocredit for a VCU. The registry also lists classes of very different seriousness side by side, from the AEI soil organic carbon methodology to a '#PristinePlanet Credit Class' that 'rewards projects that maintain public thoroughfares free of man-made pollutants through regular volunteer Planeteer Patrols' (registry.regen.network/regen-registry), so class selection matters more here than anywhere else in the pool. Note also that the batch used as evidence above holds only 20 retired units, so it demonstrates the accounting model rather than scale.
Verify before signup
No per-tonne price is published on registry.regen.network; its front page still carries only that "100,000 Ecometric ecocredits have already been sold". The Regen Ledger's own marketplace module publishes ask prices per credit. The sell-orders query (the URL cited), fetched 28 September 2026, returns 43 open orders, including "batch_denom":"C06-003-20230101-20240101-001","quantity":"4051","ask_denom":"uusdc","ask_amount":"65000000" (class C06, soil organic carbon in regenerative cropping and managed grassland), "batch_denom":"C02-003-20200630-20220629-001","quantity":"200","ask_denom":"ibc/334740505537E9894A64E8561030695016481830D7B36E6A9B6D13C608B55653","ask_amount":"40000000" (class C02, City Forest Credits) and "batch_denom":"C03-004-20190101-20191231-001","quantity":"200","ask_denom":"uusdc","ask_amount":"3950000" (class C03). The allowed-denoms query lists "display_denom":"usdc","exponent":6 for uusdc and "display_denom":"USDC.axl","exponent":6 for that ibc denom, and the credit-types query defines class type C as "unit":"metric ton CO2 equivalent". Worked examples: 65000000 / 10^6 = 65 USDC, 40000000 / 10^6 = 40 USDC.axl and 3950000 / 10^6 = 3.95 USDC per tonne. CoinGecko separately prices the network's staking token at "regen":{"usd":0.00085782, which prices the chain rather than a credit.
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
Can you follow this token to a registry serial number, and does that registry recognise the token holder?
When you retire, does the registry record a retirement, or does a contract burn a token and promise one?
What does the identical credit cost off chain, and what would it cost you to get out of the tokenised one?
Quick picks
Strong options in this category
Start with the lead choice first, then use the shortlist only if you still need a challenger or stronger fit for a specific setup.
Best overall
Regen Network
Cosmos application chain that issues ecological credits under its own registry and tracks retirement as a distinct on-ledger balance.
Cosmos application chain that issues ecological credits under its own registry and tracks retirement as a distinct on-ledger balance. Strongest on retirement finality at the registry (9/10): Regen Ledger records retired credits as a balance separate from tradable and cancelled credits on the same ledger that issues them; batch C01-001-20150101-20151231-001 shows tradable 0, retired 20 and cancelled 0 through a public endpoint anyone can query. Weakest on vintage and methodology disclosure (7/10): Each Regen batch id carries its vintage window on the ledger, but the methodology sits in class metadata that takes a separate lookup; for class C06 it resolves to the Ecometric soil organic carbon methodology, version 1.1. Published price: No per-tonne price is published on registry.regen.network; its front page still carries only that "100,000 Ecometric ecocredits have already been sold". The Regen Ledger's own marketplace module publishes ask prices per credit.
Best for: Retirement finality at the registry — 9/10
Registry serial traceability · weight 32%8/10Retirement finality at the registry · weight 26%9/10Vintage and methodology disclosure · weight 22%7/10Price against comparable credits · weight 20%8/10
Quick pick
Toucan Protocol
Carbon bridge and pool contracts that mint per-vintage TCO2 tokens and fungible pool tokens, sourcing from the Puro registry after the Verra route was archived.
Carbon bridge and pool contracts that mint per-vintage TCO2 tokens and fungible pool tokens, sourcing from the Puro registry after the Verra route was archived. Strongest on retirement finality at the registry (8/10): Toucan's retirement guide states that retirements are synced with the Puro Registry, that a retirement typically takes 2-3 business days to finalize, and that the certificate can be downloaded as a PDF. Only TCO2 tokens retire; pool tokens such as CHAR must first be redeemed, at a 10 percent fee. Weakest on registry serial traceability (5/10): Each TCO2 carries its registry, project id and vintage in on-chain structs, but no serial number is written on-chain, and Toucan's archived Verra page states that the Verra Registry does not support the tokenization of carbon credits, which covers most BCT and NCT supply. Published price: CoinGecko simple/price (the URL cited), fetched 2026-09-28, returns for CHAR, Toucan's live Puro-registry biochar pool token (one token per tonne), "biochar":{"usd":203.3; for the legacy Verra-era BCT pool…
Best for: Retirement finality at the registry — 8/10
Registry serial traceability · weight 32%5/10Retirement finality at the registry · weight 26%8/10Vintage and methodology disclosure · weight 22%8/10Price against comparable credits · weight 20%8/10
Quick pick
Carbonmark
Marketplace and API that sells named carbon projects by the tonne and settles retirements on Polygon and Base with a public receipt.
Marketplace and API that sells named carbon projects by the tonne and settles retirements on Polygon and Base with a public receipt. Strongest on price against comparable credits (8/10): Carbonmark's storefront prints per-tonne prices: Limenet ocean alkalinity from $929.20 and Black Earth compost at $19.50 sit inside comparable off-chain ranges, while Forestal Río Aquidabán from $6.95 sits below them; the public price feed's 863 entries have a median of 2.8 USDC per tonne. Weakest on registry serial traceability (6/10): Every Carbonmark listing carries a registry project id and vintage, and the public project endpoint links each project to its registry page, such as Verra project 1764, but no serial number is written on-chain and a registry-side import and export path is documented only for ICR. Published price: Storefront cards fetched 2026-09-28 carry "Price per tonne:" in one block and the figure in the next.
Best for: Price against comparable credits — 8/10
Registry serial traceability · weight 32%6/10Retirement finality at the registry · weight 26%6/10Vintage and methodology disclosure · weight 22%7/10Price against comparable credits · weight 20%8/10
Quick pick
TH
Thallo
Two-way carbon bridge that states it writes serial numbers on-chain and mirrors retirement back to the issuing registry.
Two-way carbon bridge that states it writes serial numbers on-chain and mirrors retirement back to the issuing registry. Strongest on retirement finality at the registry (7/10): Thallo's litepaper states that on-chain retirements are also reflected on the underlying registry and pairs registry certificates with a Proof-of-Retirement NFT, but it gives no settlement window, and no Thallo page publishes a contract address against which a retirement can be checked. Weakest on registry serial traceability (5/10): Thallo's litepaper states that project, vintage and serial numbers are stored on-chain and names BioCarbon Registry as its bridge partner, but no Thallo page publishes a contract address, so no per-unit identifier can be read or looked up. Published price: Thallo FAQ, fetched 2026-09-28: "Thallo does not charge any fees for supply-side entities" and "On the demand-side, we charge a flat and transparent transaction fee, depending on the subscription." No per-tonne price, fee percentage or subscription tier is…
Best for: Retirement finality at the registry — 7/10
Registry serial traceability · weight 32%5/10Retirement finality at the registry · weight 26%7/10Vintage and methodology disclosure · weight 22%5/10Price against comparable credits · weight 20%5/10
Considered and not ranked
None left out by name
We assessed 8 products here and rank all 8. No product has been turned away by name; when one is, its name and the reason appear here. Evidence last read 28 September 2026.
What this ranking does not assess
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
- Custody failure: whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.
- Regulatory failure: no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.
These can still cost you money here; the ranking does not measure them, so a high place says nothing about them. Which criterion scores each family, and why the others do not apply, is in /data/risk-coverage.json.
How this ranking is built
Reviewed on registry serial traceability, retirement finality at the registry, vintage and methodology disclosure, and price against comparable credits.
Data checked Sep 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means every product ranked on this page was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
Direct answer
What is the best carbon credit token in 2026?
Regen Network ranks #1 overall for tokenised carbon credits on ChainChoice. Cosmos application chain that issues ecological credits under its own registry and tracks retirement as a distinct on-ledger balance. It holds that rank under an affiliate-blind methodology scored across 4 published, weighted criteria — the code that ranks providers physically cannot read affiliate payouts (CI-enforced), so a payout can't move a rank. The verdict re-computes on every fee change, incident, or regulatory action; the full reasoning and the audit receipt are under Methodology.
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Registry serial traceability · 32% (Regen Network 8/10, Toucan Protocol 5/10, Carbonmark 6/10)
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Retirement finality at the registry · 26% (Regen Network 9/10, Toucan Protocol 8/10, Carbonmark 6/10)
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Vintage and methodology disclosure · 22% (Regen Network 7/10, Toucan Protocol 8/10, Carbonmark 7/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Price against comparable credits (20%).
FAQs
4 questions readers ask before choosing tokenised carbon credits.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing carbon credits
Do the carbon registries actually recognise these tokens?
Verra's operative Registry Terms of Use, dated July 2026, does not contemplate tokenisation at all. The 34-page PDF was extracted to text and searched: "token", "crypto", "immobil", "blockchain", "distributed ledger" and "digital" each return zero occurrences across the whole document, while control terms confirm the extraction worked — "Verra" 513, "Account" 393, "Registry" 237, "retire" 33. The same document states that "Verra does not in any way guarantee legal title to the Instruments". A token can therefore represent a credit in the sense that someone locked one, but not in the sense that the registry knows who holds it. One limit worth stating: whether Verra has since finalised an immobilisation framework could not be confirmed from a Verra-hosted page — the relevant URL returns 404 and a second returned 403.
What is actually sitting in the big pools?
Almost entirely credits from the era the registry disowned. Toucan's live, registry-sanctioned Puro-backed Biochar pool returns totalSupply() = 170.2810 CHAR at Base block 49,697,317, while the deprecated Verra-era pools hold 15,677,735.2131 BCT and 1,418,623.3297 NCT. That is one part in 100,401 — roughly 99.999% of the tonnage in Toucan pools today sits in the pools whose source registry disowned the mechanism. The adverse-selection risk this creates is documented by Toucan itself: about 600,000 tonnes from a methodology Verra had already phased out were bridged before anyone noticed, and its own archived bridge page records that the two projects using it "were immediately blocklisted to prevent further credits from these projects being tokenized."
What does it cost to actually retire a tonne?
On the largest protocol, about a fifth of the position across the round trip, and the retirement documentation never mentions a fee. feeCalculator() on the CHAR pool resolves to a live contract wired into the pool rather than one that merely exists, and at Base block 49,697,337 it returns singleAssetDepositRelativeFee() and singleAssetRedemptionRelativeFee() of 10% each, with dustAssetRedemptionRelativeFee() at 30%. That is before the price gap: the same tonne bought off chain from a broker trades around $13.84, while the tokenised pool prices at $0.000833 — which sounds like a bargain until you notice the whole USDC side of the pair is $596.11, so there is no size in which that price is real.
Are the marketplace prices representative?
Mostly not, and the gap is measurable. Carbonmark's API returned 712 priced entries on 2026-08-08, of which 579 report supply 0 — four fifths of the visible order book cannot be bought. Across all entries the median is $2.80 per tonne with 80.1% under $5.00; across the 133 entries that can actually be transacted the median is $0.98. Of the 687 listings carrying a vintage, 70.3% are pre-2015 and 408 are vintage 2008 alone. The four curated projects on the storefront front page, at $11.05, $19.50, $20.23 and $680.00, are not representative of what the API offers. Carbonmark is nonetheless one of only two providers here that let a buyer verify anything reproducibly — which is the shape of this whole category.
Free advisor·No signup needed
Still unsure? Get your best carbon credits pick
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — then review the evidence before deciding.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Best picks
Best tokenised carbon credits in 2026
Weighted on whether a token traces to a registry serial you can check (32), whether retirement is final at the registry rather than a burn plus a promise (26), what the vintage and methodology actually are (22), and how the price compares to the same credit bought off chain (20). Serial traceability leads because without it nothing else is verifiable — and it is where the category is weakest: every provider here except Carbonmark and Regen asks the buyer to trust prose over a reproducible read. The one making the strongest claim, that "project, vintage, serial numbers, and other details" are written on chain, publishes no contract addresses at all, so the claim cannot be tested; its most recent dated deployment announcement is 21 August 2023.
Best overall
Regen Network
Cosmos application chain that issues ecological credits under its own registry and tracks retirement as a distinct on-ledger balance.
Data checked Sep 2026
Cosmos application chain that issues ecological credits under its own registry and tracks retirement as a distinct on-ledger balance. Strongest on retirement finality at the registry (9/10): Regen Ledger records retired credits as a balance separate from tradable and cancelled credits on the same ledger that issues them; batch C01-001-20150101-20151231-001 shows tradable 0, retired 20 and cancelled 0 through a public endpoint anyone can query. Weakest on vintage and methodology disclosure (7/10): Each Regen batch id carries its vintage window on the ledger, but the methodology sits in class metadata that takes a separate lookup; for class C06 it resolves to the Ecometric soil organic carbon methodology, version 1.1. Published price: No per-tonne price is published on registry.regen.network; its front page still carries only that "100,000 Ecometric ecocredits have already been sold". The Regen Ledger's own marketplace module publishes ask prices per credit.
Best for: Retirement finality at the registry — 9/10
Browse this network
MS
Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research