Evidenced capability brief · Passive recon only · Unlisted · Not affiliated
Regreener scores carbon projects on 100+ data points a buyer can't re-check. EWP's receipt: every claim, re-verifiable in one command.
In one plain sentence: Regreener is a small (~10-person), B-Corp-certified Amsterdam advisory that sells ~240 European B2B clients a curated "top 10%" shortlist of carbon projects, vetted by human analysts against a published quality framework, distributed as SEO-driven "5 Best X of 2026" buyer's guides, and this page is an independent, evidence-first read of what that curation model can and can't show a skeptical buyer, next to a concept of what the same guide looks like when every entry resolves to an on-chain, independently-checkable receipt instead of an analyst's say-so.
Relationship, stated plainlyNo relationship. EcoWealth has no affiliation, partnership, contract, or contact with Regreener. Nothing here was requested by them, produced with them, reviewed by them, or sent to them. This is independent, passive, unsolicited desk research, staged locally and not sent anywhere.
Who Regreener is, briefly. Founded 2021 (Bernard de Wit and Job van Hooijdonk, both trained as lawyers), Amsterdam HQ, bootstrapped plus a €350k 2022 angel round, B Corp since January 2024. Not a self-serve marketplace, but a boutique advisory: analysts screen carbon projects against a published framework, publish the survivors as buyer's-guide content, and sell the shortlist onward as procurement + Scope 1–3 advisory. No public pricing, no API, no developer docs anywhere on the domain.
Read this first. Independent recon by EcoWealth Corporation. Not requested, produced, reviewed, or endorsed by Regreener. Every observation below is a passive read of public pages, standard well-known paths (diffed against a nonsense-path control), public DNS lookups, and rendered marketing-site copy: no login, no scanning, fuzzing, sign-up, or state-changing call anywhere. The gated client portal (dashboard.regreener.earth/login) was never touched. Captured 2026-07-16; every URL below is independently re-runnable.
The whole thing, plainly
Regreener's shortlists are real and well-built, but the vetting behind them is one analyst's private judgment call. A buyer can't re-check it themselves.
We already built the complement, free to see: EWP's work receipt answers the same "can I trust this?" question with a public, on-chain proof anyone can look up, not a replacement for Regreener's curation, a layer underneath it.
The ask: none today. This is independent research, not a pitch.
Six facts from the public record
Credit-first, because real credit is due. Each fact is reproducible with one command: the capability brief has the exact curl lines and HTTP statuses.
Honestly built, just empty of agent files
A real robots.txt and a real sitemap.xml; every agent-discovery path checked (llms.txt, agent-card.json, .well-known/x402) is a TRUE 404, byte-identical to a nonsense-path control, an honest absence, not a soft-200 lying about what exists.
The vetting is real, but unrepeatable
A published five-category, "100+"/"200+"-data-point quality framework, genuinely more structured than most others in the space publish. But it's a manual analyst read with a private pass/fail; no buyer can re-run the check themselves.
The listicle format is a real asset
Their "5 Best X of 2026" template, named project, developer, location, registry, volume, one-line rationale, a closing selection-criteria list, is the actual thing ~240 EU buyers procure from, per their own case studies.
One blockchain mention, hedged
The entire domain's only reference to on-chain verification is one FAQ sentence, "blockchain technology where possible," on a single tree-planting product page. No settlement chain, no proof object, anywhere else.
Their own numbers argue for standing commitments
Regreener's own sourced figures: 2025 offtake agreements €12.3B at ~€180/credit vs. spot €1.04B at ~€6.10/credit, a ~30× premium. Serious buyers skew toward locked-term volume, not one-off spot calls.
A cleaner email posture than most
Full, correctly configured SPF and DMARC (p=quarantine), genuinely better hygiene than the typical target we review. Named plainly because it's true, not because it's the finding.
The brief, in three pages
Capability brief
Their quality framework vs. EWP's proof chain, category by category
Six evidenced findings, plus a point-for-point mapping of Regreener's own five vetting categories (General Details, Carbon Impact, Co-Benefits, Reporting, Compliance) against what EWP's on-chain receipt already answers for itself, and an honest look at where EWP still has a real gap.
Their own "5 Best X" template, filled with chain-verifiable entries
Act One narrates a real Regreener listicle exactly as published: numbered entries, one-line analyst rationale, no way to re-check it yourself. Act Two is a concept "Top EWP Work Packets" page in the identical format, same fields, except every entry resolves to a real settlement transaction anyone can look up.
Concept drafts: an llms.txt and agent-card.json for regreener.earth, MCP (the protocol that lets an AI assistant call your tools) tool schemas structuring their own public listicle content, and a "quality concierge" persona that cites EWP's receipt as the re-checkable evidence layer underneath a curated pick.
EWP contract 0x76c17C…A14B settles real-world work on Base mainnet: funded packet → claimed → proof → approved → on-chain settlement → carbon retirement via Klima/Regen where the work is ecological. A second, byte-identical contract runs live on Robinhood mainnet (chainId 4663), settling in USDG. Both settlement events are public: anyone with an RPC endpoint or a block explorer re-checks the exact same claim this brief cites, with zero trust in EcoWealth required, the property Regreener's own "Reporting Process" vetting category asks for and can't fully deliver itself.
What this brief asks for, and what it doesn't
Not a partnership pitch, not a sales ask. This is unsolicited, independent research: proof and a working concept, not a request for a meeting.
The complement framing, stated once, plainly: nothing here proposes replacing Regreener's curation. Their analysts and their buyer relationships are the actual product; EWP is proposed only as the machine-checkable evidence layer underneath a pick a buyer still trusts Regreener to have made.
What's explicitly not being asked: no partnership announcement, no co-marketing, no claim of adoption or endorsement, no change to how Regreener's vetting or pricing works today.
Regreener's whole model is "trust our analysts, we checked 100+ things you can't see." That trust is earned honestly: their framework is real, their listicles are what buyers actually procure from, and their agent-discovery gap is an honest absence, not a lie. EWP's model is the mirror image: don't trust us, check the chain yourself. This brief proposes it as the evidence layer underneath their curation, not instead of it.
