Independent concept note · Not affiliated with Plan Vivo · Unlisted
The oldest smallholder carbon standard already sends most revenue straight to the people doing the work. EWP is built the same way, one layer down.
Plan Vivo (founded 1994) is the oldest community-and-smallholder-focused carbon standard, and its new PV Climate V5 standard just tightened what counts as a retireable credit. This is an independent, unaffiliated look at that model, and a concept note on what a proof-gated field receipt could offer beneath the verified credits Plan Vivo's own registry already tracks.
Not affiliated, stated plainly, every pageThis package is independent, unsolicited recon by EcoWealth Corporation. It was not requested, produced, reviewed, or endorsed by Plan Vivo. No partnership, adoption, or relationship of any kind is claimed. Nothing here has been sent to Plan Vivo or anyone else, it is staged locally, noindex, unlisted, and shared only if the operator later chooses to.
Read this first: method. Passive reads only: Plan Vivo's own public pages, a same-host robots.txt/security.txt/sitemap check, and a same-host soft-404/true-404 control probe (a nonsense path fetched on the same host to distinguish a real not-found from a soft-catch). No login, no registration, no scraping behind any paywall, no state-changing call anywhere. Captured 2026-07-16.
The whole thing, plainly
Plan Vivo is the oldest smallholder carbon standard, and its newest rule only lets fully-verified credits retire, plus it already sends most project revenue straight to the people doing the work.
We already built the fix, free to see: EWP checks and pays for one field task at a time (photo + GPS + signature), the same discipline Plan Vivo applies per monitoring period, nothing here claims to replace or issue Plan Vivo credits.
The ask: none. This page is a credit and a lineage note, not a pitch.
4 facts, credit-first
Real credit is due where it's due. Each fact below was fetched directly for this note, the brief has the exact URL, quote, and (where applicable) the reproducible command.
Only verified credits retire, as of V5
PV Climate V5 splits credits into fPVC (future/ex-ante), rPVC (reported, monitored not verified), and vPVC (verified), and "does not allow retirement of unverified or ex-ante credits." A real, recent integrity tightening.
Majority revenue to communities, by design
Plan Vivo is the only major standard requiring the majority of project revenue flow directly to smallholder participants and community groups (historically ≥60%), a genuinely different governance model, not a marketing line.
A real security.txt, but never filled in
Plan Vivo actually ships a security.txt (200, most entities we've checked don't), but its Contact field is the literal placeholder "[email protected]," never customized. Credit for shipping it; precision note that it's not live.
All three return the identical branded 404 template (73,302 bytes), matching a nonsense-path control exactly, an honest, consistent gap.
Capability brief
Plan Vivo's V5 integrity model, sourced, then one layer down
The fPVC/rPVC/vPVC credit-type split, the community-revenue-share model, the security.txt precision note, and the honest EWP-intersection finding: verification still happens at monitoring-report scale, not field-task scale.
EWP contract 0x76c17C…A14B settles real-world ecological labor on Base mainnet: funded work packet → claimed → proof (photo + GPS + signature) → approved → on-chain settlement. Plan Vivo's own vPVC-only-retirement rule already encodes 'only verified counts' as registry policy, the same instinct behind EWP's own approve-then-settle flow. But that verification still happens at the level of a periodic monitoring report reviewed against the S&P Global registry, not at the level of a single field task. EWP's photo+GPS+signature+on-chain-settlement receipt is proposed as a candidate primary-evidence layer directly beneath a Plan Vivo monitoring report, not a substitute for their registry, and not a claim to issue a vPVC.
What this proposes, and what it doesn't
Not a partnership pitch, not outreach, not a request for anything. Plan Vivo runs an accredited, community-governed registry with real revenue-share rules; nothing here asks Plan Vivo to adopt, review, or partner on anything.
What it is: a genuine look at how PV Climate V5 already tightened what counts as verified, and an honest note on what a funded, proof-gated field-labor receipt could add one layer beneath that monitoring report, never a claim that EWP issues vPVCs or replaces Plan Vivo's registry.
Scope, stated honestly: EWP doesn't map its packets to PVCs today, doesn't operate a registry, and isn't accredited by Plan Vivo. The comparison is about evidence discipline beneath verification, not a substitute for their infrastructure, and about a shared instinct (pay the people who do the work) worth naming honestly.
Plan Vivo already refuses to retire what hasn't been verified. EWP already refuses to pay what hasn't been proven, the same discipline, applied one task at a time instead of one crediting period at a time.
