This is the target structure, not something already built. Each layer below states plainly what exists and what is still missing — when describing the future, calling an intention an achievement is the easiest mistake to make.
Each layer rests on the one beneath it. Skipping the bottom two and going straight to tokenization builds a financial product on sand — which is precisely the risk the discussion paper raised.
The foundation: real, verifiable, sustainably managed forest.
Turning "what is this forest worth, and why" into a comparable, reviewable language. This is the layer most likely to become a moat.
Letting tenure, management rights, timber, understory products, services and data transact under one standard.
Bringing people across the global forestry value chain into one identity and value network — the community itself is the data-production network.
This is not an "investor forum". It sorts the forestry value chain into three groups by contribution — and every group is both a contributor and a beneficiary of data.
The order cannot be skipped: ForestCoin is not the starting point, it is a layer near the end. Each phase below states its current status honestly.
| Phase | Name | What it does | Status today |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Forest ID | A standard identity per stand: location, area, tenure, species, age, volume, growth — with fixed fields and basis | Concept published on this site, not implemented: no registration entry, field standard or verification mechanism yet |
| 2 | Forest Value Standard | Write the valuation basis as a public, reviewable standard: four metrics, cash separated from accrual, balance sheet | Partly live: the Standard page and calculator are online, with a sourced parameter library |
| 3 | Forest Index | Build price indices on enough real samples (timber, land, carbon, biodiversity…) | Not implemented: an index needs real transactions and verified data, which we do not have |
| 4 | Forest Marketplace | On top of the standard and index, let tenure, timber, understory products, services, data and certification transact under one rulebook | Not implemented: today there is only information exchange in the forum, no matching or settlement |
| 5 | ForestCoin | Once the network exists, it needs its own value carrier | Not started: see the positioning note below |
This is the most important point in the discussion paper: ForestCoin should be redefined from a "financial product" into the pricing and settlement interface of a forest value network. Our position follows from that.
The legal boundary must be stated openly: `Token ≠ Forest Asset`. The legal structure in between (an SPV or contractual arrangement) cannot be omitted — if a token substantively represents ownership, income rights, profit sharing or investment return, it is likely to fall under securities regulation. The Hong Kong SFC has stated that security tokens are likely to be "securities" under the Securities and Futures Ordinance, so issuance and distribution may require a licence or an applicable exemption; its framework for secondary trading of tokenised products only opened in April 2026, mainly for authorised open-ended funds and on a case-by-case basis. This page is a positioning note only. It is not an offering, investment or legal opinion.
Stating what is *not* done as a conclusion rather than leaving a blank. These two parts of the structure are explicitly not in place — and we are not doing them now not because they are hard, but because doing them would mislead, or would carry compliance risk we cannot absorb.
The field standard is settled (disclosure, units, verification level), but registration needs rules first: who may query, how to withdraw, where data lives, what happens across borders. Opening registration before that means collecting other people’s forest data first and asking questions later — the risk sits with the registrant, not with us. So today there is only a locally generated record: no registry, no database receiving it.
A market is not another page. Matching and settlement involve licensed or qualifying entities, delivery of funds and rights, and dispute resolution. More fundamentally, a market cannot open without enough participants — and participants can only accumulate through the first four phases; they cannot be summoned by building a marketplace first.