Tokenised Carbon Credits evaluated across registry serial traceability, retirement finality at the registry, vintage and methodology disclosure, and price against comparable credits.
CA
#1 of 8 · published ranking
Carbonmark
80ChainChoice Score
4199
Why it leads
Best in the pool on price vs offchain (8/10; next 4/10)
Cost
Not priced· No comparable price is published
No provider can pay for a position in this table. The code that computes this order cannot read which links earn us a commission, and every build proves it. Every score below rebuilds from the published criteria.Ranking 2026.08 · 4 criteria · 8 products · same inputs, same order
Personal comparison
Tokenised Carbon Credits ranked comparison
No comparable price is published; ranking still uses verified product evidence.
RankProviderBest fitScore
1
CACarbonmarkMarketplace and API that sells named ca...Top ranked
Price against comparable credits — 8/10Trade-off: Two things a buyer would regret not knowing. First, 579 of the 712 priced entries ret...
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
2 more assessed and ranked below — none of them hidden for commercial reasons.
Ranking blindCommercial terms excludedDated primary sourcesCrypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
Ranked on 4 published criteria weighted 32/26/22/20, which set goal alignment — 30 of the 86 points. The rest: regional access 20, evidence depth 18, ease of use 10, institutional trust 8. Profile match is shown in breakdowns but carries no weight.
Audit
Infrastructure
Methodology
2026.09.15
published 2026-09-16
Providers tracked
980+
across 119 categories
Last verified
2026-08-11
newest dated pricing or sentiment read
Named on the roster
2 people
managing directors · 6 automated processes
Decision guide
What matters most before choosing in this category
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.
What matters most before choosing in this category
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.
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?
Current editor lead
Expert review and scoring weights
CA
CarbonmarkData checked Aug 2026
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): Corrected during verification: the draft's claim that the published prices 'sit inside the off-chain bands' is true for the curated cards and false for the marketplace. Against Senken's bands converted at 1 EUR = 1.1535 USD, Limenet at $680.00 sits inside direct air capture's EUR 450 to EUR 1,000+ ($519.08 to… Weakest on vintage and methodology disclosure (7/10): Corrected during verification, and upward: vintage is machine-readable even though the storefront hides it. The API exposes a /vintages endpoint returning the valid set from '1970' and '1999' through '2033', plus '2071' and the sentinel '9999', and every listing carries its own vintage inside creditId.
Best forPrice against comparable credits — 8/10
Main tradeoffTwo things a buyer would regret not knowing. First, 579 of the 712 priced entries returned by api.carbonmark.com/prices on 2026-08-08 report supply 0, so more than four fifths of the visible book is not purchasable and the headline price distribution is not the transactable one. Second, corrected during verification: the draft asserted that Carbonmark 'operates separately from Klima Protocol, so the two should not be treated as one counterparty', but Carbonmark's own API readme describes its entire Base offering as 'Klima Protocol carbon class liquidity, pricing, retirements, and public retirement records', and 25 of the 712 price entries are typed 'klimaprotocol'. On Base the two are the same counterparty. Pricing is also invoice-based rather than fully self-serve: the retirement docs state that 'the cost will be included in your monthly invoice', and no headline take rate is published, so the spread between the listed per-tonne price and what the project developer receives cannot be reconstructed.
Verify before signupStorefront cards fetched 2026-08-08 carry the label "Price per tonne:" in one block and the figure in the next: Limenet (Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement, Italy) "$680.00" with "Tonnes available:" "15"; Black Earth Organic Waste Compost (Massachusetts, USA) "$19.50" with "5,800"; Forestal Río Aquidabán (silvopastoral agroforestry, Paraguay) "$20.23" with "1,500"; Urunday Afforestation Project (Corrientes, Argentina) "$11.05" with "1,000". The public API api.carbonmark.com/prices returned 712 priced entries the same day, median purchase price $2.80 per tonne.
Methodology
How this category is reviewed
Reviewed on registry serial traceability, retirement finality at the registry, vintage and methodology disclosure, and price against comparable credits.
The order on this page is the published ranking for this category. Every criterion, weight and source behind it is on the methodology page.
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.
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
//Analytics consent·GDPR · ePrivacy · TTDSG
ChainChoice measures page views and conversions with two cookieless, EU-hosted services: Plausible and Cloudflare Web Analytics. Nothing loads until you accept, and rankings are identical either way.ChainChoice measures how the engine is used — page views, conversions, referrer — through two cookieless, EU-hosted services: Plausible and Cloudflare Web Analytics. No advertising cookies, no cross-site profile, no data resale. Neither script loads until you accept, and rankings are identical whether you accept or decline.
