Provider at a glance
- Category
- Tokenised Carbon Credits
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- regen.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 81 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Regen Network
Cosmos chain for ecological credits
Tokenised Carbon Credits
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 8 tokenised carbon credits in the published ranking
81
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Regen Network right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Registry serial traceability8/10, the category best
- Retirement finality at the registry9/10, the category best
- Vintage and methodology disclosure7/10; the category best is 8
- Price against comparable credits8/10, the category best
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 Regen Network cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Regen Network?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Regen Network
Compare all 4- 2Toucan Protocol6 points below · stronger on vintage methodology (8 against 7)75
- 3Carbonmark9 points below · weaker on retirement finality (6 against 9)72
- 4Thallo16 points below · weaker on registry serial link (5 against 8)65
For your setup
Find out if Regen Network fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Regen Network 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 it leads
Why Regen Network ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (25.7 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 3 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
328+8.194.08#1/8Loading evidence…
269+7.495.09#1/8Loading evidence…
227+4.937.08#4/8Loading evidence…
208+5.126.58#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+6over Toucan Protocol, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 81 and stays #1
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 Regen Network’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 8 → 4 on its ladder · Toucan Protocol passes it−478#1 → #2
Retirement finality at the registry 9 → 5 on its ladder · Toucan Protocol passes it−480#1 → #2
Vintage and methodology disclosure 7 → 2 on its ladder · Toucan Protocol passes it−579#1 → #2
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Registry serial traceability — 8/10, the category best
- Retirement finality at the registry — 9/10, the category best
- Vintage and methodology disclosure — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Price against comparable credits — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- 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.
Competitive position
Where Regen Network 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#1 / 819.3 of 30 · pool best
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 Regen Network leads
- Registry serial traceability#1 / 8
- Retirement finality at the registry#1 / 8
- Price against comparable credits#1 / 8
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
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.
Toucan Protocol#2 of 8 · score 75 · 6.0 points behind
Regen Network leads on
- Registry serial traceability8 vs 5
- Retirement finality at the registry9 vs 8
Toucan Protocol leads on
- Vintage and methodology disclosure8 vs 7
Largest single reason Regen Network is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Toucan Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Carbonmark#3 of 8 · score 72 · 9.0 points behind
Regen Network leads on
- Registry serial traceability8 vs 6
- Retirement finality at the registry9 vs 6
Carbonmark leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Regen Network is ahead: published criteria (+8.8 display points).Scenario cost: Carbonmark has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Thallo#4 of 8 · score 65 · 16.0 points behind
Regen Network leads on
- Registry serial traceability8 vs 5
- Retirement finality at the registry9 vs 7
- Vintage and methodology disclosure7 vs 5
Thallo leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Regen Network is ahead: published criteria (+15.9 display points).Scenario cost: Thallo has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
81 vs 75 · gap 6.0Why Regen Network ranks above Toucan Protocol
DimensionThisToucan ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight19.316.9+6.2, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisToucan ProtocolPoints
Registry serial traceability · w3285+3.07, better
Retirement finality at the registry · w2698+0.83, better
Vintage and methodology disclosure · w2278−0.70, worse
Net8175+6.0
Your scenario
Regen Network 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 #1 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 8 · 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 9 · 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 7 · 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 8 · 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 (Regen Network 8/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Registry serial traceability · 32%
- Execution failure (Regen Network 9/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Retirement finality at the registry · 26%
- Information failure (Regen Network 7/10): 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 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.Regen Network — official page at rest.cosmos.directory ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDRegen Network — official page at rest.cosmos.directory ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Regen Ledger
- 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 Regen Network: 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 81, #1 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:regen_network:2026.10.18:621a9fbb1d0f
Are you Regen Network? 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.