Introduction

As our global systems strain under the weight of environmental, social, and economic challenges, a quiet revolution is unfolding at the intersection of blockchain and sustainability: Regenerative Finance, or ReFi.

Regenerative Finance signals a profound reimagination for how we measure value, structure incentives, and define economies that serve both people and the planet. However, if you ask 10 people what ReFi means, you might get 10 different answers. Despite growing momentum and increased visibility, the ReFi movement remains poorly understood, fragmented, and under-coordinated. In this article we will take a hard look at what ReFi is, why it is so difficult to define, the challenges it faces, and what it will take to unify and mature the movement.

Defining ReFi

The Regenerative Finance movement, in the broadest sense possible, refers to the design of financial systems that restore and revitalize their surrounding social and ecological environments. Unlike traditional finance, which prioritizes short-term profit maximization (often at the cost of long-term stability), ReFi seeks to embed regeneration into the core logic of financial instruments and markets.

While ReFi borrows languages and principles from ecological economics, permaculture, systems thinking, and social justice movements, it is rooted firmly in the capabilities of distributed ledger technologies. The development of programmable money, decentralized governance, transparent ledgers, and tokenized assets enable a world of possibilities to redesign our social and environmental institutions.

In practical terms, ReFi spans a wide range of current use-cases including:

• Tokenizing Carbon Credits for environmental markets.

• Supporting local economic resilience through new community currencies.

• Coordinating Public Goods funding with Quadratic, Retroactive, and other experimental funding models.

• Empowering Regenerative land use projects through DAO’s, NFT’s, and other tokenized assets.

• Redesigning ownership, finance, and governance structures with more democratic mechanisms.

ReFi is not a singular protocol or project. It is a paradigm shift that treats regeneration as the new standard for legitimacy in financial design.

Despite its clarity of intent, ReFi still defies definition. This is not just a branding problem, it's a reflection of the movement's interdisciplinary nature, and its philosophical and ideological ambitions. Unlike DeFi, which can be charted in TVL, tokens, and protocols, ReFi resists quantification because it doesn’t just focus on what you’re building, but how and why you’re building it. ReFi cares about externalities, time horizons, local contexts, and the experience of its users.

It draws from indigenous stewardship principles, post- growth philosophies, blockchain enabled coordination, climate justice, mutual aid, and hundreds of other inputs that speak different conceptual languages, making it difficult to articulate a unified theory and approach.

ReFi blends financial innovation with democratic experiments. It involves DAO’s, governance tokens, experimental voting procedures, social incentives, and allocation mechanisms designed to distribute value to underserved populations and specific causes, all of which stretch the definitions and metrics of traditional finance.

Where the Movement Stalls: Key Challenges Facing ReFi

Despite the growing energy and optimism surrounding ReFi, the movement remains in a formative stage where the seeds of coordination failure are beginning to emerge. This is reflective in the diverse viewpoints regarding how ReFi’s vision should be interpreted and structured. Some view ReFi as a way to simply “greenwash” DeFi. Others see it as an anti-capitalist redesign of value itself. Some want scalable infrastructure for ESG compliance, while others want local mutual credit systems.

These overlapping but distinct visions create ambiguity and tension when we try to communicate the importance of the ReFi movement. And despite the movement's moral transparency, ReFi faces some really tough challenges. To move forward together, we must confront these obstacles with collaboration. Below, we explore some of the critical challenges currently facing the ReFi ecosystem.

Challenge #1: Lack of Clear Metrics

ReFi’s core promise, regenerative outcomes, is really, really difficult to quantify. Carbon offsets can be gamed, soil health takes years to verify, and social capital often resists financialization. Unfortunately, ReFi must measure impact that is often slow, non-linear, and deeply context specific. Without rigorous, transparent metrics, it’s very hard to build trust with potential funders, regulators, or the general public.

For example, tokenized carbon credits was heralded as a breakthrough until accusations surfaced about junk credits and double counting. Critics rightly pointed out that many credits originated from decades-old forestry projects with questionable baselines and minimal verification. Without standardized, trustworthy methodologies, even well intentioned projects can perpetuate greenwashing.

A failure to establish trusted measurement tools undermines credibility, and ReFi will continue to struggle in attracting institutional capital or build meaningful regulatory partnerships unless it develops robust, tamper-proof, and context aware metrics. Without this, it risks replicating the same extractive incentives it seeks to dismantle, albeit, with better branding.

Challenge #2: Fragmentation

The ReFi movement is sprawling. Dozens of projects exist across multiple chains, using different governance models, and targeting different verticals (climate, agriculture, community currencies, public goods, etc.). There is little shared infrastructure or common narrative. Local experiments have been able to engage community members for a short period of time, but there is very little incentive for them to continue participating without these experiments being a component part within a larger unified substrate.

ReFi’s fragmentation weakens collective leverage. Without coordination, promising solutions never scale, and funders can’t see the big picture. The absence of a shared narrative or technical baseline makes it difficult to create policy traction, public awareness, or shared infrastructure that lowers barriers for new entrants.

Challenge #3: Reliance on Web3 Insiders

Many of the ReFi projects that exist are built by crypto-native teams who are socially and culturally distant from the communities they hope to serve. Consider the cases of community currency and mutual credit systems that have been piloted within many cities across the globe.

Several well-funded entities have funded these experiments, only to see participation within them drop sharply once the experiment’s funding had ended. The onboarding processes were clunky, language translations were poor, and most locals failed to understand the value proposition beyond the immediate incentives provided to them. These aren’t failures of intention, but of user experience, cultural relevance, and co-design.

ReFi cannot scale if it speaks only to itself. The user experience is poor, language is jargon-filled, and onboarding requires technical literacy. The lack of human centered designs are not minor bugs, but structural failures that exclude the very communities most vital to producing regenerative outcomes. If ReFi is serious about transformation, it must invest as much in listening and learning as it does in protocol design.

Challenge #4: Regulatory Uncertainty

ReFi operates in the same murky legal waters as the broader crypto space, and even more so when dealing with real-world communities. Tokenized impact assets like carbon credits or biodiversity indices blur the lines between commodities, securities, and donations. Many jurisdictions don’t know how to classify these instruments let alone regulate them.

Tokenized carbon markets, for example, raise questions about compliance, accountability, and legitimacy. Many of the financial instruments, incorporation structures, and activities proposed by ReFi projects lack legal recognition on any level. Risk-averse institutions (including local governments and cooperatives) will not engage until frameworks can offer legal pathways for impact assets, community tokens, and decentralized governance outcomes to exist. Without legal clarity, many groundbreaking initiatives remain stuck in pilot mode, and we currently have no official lobbying body to identify the laws and legislation (relevant to ReFi & Localism) to get us out.

Challenge #5: Funding

Public Goods don’t monetize easily, and ReFi is fundamentally about stewarding a Commons, which places it at odds with the dominant logic of venture capital. Many projects are too early-stage, too experimental, or too morally motivated to appeal to profit-maximizing investors.

While retroactive funding models (like OP and Gitcoin’s Retroactive Public Goods Funding) offer hope, most projects still struggle to secure a runway, or move their projects from 0 to 1. While these funding experiments are still in their infancy, they rely on complex attribution models and require robust data trails that many early-stage ReFi projects can’t yet provide.

Meanwhile, speculative capital in this space flows toward trendier narratives such as AI and Infrastructure, and ReFi will continue to struggle if they can’t tap into new sources of long-term funding that allow them to compete with existing, incumbent institutions.

Without new funding paradigms, ReFi risks becoming a graveyard of beautiful ideas. To survive and thrive, the movement must cultivate new forms of regenerative capital in the long-term that are non-extractive, and aligned with the desired impact. This might mean the creation of hybrid structures, impact DAO’s, public benefit corporations, or new forms of cooperative financing that combine public and private stakeholders in creative ways.

Moving Forward

These challenges are not insurmountable, nor are they unique to ReFi. They echo the growing pains of any nascent movement attempting to rewire powerful systems while staying true to their values. What makes ReFi unique, however, is its dual commitment to deep regeneration and technological experimentation. That duality creates both complexity and opportunity. By acknowledging these tensions early and working through them collaboratively, the movement can avoid repeating the pitfalls of past paradigms and instead chart a more inclusive, resilient, and transformative path forward. The good news is that many ReFi practitioners are already developing promising strategies to meet these challenges head on.

With that being said, if ReFi is to fulfill its promise, it must mature beyond a handful of hopeful projects into a coordinated ecosystem capable of transforming real-world institutions. We can start making gains in that direction by developing important infrastructure such as:

1. A Shared Narrative & Taxonomy

   A movement without a coherent language struggles to coordinate. ReFi is currently a patchwork of intentions, vocabularies, and philosophies. Developing a shared narrative and taxonomy means defining a mental map that organizes the ReFi ecosystem and makes it easier to navigate.

   By creating a visual map or open database that categorizes ReFi projects across verticals (climate, water, food, education, etc.), value logics (offsets, mutual credit, retroactive rewards), and technology stacks (Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana, etc.) we can prevent unnecessary competition and duplication of efforts over the provision of public goods infrastructure.

   In addition to a ReFi map, establishing a glossary of terms through a living document that standardizes key concepts and developing community frameworks can go a long way in creating a shared language. By creating narrative templates or identity frameworks like “Open Systems ReFi”, “Localized ReFi”, and “Policy-Driven ReFi” we can help projects self-categorize while still participating in the broader ecosystem.

   The ReFi DAO has made tremendous strides already towards these goals in the continued development of their ReFi ecosystem dashboard. These tools will help funders, researchers, and policymakers engage in a more meaningful and outcome focused manner.

2. A Unified Onboarding Process

   ReFi tools are often locked behind jargon, crypto-literacy, and friction heavy UX. If we want farmers in Kenya, city officials in Brazil, and educators in India to engage meaningfully, we must develop intuitive onboarding pipelines that accommodate non-Web3 natives.

   One way to do this is by allowing users to interact initially via email or social logins, postponing the need to create a crypto wallet until later.

   It’s also important to design experiences that start with discussing real-world problems rather than the technical infrastructure that seeks to solve them, and only progressively revealing the underlying terminology such as “DAO’s” or “smart-contracts” until the users become more comfortable.

   Cultural and linguistic localization is another key factor. UX matters, but so does cultural translation. Onboarding flows, educational materials, and app interfaces should be tailored not only to different languages, but also to specific cultural and social contexts that create low-barriers of entry.

   Building on this, a network of trained ambassadors or “ReFi Embassies” could provide in-person workshops, facilitate access to resources, and guide participants through the ecosystem within their own communities. The GreenPill Network already has several chapters all over the globe which could serve the foundations for this.

   Grassroots Economics offers an excellent example, having successfully deployed mutual credit systems via SMS-based tools and community training programs. Ultimately, reducing onboarding friction is one of the highest leverage opportunities to grow the ReFi movement.

3. A Shared Technical Infrastructure

   Currently, many ReFi projects are reinventing the wheel, building their own smart-contracts, wallets, ledgers, and oracles from scratch. This is not only inefficient but also prevents the ecosystem from benefiting from network effects and shared credibility.

   Instead, ReFi should invest in modular, open-source toolkits and interoperable standards that can serve as common infrastructure across projects. This could include libraries for token standards (such as a standard for carbon-backed tokens), tools for decentralized verification, and APIs for data integration from environmental sensors or registries.

   Providing templates for “Impact DAOs-as-a-Service” could help new initiatives spin up quickly, embedding best practices in governance, budgeting, and impact tracking from day one. Likewise, credentialing systems based on verifiable credentials or soulbound tokens could help establish reputational layers that reward trustworthy participation and impact.

   Some early contributors in this space, such as the Regen Network are already building modular data layers and registries that can plug into other systems, offering a preview of what shared infrastructure can achieve. By reducing duplication and enabling interoperability, this approach strengthens the ReFi movement’s technical foundation and accelerates collaborative development.

4. A Long-Term Funding & Governance Structure

   The regenerative vision underpinning ReFi is inherently long-term, but most current funding and governance mechanisms remain short-term and reactive. To bridge this gap, the movement needs models that reward stewardship and long-term engagement rather than speculation or short-term returns. One promising approach is the use of hypercerts and impact certificates that gain value over time as outcomes are verified and recognized. These allow funders to reward meaningful work retroactively and align incentives more closely with actual results.

   New token models can also play a significant role. For example, experimental token models (like demurrage) could be designed so that their value will decay over time unless actively used, encouraging continual participation rather than hoarding. Governance systems should likewise evolve beyond simple token voting and seek to include reputation scores, verified credentials (such as TQF), or quadratic voting to better reflect real-world contributions and avoid plutocracy.

   Finally, incentives must go beyond financial rewards. Cultural recognition through digital badges, community titles, or storytelling can be layered on top of financial mechanisms to appeal to a broader range of motivational drivers. With thoughtful alignment of time-horizons, values and rewards, ReFi can maintain integrity and momentum as it grows.

Design for Durability

The challenges laid out here are real, but they are not impossible to solve. What makes ReFi compelling isn’t that it’s already figured everything out, but that it forces us to ask deeper questions about what our financial systems should be doing in the first place. The movement is still young and messy, but it’s full of people experimenting with new ways to measure value, allocate resources, and center long-term outcomes. That energy is powerful, even if it’s currently fragmented. The next step is converting that experimentation into shared infrastructure and coordinated action by building tools and frameworks that lower the barrier to entry while preserving the movement’s complexity and nuance.

We don’t need to agree on everything to move forward, but we do need places to ask better questions, compare notes, and challenge each other constructively. That’s where our energy should go now: developing common ground, practical toolkits, and a culture of learning that helps us grow together. ReFi isn’t a silver bullet, and it probably won’t solve systemic crises on its own, but it does offer a testbed for how finance might be reoriented toward care, resilience, and stewardship. If we can stay engaged through the complexities long enough, we can build durable systems that are actually fit for purpose.

Join this Conversation within the Token Engineering Commons Forum.  If you are interested in writing for the publication, giving your thoughts on an article, or wanting to engage in the future of real-world blockchain initiatives, please introduce yourself in the forum, or reach out to us independently.

“The Commons are still alive. And the work continues.”

Follow us on X, subscribe to our newsletter, or reach out if you’re exploring similar topics in your work. Let’s build what comes next, together.