The world’s race to decarbonize its economy has never needed carbon markets more. More than 28% of global emissions fall under a carbon price as of 2025 and voluntary markets reached a half-year high of 95 million carbon credit retirements in the first six months of the year. Demand is there, but scrutiny is even more so — buyers want to know that every credit they purchase actually reflects a genuine and unique reduction in emissions. At the core of this is a series of carbon registries, the official record-keepers of issuance, transfer and retirement of credits. They have always been the trusted “source of truth.” But as markets grow in scale and digitize, blockchain-based systems are arriving to supplement them — offering transparency, programmability, and efficiency. The question isn’t whether blockchain will replace registries (it won’t), but how the two might coexist to enhance trust and efficiency. This blog explores what traditional registries like Verra or Gold Standard offer in comparison to blockchain platforms, and the pros, cons, and risks of bringing the two together. We’ll also consider recent developments, such as India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme, and the growing popularity of high-integrity credits — before we answer the questions on the lips of businesses and investors in 2025. A quick primer: what a carbon registry actually does A carbon registry functions as the central, immutable ledger for carbon credits, assigning each one a serial number and accompanying documentation that proves its origins and lifespan. These ledgers are the assurance that buyers can check to prevent the risk of double-counting, and they confirm the approved methodology, the lineage of ownership, and that a credit has been permanently retired. The largest registries at present are Verra, operating under its Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), and Gold Standard. Why this matters in 2025: The carbon market is systematically prioritising “high-integrity” credits. Assessments of additionality, permanence, leakage and the formal consent of the host country, as mandated under the Article 6 framework of the Paris Agreement, have become increasingly stringent. Registry metadata and on-label indicators are thus being enhanced to allow purchasers to filter and evaluate credit quality before committing capital. Where blockchain fits (and where it doesn’t) What blockchain adds (when done right): Tamper-evident audit trails. Tamper-evident audit trails. Such on-chain records can potentially be used to trace all credit movement and every loan, with links to the serials on the registry and to the documents proving verification. Programmability. With smart contracts, escrow, dvp, retire-on-evidence milestones can all be automated (e.g., IOT/satellite proof on nature projects). Interoperability & liquidity. Tokens can be used to represent claims, make it possible for fractional ownership and create secondary markets – subject to the condition that the token is cryptographically bound to the originating serial and retirement status. Each carbon credit can be represented as a unique NFT (non-fungible token), meaning that just as every registry-issued credit has a distinct serial number, its on-chain version can be minted as an NFT with embedded metadata (project ID, methodology, MRV hashes). This ensures 1:1 traceability between the registry unit and the blockchain representation. Limits & Risks: (lessons from 2021–2024): What’s new in 2025 (and why it changes the calculus) Risks to Monitor Duplicate tokens: A credit token lacking a current registry serial may be erroneously repeated. Weak methodologies: Blockchain can’t fix poor additionality or permanence—it just records data.Regulatory drift: Regulatory texts (e.g. Article 6, CCTS) evolve, requiring adaptive technical designs. Liquidity vs. quality: Markets are prioritizing integrity over speculation in 2025. Pros & Cons: Side-by-Side Aspect Traditional Registries Blockchain Layers Trust Accepted by regulators, airlines, and corporations. Adds transparency if linked properly; otherwise creates risk. Data Comprehensive but siloed, sometimes slow to update. Open, real-time records accessible globally. Efficiency Manual processes, limited automation. Smart contracts automate transfers and settlements. Risk Low, as long as registry governance holds. High if tokens are unbacked or duplicated. How they work together (the practical stack) Blueprint for 2025 infrastructures, suitable for both developers and buyers: Origin within a recognized registry (Verra or Gold Standard). Treat the registry as the definitive source for serials, holder data, and retirement events. The registry retains primacy. Create a permissioned, append-only on-chain replica, recording serials, approved methodology IDs, and hashes from the validation report. Frame tokens within strict boundaries: Leverage programmable contracts for delivery-versus-payment, escrow, and milestone releases—especially suited for nature-based projects with staged verification. Publish quality metadata—new GS labels and risk ratings—directly on-chain. This enables buyers to filter by integrity before executing transactions. Concrete signals in India: Both public and private sectors are advancing carbon-credit infrastructure, from regionally mandated carbon banks on Hedera to NABARD’s on-farm pilots. Growing demand is anticipated for digital MRV and interoperable slugs that externally settle while still keyed to the on-chart registry. Real-world examples (2025) Quick buyer checklist (2025) Bottom line Always treat the Verra and Gold Standard registries as authoritative for issuance, ownership, and retirement. Use the blockchain as an additive, not as an alternative, channel for transparent and automated processes—registry governance remains sovereign. NFT structures make sense only when each NFT directly mirrors a registry serial; without that link, they become shadow assets. Implement a 1:1 token-to-serial linkage with automated on-chain burn triggered by registry retirement, designed expressly to avert double counting. Synchronize with CCTS, CORSIA, Article 6 provisions, and the latest registry tags. The threshold for integrity is trending upwards, and 2025 data is already showing that buyers are steering toward supply that is evidently higher quality. FAQs Which is “better”: blockchain or traditional registries?Neither stands alone. Registries confer authority; blockchain brings speed and traceability. Can I make valid climate claims with just a token?No. Claims depend on a registry retirement (and any Article 6 or CORSIA stipulations). Tokens must cite those retirements. What statistics define 2025’s market?About 28% of emissions will sit under a carbon-priced system; retirements will hit 95 million in the first half of 2025—a record for any half. Does India’s CCTS allow tokenized trading?CCTS lays out compliance frameworks and targets; token frameworks must
