Testing the Waters: Can TrueSight DAO?s Cacao Project Fight Exploitation and Save the Amazon?

So, I?m sitting here thinking about a question Tess Walkowski tossed at me in the TrueSight DAO WhatsApp channel the other day. She asked, ?Gary, when you sell a bag for $25, is that little $7 also your gas money? Lol ?? I had to laugh, but I also clarified: I?m not pocketing any cash from this. I?m just taking shares or voting rights in the DAO. This whole thing isn?t about making a quick buck?it?s an experiment I?m having fun with, a way to gather the last bits of market data to see if this model holds water. If it does, we iterate and keep going. If it doesn?t, I?m cool with dropping it and moving on to something else. No big deal.

Right now, I?m in wait-and-see mode with the Agroverse.shop cacao project under TrueSight DAO. I?ve stopped putting in more of my own money, and time-wise, I?m not bending over backward to contribute beyond what?s already in motion. I?ve told the shops to sell the bags between $25 and $35. Their cost price is $17, so they can mark it up within that range and keep the difference. Go for it, I say. Let?s see what the market has to say.

This project didn?t just pop into my head out of nowhere. It started with a connection I made through a member of TrueSight DAO who introduced me to a community based in Davos, Switzerland. These folks are laser-focused on social impact and environmental change?real, boots-on-the-ground stuff, not just talk. They got me thinking hard about the cacao trade and its broader effects. And when you start peeling back the layers, man, it?s not pretty. I came across an article on the World Economic Forum site (take a look here) that spells it out: the chocolate industry is dirty. Cacao farmers?especially in places like West Africa and South America?are getting exploited, often paid just 6% of the final sales proceeds while middlemen take the lion?s share.

It gets uglier. Dig into the economics, and you see how this ties straight to deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. Farmers aren?t earning enough to survive on cacao, so they pivot to cattle ranching or soy cultivation?stuff that carves up the forest even more. It?s a nasty loop: low pay fuels deforestation, which speeds up climate change. So, this cacao project with TrueSight DAO? It?s not just a business test. It?s an experiment to see if we can build a model that helps these farmers earn more?enough to stick with cacao and support Amazon rainforest restoration. Can we break that cycle of exploitation and environmental damage? That?s the big question I?m wrestling with.

Here?s how I?m hoping this works. For every pack sold through Agroverse.shop, I want the farmers to get up to 48% of the revenue proceeds. Compare that to the measly 6% they?re getting now?that?s a game-changer if we can pull it off. On top of that, any surplus funds should go toward planting trees, directly contributing to Amazon restoration. And then there?s the portion to keep the project alive?those proceeds are channeled into the value of voting rights, tokens, or TDG tokens issued to contributors in the DAO. It?s a way to sustain operations and reward those who are part of this experiment. It?s a balance, but if we get it right, it could be a model worth scaling.

Here?s where my head?s at?waiting for the sales data to roll in after this winter season. That?s the make-or-break moment. I?m asking myself: Will the sales proceeds be enough to cover the essentials? I?m talking about:

If the answer?s no, let?s keep it real?the DAO will collapse under its own weight. The ecosystem will just? end. And I?m fine with that. I?m not here to throw good money after bad or cling to something that?s not working. This isn?t personal; it?s just logic.

This mindset isn?t random. I?ve been thinking about Warren Buffett?s early days with Berkshire Hathaway, back when it was a struggling textile mill. I was reading their 50-year shareholder report (check it out here?it?s a solid read), and something clicked. Most owners would?ve taken whatever revenue came in and poured it back into new machinery, right? Keep the mill chugging along no matter what. But Buffett saw the numbers didn?t add up. Instead of doubling down on a losing bet, he redirected those resources into better opportunities. That?s how Berkshire became what it is today.

Key observation: It?s a masterclass in dodging the sunk cost fallacy. If the numbers don?t work, you don?t keep digging the hole?you pivot. And that?s exactly how I?m approaching TrueSight DAO. If the cacao project doesn?t prove viable, I?m not going to force it. We?ll take the lessons, the data, and move on to something else?maybe another angle to tackle exploitation or climate change.

For now, it?s all about watching and waiting. The shops are selling, the winter season is ticking along, and I?m keeping an eye on the numbers. Will the proceeds be enough to sustain the DAO, pay the farmers a fair share, and plant those trees? Or will we hit a wall and have to call it? I?m not emotionally tied to the outcome?I just want the data to tell the story.

Reflections for the day: There?s something grounding about approaching a project with this kind of clarity. No rose-colored glasses, no ?we?ve come too far to quit? nonsense. Just a simple question?does this work for the farmers, for the environment, for the DAO? If not, what?s next?

I?m curious?how do you handle projects that carry bigger stakes, like social or environmental impact? Do you push harder because of the cause, or do you lean on cold logic to decide when to pivot? And if you?ve got thoughts on TrueSight DAO, Agroverse.shop, or the fight against exploitation in the cacao trade, I?d love to hear them. Hit me up on LinkedIn?my handle is "Garyjob," or just Google "Gary T" and you?ll find the right profile.