Thanks for this.

A few problems I see with this.

Whenever someone discusses "intrinsic" value as does the EarthCoin, red flags go up in my mind. In economic theory there is no such thing as intrinsic value, that is something has value in of itself because it has value. It's a circular logic that doesn't make sense and is often used in finance, but what they're really talking about is something more like book value. Value is subjective in all regards so for something to have value because it has value doesn't make sense to me. I'd need to see them address this issue before I can agree that something could be backed with $3T worth of assets.

One other note, if they are to value things like air, water, trees, etc. are they using markets to do this? Are they looking at the forestry futures and marking them to market on the books? I'm not asking you specifically, just raising the question.

That said it's a nice idea. I just need more proof of the concept.