Provider at a glance
- Category
- Tokenised Carbon Credits
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.c3.app
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 50 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
C3
Carbon credit pools on Polygon
Tokenised Carbon Credits
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 8 tokenised carbon credits in the published ranking
50
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is C3 right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Vintage and methodology disclosure8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Registry serial traceability2/10 here; Open Forest Protocol scores 3
- Retirement finality at the registry2/10 here; Klima Protocol scores 4
- Price against comparable credits1/10 here; Klima Protocol scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best carbon credit token shows where it lands for you.
What will C3 cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is C3?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to C3
Compare all 4- 5Klima Protocol10 points above · stronger on price vs offchain (8 against 1)60
- 6Open Forest Protocol3 points above · stronger on retirement finality (4 against 2)53
- 8Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2)7 points below · stronger on price vs offchain (2 against 1)43
For your setup
Find out if C3 fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where C3 lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best carbon credit tokenNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why C3 ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (10.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
322+2.054.08#6/8Loading evidence…
262+1.665.09#7/8Loading evidence…
228+5.637.08#1/8Loading evidence…
201+0.646.58#8/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Open Forest Protocol, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 48–52 and stays #7
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of C3’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Registry serial traceability 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Open Forest Protocol+254#7 → #6
Retirement finality at the registry 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Open Forest Protocol+253#7 → #6
Vintage and methodology disclosure 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes Open Forest Protocol+253#7 → #6
Price against comparable credits 1 → 3 on its ladder · passes Open Forest Protocol+253#7 → #6
Vintage and methodology disclosure 8 → 2 on its ladder · Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2) passes it−642#7 → #8
Smallest climb: registry serial traceability 2 → 4 passes Open Forest Protocol, #6.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Vintage and methodology disclosure — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Registry serial traceability — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Retirement finality at the registry — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Price against comparable credits — 1/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- C3 is the clearest case in this category of documentation outliving the product. The methodology allowlist is the most specific anyone publishes and the pool contracts still hold 88,511.6626 UBO and 23,151.1571 NBO at Polygon block 91,652,635, but every front door is shut: c3.app serves a certificate that does not match the host, www.c3.app has an expired certificate, app.c3.app does not resolve, and no price oracle can quote either token. On 2026-09-28 the docs index reports itself 'Last updated 3 years ago'. A holder of UBO or NBO today has a token with excellent written provenance, no working redemption interface and no exit price.
Competitive position
Where C3 leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#7 / 87.5 of 30 · best 19.3
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where C3 leads
- Vintage and methodology disclosure#1 / 8
Where it trails
- Registry serial traceability#6 / 8
- Retirement finality at the registry#7 / 8
- Price against comparable credits#8 / 8
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Open Forest Protocol#6 of 8 · score 53 · 3.0 points ahead
C3 leads on
- Vintage and methodology disclosure8 vs 5
Open Forest Protocol leads on
- Registry serial traceability3 vs 2
- Retirement finality at the registry4 vs 2
- Price against comparable credits2 vs 1
Largest single reason Open Forest Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+2.3 display points).Scenario cost: Open Forest Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2)#8 of 8 · score 43 · 7.0 points behind
C3 leads on
- Vintage and methodology disclosure8 vs 2
Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2) leads on
- Price against comparable credits2 vs 1
Largest single reason C3 is ahead: published criteria (+7.0 display points).Scenario cost: Moss Carbon Credit (MCO2) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Klima Protocol#5 of 8 · score 60 · 10.0 points ahead
C3 leads on
- Registry serial traceability2 vs 1
Klima Protocol leads on
- Retirement finality at the registry4 vs 2
- Price against comparable credits8 vs 1
Largest single reason Klima Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+9.9 display points).Scenario cost: Klima Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 50 · gap 31.0Why Regen Network ranks above C3
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 31.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRegen NetworkGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight7.519.3−30.7, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisRegen NetworkPoints
Registry serial traceability · w3228−6.14, worse
Retirement finality at the registry · w2629−5.82, worse
Vintage and methodology disclosure · w2287+0.70, better
Price against comparable credits · w2018−4.48, worse
Net5081−31.0
Your scenario
C3 is not priced for this scenario
The annual management fee on your balance. Excludes performance fees, spreads and any redemption charge. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your balance · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #7 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Registry serial traceabilitystrength 2 · weight 32Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Retirement finality at the registrystrength 2 · weight 26Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Vintage and methodology disclosurestrength 8 · weight 22Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Price against comparable creditsstrength 1 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Insolvency failure (C3 2/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Registry serial traceability · 32%
- Execution failure (C3 2/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Retirement finality at the registry · 26%
- Information failure (C3 8/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Vintage and methodology disclosure · 22%
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%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No price exists. DefiLlama coins API (the URL cited), fetched 28 September 2026, returns {"coins":{}} for both polygon:0x2b3ecb0991af0498ece9135bcd04013d7993110c (UBO) and polygon:0x6BCa3B77C1909Ce1a4Ba1A20d1103bDe8d222E48 (NBO), and DexScreener's token endpoint returns {"schemaVersion":"1.0.0","pairs":null} for the same two addresses, so no indexed venue supplies a price for either pool token. The contracts still hold 88,511.6626 UBO and 23,151.1571 NBO (eth_call totalSupply() at Polygon block 94,587,186), identical to 8 August 2026.C3 — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDC3 — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Polygon
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with C3: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category 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
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
9 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 50, #7 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt carbon_credits:c3:2026.10.18:621a9fbb1d0f
Are you C3? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.