Shown, not told · Fully concept-labeled · Unlisted

An RWI mint, with and without proof underneath it

Plain thesis: Act One is Oimpact's own "Eco" template exactly as it's described on-site today: a payment mints an RWI (Real-World Impact) token with no independent proof of the field work behind the credit. Act Two is the one concept addition: a funded, proof-verified EWP work packet supplying that missing evidence, then handing its receipt to the same mint. Everything here is a concept illustration. EcoWealth has no live integration with Oimpact; nothing below was actually run against Oimpact's systems.

Read this first. Act One narrates Oimpact's own public description of its "Eco" template (oimpact.ai homepage copy: "Funds verified carbon removal via climate.0g.ai... Wallet-send payments on Ethereum... Retirement proof from transaction hash"), not a live call EcoWealth made against Oimpact. Act Two is clearly marked Concept throughout: a proposed addition showing what evidence would look like if an EWP work packet supplied it. No agent was created, no wallet was connected, and no purchase was made on oimpact.ai for this page.

Act One: Today, as described on-site

The "Eco" template mints RWI from a payment, not from proof

1

A buyer talks to the Eco agent

Per Oimpact's own on-site copy: "Funds verified carbon removal via climate.0g.ai. Every transaction is fully traceable end to end and fully tradable end to end. Mints RWI per tonne removed." No separate verification step for the underlying labor is described.

$ (as documented) buyer → Eco agent → "retire 1 tonne, City Forest Credits"
2

Wallet-send payment, on Ethereum

The marketplace flow (oimpact.ai/catalog) is: pick an opportunity → buy through an agent → everyone earns. Revenue splits $90 to the provider, $9 to the agent owner, $1 to the RWI Treasury per $100.

(as documented) wallet-send payment · Ethereum ✓ payment sent $100 → provider $90 / agent $9 / treasury $1
3

"Retirement proof from transaction hash"

The proof Oimpact documents for this template is the payment's own transaction hash: evidence that money moved, not independent evidence that the tonne of carbon the money is meant to fund was actually monitored, planted, or surveyed on the ground.

tx=0x4f21…c08a → proves a payment happened → does not independently prove the field labor behind the credit happened
4

RWI mints, per Oimpact's own bonding curve

Per the live formula on oimpact.ai/rwi: I(C) = max(1, 100 × (1 − C/$100M)²). At genesis, $100 of verified impact mints ~10,000 RWI.

$100 funded → ≈10,000 RWI minted (genesis rate) → auto-staked to buyer's account
What's missing: Oimpact's own whitepaper says an RWI mint should reference "evidence (attestations, oracle data, registry IDs)." Today's Eco template's evidence is a payment receipt, real, but silent on whether the underlying MRV monitoring, planting verification, or boundary survey for that credit actually happened. That's a genuine, separate kind of proof: the kind EWP is built to produce.

Act Two: Concept addition Concept

The same mint, with a funded, proof-verified work packet underneath it

Nothing about Oimpact's payment, its bonding curve, or its payout split changes here. The only addition: before the mint happens, a bounded EWP work packet pays for and proves the field labor a City-Forest-Credit-class retirement actually depends on, then that packet's on-chain settlement receipt becomes the "evidence" field Oimpact's own whitepaper already asks for.

Today: payment as evidence

RWI mint evidence field (concept, as documented):
{
  "type": "tx_hash",
  "value": "0x4f21...c08a",
  "proves": "a payment moved"
}

# proves money moved.
# says nothing about whether
# the field work behind the
# credit actually happened.

Concept: a settled work packet as evidence

RWI mint evidence field (concept addition):
{
  "type": "ewp_settlement",
  "workId": 41822,
  "proof": "photo + GPS + signature",
  "settlementTx": "0x7f2c...9ab1",
  "chain": "base-mainnet",
  "contract": "0x76c17C...A14B",
  "retiredVia": "klima-regen-rail"
}

# proves a specific, located,
# signed-off unit of field labor
# happened, the thing the
# credit requires to exist at all.

This concept changes nothing about how Oimpact's marketplace, payout split, or bonding curve work today, it only proposes a richer "evidence" object for the exact field the whitepaper already names, sourced from a work-packet lifecycle (fund → claim → prove → settle → retire) that already runs, live, on Base mainnet.

Act one is Oimpact's own documented flow, narrated faithfully. Act two changes nothing about the payment or the mint, it only answers the one question the payment receipt can't: did the work behind the credit actually happen. EWP already produces that answer, live, today. This page proposes handing it over, not replacing anything.

→ See the drafted files themselves in the Agent Kit

← Back to the hub
Provisioned by EcoWealth · Digital Provisioning Protocol · provenance‑sealed