Shown, not told · Fully concept-labeled · Unlisted · Not affiliated
Their "5 Best X" template, filled with chain-verifiable entries
Plain thesis: Act One narrates a real Regreener listicle exactly as published: a numbered project, a one-line analyst rationale, no way for the reader to independently check it. Act Two is the one concept addition, the identical template, populated with real, already-settled EWP work packets, where the rationale column is replaced by a settlement transaction anyone can look up themselves. Everything in Act Two is a concept page, EcoWealth has no relationship with Regreener and nothing here was published on their domain or sent to them.
Read this first. Act One quotes Regreener's own public blog post verbatim (regreener.earth/blog/the-5-best-cookstove-carbon-credit-projects-of-2026), not a live call EcoWealth made against their systems. Act Two is clearly marked Concept: a proposed EWP-native page in the same format, using two packets that are genuinely settled on-chain today (cited with real transaction hashes, independently checkable on a public block explorer). No content was posted to regreener.earth, and no contact was made with Regreener for this page.
Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi (14 African countries total)
Annual impact
1.5M+ tons CO2e/year; 9.5M+ Gold Standard credits issued to date
Project type
Improved biomass and electric cookstoves
Selected because it clears Regreener's quality framework: the specific data points it passed, and the raw evidence behind the pass, are not shown. A reader takes the "made the list" verdict on trust.
2.EcoSafi Analyst-reported
Location
Kenya, Uganda
Annual impact
500K+ tons CO2e/year
Project type
Biomass pellet cookstoves (gasifying)
Same pattern: a real, specific project, a plausible-sounding number, and no public path from "500K+ tons/year" back to the metering data, the SUMS survey, or the rating-agency score that would let a buyer confirm it themselves.
Their own closing criteria (verbatim): "a CCP Label or equivalent integrity certification, metered or SUMS-verified usage data, conservative locally-validated fNRB values, a recent BeZero, Sylvera, or Calyx rating of B or higher, and documented community benefit-sharing arrangements," a genuinely good checklist. None of the five criteria are shown per-project on the page itself.
Act Two: Concept addition Concept
"The 2 Best On-Chain-Verified EWP Work Packets," same format, checkable entries
Same fields Regreener's own template uses: numbered entry, location/type, an annual-impact-style figure, a closing line, except the "why it made the list" column is replaced by a public settlement transaction. Nothing about Regreener's framework, pricing, or client relationships changes; this only proposes what the identical page looks like when the proof is structural instead of asserted.
1.EWP workId 14, event-coverage index Chain-verified
Chain
Base mainnet, contract 0x76c17C…A14B
Standard
ewp_event_coverage_index · workType bucket 2
Wage settled
0.50 USDC
Proof type
keccak256 hash of the delivered artifact (digital-curation work; not a physical-labor packet)
# anyone re-checks this claim directly — no trust in EcoWealth required:
recordSettlement tx: 0x65cac2e8...4b87ed5
wage-paid tx: 0x6ba327a1...80ed09
proof (artifact keccak256): 0x1834d81d...7d2c0a
verify: https://basescan.org/address/0x76c17C51336BE7B39F5164802e08b9811477A14B
2.EWP workId 1, Robinhood-mainnet twin, first settlement Chain-verified
Not applicable to this packet's work_type: physical ecological-labor packets (the class comparable to a site visit or planting-verification walk) carry photo+GPS+signature proof by protocol design, then retire via Klima/Regen where applicable
The equivalent "closing criteria" line, EWP-native: a settlement transaction on a public chain, a proof artifact hash resolvable back to what was actually delivered, and, for physical ecological work, photo+GPS+signature at claim time. Every field above is something a reader checks themselves in one command, not something they take on an analyst's word.
Honest note: neither cited packet is a forestry/cookstove-class ecological credit, so this concept page does not claim EWP already has a project directly comparable to BURN Manufacturing or EcoSafi. The point is the proof mechanism (public, structural, re-checkable), not a same-category substitute yet. See finding 2 of the capability brief (Carbon Impact category) for where that gap genuinely remains.
Act One is Regreener's real published content, narrated faithfully. Act Two changes nothing about their framework or their client relationships; it only shows what the identical listicle format looks like when "why it made the list" is a transaction hash instead of an analyst's sentence. EWP already produces that receipt, live, today. This page proposes the format, not a partnership.
