Template
Template A — Solo Landowner
Vermont LLC with multi-sig treasury; single decision-maker; rare succession.
Tier 1 — Vermont LLC + multi-sig treasury wallet + operating-agreement governance. No smart-contract DAO.
The most common template. For US private landowners holding fee simple, this is the default.
When to use Template A
A property uses Template A when:
- The legal owner is a single individual or family (1–5 family members)
- The owner is the dominant stakeholder; no institutional or community co-management
- The conservation context is straightforward (possibly with an existing conservation easement, but no complex multi-party arrangements)
Examples:
- Vermont/New England private landowner with 500–10,000 acres of forest
- Western US ranch owner with significant biodiversity habitat
- Costa Rica family conservation property
- Argentine private estate with stewardship intent
Why no smart contract
For a solo landowner:
- There is one decision-maker. On-chain voting is theatrical — there’s no one to vote against.
- Distributions are simple: typically annual, to the landowner. A multi-sig wallet with operating-agreement-governed disbursement is sufficient.
- Methodology updates require ratification, but the landowner can ratify by signing an amendment, just like any LLC member.
- Succession is rare and handled by operating-agreement provisions (typically inheritance to family).
A smart contract DAO for Template A would add audit cost, technological fragility, and operational complexity for no operational gain. A Vermont LLC with a sound operating agreement and a multi-sig treasury wallet is the right vehicle.
Vehicle structure
Wrapper entity: Vermont LLC (standard, not BBLLC) — Vermont chosen for conservation-friendly history, not for blockchain-LLC features (which we don’t use here).
Treasury: multi-sig wallet (e.g., Safe / Gnosis Safe) holding USDC. Signers: landowner (or designated landowner-delegate) + Landseed compliance officer + designated independent. Standard 2-of-3 with daily transaction limits.
Operating agreement: governs the LLC. Includes:
- Member identification (landowner or family)
- Distribution rules (the Economics module’s substance, in operating-agreement language)
- Methodology version adoption procedures (the Governance module’s substance)
- Management plan ratification procedures
- Successor and dissolution provisions
No on-chain smart contract for governance. All governance is operating-agreement-based.
Beneficiaries (typical configuration)
| Seat | Holder | Voting weight (use decisions) | Voting weight (methodology decisions) | Distribution share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landowner primary | The landowner | Supermajority | Veto + ratification | 60–85% (configured per deployment) |
| Landowner family (optional) | Family members | Per family decision | Per family decision | Per family allocation |
| Landseed steward | Landseed PBC | Advisory only | Methodology authority + guardian veto | 2–5% protocol fee |
Distribution profile
| Recipient | Share | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Landowner direct | 60–85% | Annual or quarterly cash distribution per Economics module |
| Stewardship reserve (held by LLC) | ~5% | Drawable for documented stewardship work on the property |
| Landseed protocol fee | 2–5% | Per LLC operating agreement; flowed to Landseed PBC on revenue receipt |
| LLC treasury (residual) | 5–25% | Held for stewardship work, methodology compliance costs, or distributed in subsequent periods |
These percentages are parameter ranges, not fixed values. Each Template A deployment configures within these ranges. The total must sum to 100%.
Governance — operating-agreement substance
The operating agreement encodes:
Use decisions (forestry, agriculture, recreation)
- Landowner has supermajority voice
- Management plan ratification required for material activity outside the existing plan
- Landseed has advisory input but no veto on use decisions consistent with the management plan
Methodology decisions (adopting new EC-M versions)
- Landseed proposes; landowner ratifies
- Operating agreement defines the procedure (typically: written notice + 60-day consideration period + ratification by signature)
- Landowner can decline ratification; methodology version remains pinned to current version
Treasury actions
- Multi-sig wallet enforces daily transaction limits
- Larger transactions require landowner sign-off documented in operating-agreement records
- Stewardship reserve disbursements require documented stewardship work
Methodology guardian veto (Landseed)
- Landseed retains a guardian veto on actions that would deliberately destroy the underlying ecological condition (mirroring the NRD-lite enforcement floor)
- Used as backstop, not active veto; mostly a deterrent
Deployment
A Template A deployment for a US property:
| Phase | Duration | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Property identification + landowner conversation | 4–8 weeks | Stakeholder shape confirmed; methodology version pinning agreed; distribution percentages negotiated within parameter ranges |
| LLC formation (Vermont) | 2–3 weeks | Standard LLC formation; operating agreement drafted from template + parameters |
| Multi-sig wallet setup | 1 week | Safe/Gnosis Safe deployed; signers configured |
| NRD-lite drafted (Vermont template) | 4–6 weeks | Per 01-nrd-lite/06-drafting-strategy.md |
| NRD-lite recorded (county recording office) | 2–4 weeks | County-level recording |
| 501(c)(3) holder coordination (if landowner wants §170(h) deduction) | 4–8 weeks parallel | Landseed Conservation Trust or equivalent holds deed for §170(h) purposes; service contract with LLC |
| Initial methodology assessment | 2–4 weeks | EC-M-1.1 satellite-only assessment performed; baseline ECI established |
| Operational | Ongoing | Annual monitoring; periodic distributions; periodic management plan review |
Total time from landowner-conversation-start to operational deployment: 3–6 months. Faster than Template C’s 12–18 months.
Honest landowner pitch
Template A landowners must be communicated to with honesty about revenue uncertainty. The recommended pitch:
“Earth Credits are a new market for verified ecological condition. Your land’s condition can be measured under our methodology, and credits will be issued and sold against that measurement. You’ll receive 60–85% of the resulting revenue. The methodology and the credits are sound; what’s not yet known is exact per-acre yields and price stability — Earth Credits are a new market, so the first cohort of properties is partly price discovery. If you need predictable revenue, conservation easements (with one-time tax deduction) or carbon offsets (with established markets) may be a better fit. Earth Credits are best for landowners who value the conservation thesis and accept early-stage market uncertainty.”
This is more honest than v1.2’s $1.2M-on-signing approach. Some landowners will decline; the architecture does not optimize to win every deal.
Economic comparison to alternatives
For a landowner asking “what should I do with my land?”:
| Option | Landowner share | Term | Income predictability | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sell timber | 100% | Per harvest | Predictable per harvest | Destroys ecological condition; one-time |
| Carbon offset project (conventional) | 40–65% | 30–40 years | Moderate (carbon markets established) | Limited stacking |
| Conservation easement | One-time tax deduction (typically 20–40% of property value) | Perpetual | One-time | Restricts uses; no ongoing revenue |
| Earth Credits (Template A) | 60–85% | 99 years | Unknown — early-stage market | Stackable with carbon and easement |
| Do nothing | $0 | Forever | $0 | No conservation outcome |
Landowner economics depend heavily on per-acre credit yields, which are not yet known. The architecture’s economics work for the landowner if Earth Credit prices reach reasonable levels; they may not initially.
Risks specific to Template A
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Landowner becomes incapacitated; family disputes succession | Operating agreement specifies clear succession; family seats allow shared decision-making |
| Landowner deliberately destroys ecological condition | NRD-lite enforcement floor + guardian veto + methodology detection; same risk as any conservation easement |
| Landowner declines methodology updates indefinitely | Operating agreement provides for “version drift” handling; property may end up on deprecated methodology with no new credits |
| Landowner sells property; successor reluctant to honor VECR | Transfer covenants + recorded deed + NRD-lite enforcement; same as conservation easement protections |
| Multi-sig wallet operational issues (lost keys, etc.) | Standard recovery procedures; Landseed compliance is a signer; key rotation procedures in operating agreement |
What Template A does NOT do
- No on-chain governance
- No on-chain voting
- No tokens of any kind
- No DeFi integrations
- No yield farming on treasury
- No transferable membership
- No public participation
A Template A deployment is operationally simpler than any Tier 2 template. This is appropriate for the most common stakeholder shape.
When to upgrade to a different template
Some Template A deployments may evolve over time. Triggers for re-evaluation:
| Trigger | Likely template |
|---|---|
| Family wants to add a partner NGO for conservation expertise | Template B or hybrid F |
| Family wants to engage indigenous community on the property | Template C or F |
| Property becomes corporate-owned (sale to timber company) | Template D |
| Property donated to foundation | Template G |
Re-evaluation does not require redeploying the LLC; it requires re-drafting the operating agreement and possibly amending the NRD-lite.