The Pillars of Value help the DAO decide what is worth funding.
A farm proposal can look promising on paper and still fail to create durable community value. The Pillars of Value are Kokonut’s evaluation lens for separating short-term financial return from deeper, lasting value.They help DAO members, Guild Stewards, grant reviewers, farm operators, and contributors answer one question before funding, operating, or reporting on a farm:
Does this farm create genuine value for people, land, governance, and public goods — or only revenue for funders?
Use this page when reviewing farm proposals, preparing a Kokonut Development Proposal, writing grants, or translating farm activity into annual impact reports.
6
value questions
13
schema fields
8
forms of capital
MRV
evidence layer
DAO
review process
The Pillars of Value are an evaluation framework, not a guarantee of financial return, carbon credit issuance, farm performance, or funding approval. A farm still needs complete data, clear budgets, realistic assumptions, local execution capacity, and MRV evidence.
The pillars convert a farm story into a reviewable case for community funding.
Without the pillars
With the pillars
A proposal says the farm will “help the community.”
The proposal names who benefits, how much, and how outcomes will be measured.
Revenue is treated as the main proof of value.
Revenue is evaluated alongside ecology, jobs, training, public goods, and risk.
Risks are minimized or hidden.
Risks are documented before funding and tied to mitigation plans.
Impact is described after the fact.
Impact categories are defined at the time of proposal and tracked through MRV.
Each farm is a one-off story.
Farms become comparable through shared schema fields, pillars, and capital forms.
The Common Data Schema provides the farm record. The Pillars of Value interpret that record. The 8 Forms of Capital help measure the value created. MRV turns operational activity into evidence.
Core question: What is the farm trying to produce, restore, teach, or prove?This pillar establishes the farm’s reason for existing beyond financial return. A strong answer explains what agricultural, ecological, economic, and community outcomes the farm is designed to produce.
Adelphi establishes a 15,725 m² regenerative agro-ecological production model in Monte Plata, Dominican Republic. It combines short-cycle lettuce, medium-cycle passion fruit, long-cycle coconut, native species conservation, organic education, and market access into one working farm system.See Adelphi Summary →
Core question: Who is affected if the farm succeeds?This pillar maps the full circle of stakeholders: not only farm founders and investors, but workers, neighboring communities, market customers, learners, DAO members, local ecosystems, and future farms that will reuse the methodology.
Adelphi directly supports Yanny and Neury Hernández, seven community jobs, and the batey and Haty communities near Gonzalo. Indirect beneficiaries include Monte Plata organic market customers, DAO members, neighboring communities receiving native seedlings, and future Kokonut farms that learn from Adelphi’s implementation.
Core question: At what scale will the farm create value?This pillar turns broad impact claims into numbers. A proposal that says “we will create jobs” or “restore land” is not enough; reviewers need measurable baselines, forecast assumptions, and actuals that can be tracked over time.
Forecasts are planning assumptions. They should be compared against actual harvests, sales, costs, weather conditions, and MRV records before being treated as performance claims.
Current Adelphi planning metrics include a total area of 15,725 m², 13,838 m² of agricultural area, 7 jobs, 110 hens producing about 100 eggs per day, 12+ at-risk native species, and projected annual gross revenue based on crop forecasts.Read the harvest forecast →
Core question: What does the farm add that would not exist without it?Contribution captures value that does not always appear on a balance sheet: ecological restoration, community learning, cultural continuity, shared tools, local infrastructure, open data, and governance capacity.
Core question: What could fail, and what has the farm designed to reduce that risk?A strong proposal does not hide uncertainty. It identifies risks early and provides reviewers with a practical mitigation plan.
Risk category
What can go wrong
Mitigation examples
Agronomic
Crop failure, pests, disease, and low soil fertility
Proposal delays, unclear accountability, and weak reporting
Required proposal fields, DAO review, Guild oversight
Data quality
Incomplete records, weak MRV, unverifiable claims
Farm Registry payloads, Data Hub, EAS attestations, field logs
CRISP and EBF can support risk and impact assessment, but farms should avoid treating carbon or ecological claims as verified until the methodology, field data, and reporting process support them.
Adelphi’s risks include delayed long-cycle coconut revenue, weather variability, certification timelines, market access, and execution complexity. Its mitigations include short-cycle lettuce revenue, multi-crop diversification, syntropic soil cover, on-site bioinputs, poultry integration, and public MRV records.
Core question: What community benefit is built into the revenue model?Kokonut farms should not treat public benefit as an afterthought. The public goods pillar documents which community activities are funded, who they serve, and how they are reported.
Adelphi allocates 10% of gross revenue toward public goods, including workshops, native species distribution, education programs, the gazebo, and biodiversity nursery operations. These activities should be reported separately from commercial revenue and tied to the Data Hub or annual impact reporting.
A farm is not ready for a DAO funding proposal until it can answer every pillar with enough specificity for review.
Readiness question
Ready when…
WHAT is clear?
The farm explains what it will produce, restore, teach, or prove.
WHO is clear?
Direct and indirect beneficiaries are named.
HOW MUCH is clear?
Land, jobs, revenue, public goods, and impact baselines are quantified.
Is the contribution clear?
The farm explains what it adds beyond private revenue.
Is RISK clear?
Risks are named with practical mitigations.
Are public goods clear?
Allocation percentage, activities, beneficiaries, and the reporting process are defined.
Is the evidence path clear?
The proposal explains how progress will be tracked through MRV, Data Hub, reports, or attestations.
Is accountability clear?
Responsible people, Guilds, milestones, and reporting duties are named.
If any pillar is vague, the proposal should remain in drafting. A weak pillar is usually a sign that the farm needs more discovery, budgeting, stakeholder mapping, or MRV planning before asking the DAO for support.
“The farm will create seven jobs, host monthly workshops, distribute native seedlings, and allocate 10% of gross revenue to public goods.”
“We will grow organic food.”
“The crop plan includes short-cycle lettuce, medium-cycle passion fruit, long-cycle coconut, and free-range eggs with harvest records published to the Data Hub.”
“The farm will restore nature.”
“Restoration will be tracked through soil monitoring, ground cover, biodiversity inventory, and vegetation indices.”
“Risks are low.”
“Primary risks are weather, certification delays, market access, and long-cycle payback; each has a mitigation plan.”
“Impact will be reported.”
“Farm activity will be logged as structured records, connected to MRV events, and included in annual impact reporting.”
