Revenue Streams & Pricing (IS1–IS5)
CeibaQ builds the evidence once and sells it five ways. The same signed data layer, produced from one reference model of the Amazon, feeds five income streams, each priced to a different buyer with a different reason to pay. Because the layer is built once and reused, the cost of serving the next customer is close to zero, so the gross margin widens as the business grows rather than thinning.
The five streams split across two buyer worlds. In the carbon and forest world, governments and the climate funds that pay them buy verified proof of forest carbon and the degradation hidden under the canopy. In the data and finance world, companies, reinsurers and bond issuers license the layer behind their own products. One data spine serves both, which is why a single field deployment can be monetised against several markets at once.
| Stream | Who pays | Unit price | Gross margin (model) | 2035 share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IS1 · Jurisdictional Verification | governments and forest jurisdictions (REDD+ programs) | $0.20 / hectare / year | ~88% | 54.5% |
| IS2 · Enterprise Data License | corporates, reinsurers, supply-chain and ESG | $300,000–$550,000 / client / year | ~96% | 34.6% |
| IS3 · Monitoring-as-a-Service | private carbon-project developers | $0.50–$2.00 / hectare | 57–79% | 4.3% |
| IS4 · Outcome Verification | green and nature-bond issuers | $150,000 per $100M bond / year (15 bps) | ~29% | 3.2% |
| IS5 · Natural-Capital Accounting | governments (national accounts) | $525,000 / jurisdiction | ~30% | 3.4% |
Pricing and margins are management estimates from the cost-to-serve model, expressed as gross contribution before full overhead and depreciation, not net profit. The 2035 mix is a forward estimate gated on execution, on a blended gross contribution near 86% and a modelled portfolio revenue of about $108M. There are zero signed buyer commitments as of June 2026; every margin moves directly with price. The year-by-year ramp sits in Financials. REDD+ refers to programs that pay countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
Two streams carry the business. Jurisdictional verification is the volume engine at more than half of modelled revenue; the enterprise data license is the margin engine at near-zero marginal cost. The other three are smaller, higher-touch, and open later. What follows sets out, for each stream, who buys it, why they buy it, and why they will pay the price in the table. The price logic below is taken directly from the cost-to-serve model.
IS1 · Jurisdictional Verification — the volume engine
What it is. A government running a REDD+ program sells a signed, verified statement of two things: that its forest is standing, and where that forest is being degraded. The product is a Jurisdictional Compliance Layer: an annual signed and hashed report, an API feed, and a methodology map tied to the national forest-monitoring system and to the ART-TREES standard that governs jurisdiction-scale forest payments. It is priced at $0.20 per hectare of the jurisdiction's licensed coverage per year, on a five-year contract. The volume driver is licensed third-party coverage, not CeibaQ's own concession, ramping in the model from 35 million to roughly 295 million hectares as more jurisdictions sign.
Who pays, and who actually pays. The customer of record is the national or regional forest authority. In Peru that is the regional government of Loreto (GOREL) together with the national forest service (SERFOR) and the environment ministry's REDD+ office (MINAM). But the authority itself has almost no budget of its own. The cash comes from a climate fund, and the jurisdiction engages CeibaQ as the verification subcontractor inside that funded program. So the buyer universe behind IS1 is really the funds: the multilateral forest funds (the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, the LEAF Coalition through Emergent, the Green Climate Fund, the World Bank's carbon funds), the bilateral donors (Norway's program with Peru is live), and the sovereign buyers under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement (Singapore has two REDD+ projects in Peru). The first contract of record is with GOREL in Loreto.
Why they buy. A fund's payment to a jurisdiction is tied by contract to verified forest data: no verification, no payment. That makes the willingness to pay intrinsic. But deforestation — the clearing of whole stands — the buyer already gets for free from public satellites such as Global Forest Watch, so it will not pay again for that. The value sits in degradation: the selective logging, thinning, new roads, edge effects and fire damage that happen under the canopy, which a 10-to-30-metre satellite pixel cannot see. That is the single differentiator of IS1, and it is the reason a jurisdiction pays at all.
Why they will pay $0.20 a hectare. This is the price logic from the model, and it is value-based, not cost-plus. Under the ART-TREES 2.0 standard, the creditable tonnes a jurisdiction can sell are reduced by 0.3188 times the ninety-percent confidence interval of its measurement uncertainty, with no free allowance. CeibaQ's in-situ sensors and drone-LiDAR cut sub-canopy degradation uncertainty from a satellite-only level of roughly 60% down to about 30%, which hands back about 0.038 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per hectare per year that would otherwise have been deducted. Those recovered credits are worth $0.38 to $0.57 per hectare at LEAF prices of $10 to $15 a tonne, or $1.15 to $1.53 per hectare at Article 6.2 prices of $30 to $40 a tonne, against our fee of $0.20. The jurisdiction earns back two to eight times what it pays us. The mechanism is verified against the ART-TREES rules directly; the exact magnitude is gated on the field pilot, where the 60-to-30 bracket has to be proven in a paired study rather than asserted.
Where the demand is real. Norway's bilateral program with Peru is live, paying roughly $10 a tonne through the national environmental fund PROFONANPE, and its standard already requires degradation and uncertainty accounting. The LEAF Coalition, paying $10 to $15 a tonne under ART-TREES, requires degradation to be measured, so tighter measurement converts directly into money. Singapore's Article 6.2 purchases are the most concrete near-term match, with two Peru REDD+ projects and an implementation agreement in force. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility, launched at COP30, pays a flat rate per hectare and its degradation methods are only opening in 2026, so it is a larger but slower buyer. There is also a higher-margin variant modelled on Norway's NICFI program, where a donor pays for a public-good degradation layer; we carry that as upside, not base case, and only behind a firewall that keeps the underlying model private.
Status and gates. IS1 is real but unsigned. The gates ahead of the first contract are concrete: a letter of intent from GOREL with a hectare number that fixes the denominator; a field pilot proving biomass error under 15% on roughly a fifth of the area; a peer-reviewed validation of the reference model with a liability clause; and a payment structure routed through PROFONANPE to manage the regional government's thin budget execution. Pre-revenue, no signed customers, and this stream is the largest single reason the first signature matters.
IS2 · Enterprise Data License — the margin engine
What it is. This stream licenses data CeibaQ has already collected, with no new field work, so the cost of serving each additional client is effectively zero. It is sold not as raw data, which is free, but as a calibration layer: the input that makes a buyer's own satellite or AI model accurate where it is weakest, which is the tropics. The pitch is direct: your model is only as good as your ground truth, your worst region is the Amazon, and we fix that. It is a recurring annual subscription with API access, in two tiers, $300,000 without the environmental-DNA layer (about 70% of clients) and $550,000 with it (about 30%).
Who buys it. Four buyer types, each licensing the layer for a different product of their own.
| Buyer | What they receive | Why they pay |
|---|---|---|
| Reinsurers (Swiss Re, Munich Re, AXA type) | a calibration layer that prices basis risk on parametric nature and climate cover | mispricing the Amazon is expensive; the layer costs far less than 1% of the risk it de-risks |
| EUDR importers (commodity and supply-chain) | a signed deforestation-free attestation: timestamp plus polygon hash | the EU Deforestation Regulation requires defensible proof, and no incumbent signs it |
| Disclosure-driven corporates (TNFD and CSRD reporters) | verified nature-state data in audit-grade form | mandatory nature and sustainability reporting needs evidence a free satellite layer cannot supply |
| Earth-model and geospatial-AI developers | a ground-truth layer that corrects tropical bias | their models under-read tropical biomass by 15–40%; building the ground layer themselves costs $5–15M |
Why they buy. Each buyer has a number at risk that dwarfs the fee. A reinsurer underwriting parametric cover on forests has to price basis risk — the gap between what its model assumes and what is really on the ground — and getting the Amazon wrong is expensive. An importer under the EU Deforestation Regulation needs a defensible, signed deforestation-free attestation for goods with exposure in the millions to billions, and the monitoring vendors that exist today provide tracking, not a signature. A corporate reporting under the nature and sustainability disclosure frameworks (TNFD and CSRD) needs audit-grade nature data that free satellite layers cannot provide. And an Earth-model developer whose product under-reads tropical biomass by 15 to 40% can either license our calibration or spend $5 to $15 million building the ground layer itself.
Why they will pay $300,000 to $550,000. Both tiers sit at or above the band that comparable nature-data companies already charge, which means it is a price buyers are used to paying competitors. Sylvera's licenses run $50,000 to $250,000 and the company reports about $15M in recurring revenue; NatureMetrics serves more than 600 clients including Unilever, Nestlé and Tesco. For a reinsurer pricing basis risk or an importer with million-to-billion exposure, the fee is far below one percent of the risk it removes, while our marginal cost per client is near zero because each new license simply reuses the already-built model. The higher tier is a premium for the differentiated biodiversity layer that the environmental-DNA data adds.
The proof, and the two waves. The first demand wave is real and near, in nine to eighteen months: the reinsurers and the EU-compliance importers. The second wave, the geospatial-AI and Earth-model developers, is an option for 2027 and beyond and is carried as upside, not base case. The pattern is already visible in the market. The Symbiosis Coalition, formed by Google, Meta, Microsoft and Salesforce, is the largest corporate commitment for nature-based removals, up to 20 million tonnes by 2030, and it buys the data to screen projects rather than buying tonnes in bulk. The disclosure side is moving too: the TNFD Nature Data Facility launched in 2025 with 620 organisations behind it. And the competitors that read the forest from a distance — Planet, Pachama and CarbonAI — all depend on ground truth they do not own in the Amazon, which is what turns them into customers.
Status, gates and the one binding constraint. The binding constraint on IS2 is willingness to pay, not affordability: the layer has to be sold as a verified rating or calibration product a buyer can put in front of its risk committee, never as raw data, which is free. The hard gate, the one without which this revenue is zero, is a measured accuracy benchmark showing how much better our layer is than the free satellite baselines such as NASA's GEDI; no buyer signs without it. Every license carries a no-training and no-reconstruction clause, and the environmental-DNA data stays behind a Nagoya-Protocol access firewall until the legal agreements are in place. At about 96% gross contribution, this is the highest-margin stream and a third of modelled revenue.
IS3 · Monitoring-as-a-Service
What it is, and who buys it. This is the one stream whose buyer is a private company rather than a public institution: a carbon-project developer, the kind of firm that builds and registers forest-carbon projects. Mombak and Re.green are examples, alongside Amazon REDD+ and reforestation developers. CeibaQ sells them a continuous in-situ monitoring feed, delivered as a live API and a read-only dashboard, that makes their credits issuance-grade. The developer keeps the methodology and the registration; CeibaQ supplies the data underneath. It is a recurring per-project subscription with a twelve-month minimum, priced at $0.50 a hectare for the carbon layer, $1.50 for the biodiversity layer and $2.00 for both.
The channels that drive the demand. Behind the developer sit the forces that make this monitoring necessary. Article 6.2 sovereign buyers such as Singapore and Switzerland's KliK foundation require issuance-grade verification for the credits they buy through developers. The ratings agencies, Sylvera and BeZero, want an independent integrity feed. The aviation offset scheme CORSIA pushes the same way. None of these pays CeibaQ directly per project; they are the demand pressure that pushes the developer to license our layer.
Why they buy, and why $0.50 to $2.00 a hectare. A developer pays for two concrete things: a real-time degradation alert, so it can react before the verification period closes; and an independent integrity layer that a ratings agency will trust, which lowers the discount applied to its credits and raises their price. The price is set deliberately below the original $1-to-$3 range so the product clears against high-integrity economics rather than bulk voluntary credits. Under Article 6.2 a tonne is worth $30 to $40, against roughly $6 in the voluntary market, so on about 0.4 tonnes per hectare a developer's carbon revenue is $12 to $16 a hectare and our $0.50 carbon fee is only three to four percent of it, against twenty-one percent on voluntary — which is why we target Article 6.2 work. The carbon tier is the thin-margin entry point that lands a multi-year relationship; the margin is earned on the biodiversity and full tiers.
Status and gates. A developer replaces its monitoring stack, it does not add to it, so CeibaQ has to displace an existing setup such as Winrock plus Planet at around $200,000. The gates are specific: the API must return uncertainty and signed provenance with every value or third-party validators will reject it; the output has to qualify as allowed evidence under the relevant Verra forest methodology; our nodes have to be calibrated against the developer's own field plots at least once before the first verification. The sector proof point is Pachama, acquired by Carbon Direct in 2025 for about $88M, which both sets an exit ceiling and shows the same field-plot ground truth is what these companies need.
IS4 · Outcome Verification
What it is. This stream sells the independent verification of an ecological result behind a green or nature debt instrument — a sustainability-linked bond, an outcome bond, or a debt-for-nature swap — where a verified number triggers a coupon or a payout. It is an annual verification per instrument, and because these instruments run five to twenty years, the revenue recurs. The guiding idea is to sell to the party that loses money if the claim is false, the bond issuer carrying the risk, not the party that writes the glossy impact report.
Who buys, and why 15 basis points. The buyer is the risk-holder: most often a development bank issuing the instrument. The World Bank's Rhino Bond ($150M, 2022) and its Amazon Outcome Bond ($225M, 2024) are the template, with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the outcome-funder behind the payout. These instruments move large sums and tie the payout to a measured result, so without independent verification the issuer carries a bluewashing risk. There is no disclosed comparable fee for outcome verification anywhere; the only anchor is desk-grade review (a Climate Bonds certification ~0.1 bps; a full opinion-plus-assurance package $20,000–$100,000, ~0.4–2 bps a year). CeibaQ's verification is field-grade and cash-gating — the count-and-verify model that actually releases the coupon — which justifies a premium above the ~2-bps desk ceiling. We take 15 basis points of face value, $150,000 per $100M a year; against a fixed cost near $90,000 per bond it earns margin on the large instruments ($300M and up). This stays indicative until the first signed mandate.
Status and gates. IS4 opens in 2029 in the model and is entered only through the monitoring relationship of IS3: once CeibaQ is already measuring, the risk-holder buys the independent verification on top. A strict wall applies — CeibaQ cannot be both the data supplier and the independent verifier of the same instrument — so the first contact is a GEF or credit-enhancer mandate, not a conservation swap. At 3.2% of modelled 2035 revenue, this is a defensive, high-credibility prize rather than a volume driver.
IS5 · Natural-Capital Accounting
What it is, and who buys it. This stream delivers a jurisdiction's verified ecosystem condition — its real biological, hydrological and biomass state — for official national accounts under the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA). It is sold per jurisdiction at $525,000, not per hectare, because the buyer wants a system and a report, not a data feed. The deliverable is an Ecosystem State Certificate: a signed artifact with its uncertainty class built in, plus an API. The customer of record is the environment ministry together with the national statistics office (in Peru, MINAM and INEI). They do not pay from their own budgets: the money is a grant — the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (a GEF-administered fund, whose live Peru project is budgeted at about $11.2M) or the World Bank's accounting program ($50,000–$250,000 a country). CeibaQ is a subcontracted data and monitoring line inside that funded national project.
Why they buy, and why $525,000. The pull is statutory: compiling SEEA ecosystem-condition accounts and reporting against the global biodiversity framework requires real state values, not just forest cover. Our depth — on the order of 1,500 parameters against the 10 to 60 government systems carry — is what an official condition account needs. The natural-capital world buys systems and reports, not per-hectare data, so the price is set per jurisdiction against a real anchor: a full SEEA account covering extent, condition and services for a roughly three-subtype jurisdiction runs $400,000 to $650,000. Because it rides on the IS1 deployment the incremental cost is low, but the margin is deliberately thin (25–40%). This is a moat and credibility stream that opens the door into environment ministries, not a profit center.
The honest caveat. In the natural-capital world almost no one pays simply to keep accounts; the money arrives as grants to build the system, not as payment for data. Peru does not yet compile SEEA ecosystem accounts, so this stream is $0 in the base case until 2030, modelled as an attach-rate option on the live IS1 base. And unlike the per-hectare streams, SEEA cannot be produced by extrapolating the reference model: each jurisdiction needs its own drone flights, nodes, plots and environmental-DNA, which is why the work is field-heavy and the margin thin.
Why the margins hold
The reference libraries and the model are built once, with grant funding, and reused at close to zero marginal cost, which is why the repeat data streams carry gross contribution in the high eighties and nineties in the model. Every engagement also sharpens the model and lowers the cost of the next sale, so the lead compounds rather than erodes. The lower-margin streams — outcome verification and accounting — are carried for the relationships and the credibility they open into the institutions that pay, not for their contribution. The blended portfolio contribution in the model is near 86%.
The honest counterweight sits in the same place as the opportunity. These are five streams against zero signed contracts today, and every forward figure here is a management estimate gated on the field pilot and the first signature, not a result. What turns the model into a business is GATE 0: the first paid contract, jurisdictional verification in Loreto.