Cloverly
Enterprise carbon-credit procurement and API retirement workflows—built for climate commerce (embedded offsets + audit trail), not tradable exposure, with meaningful project risk borne by the buyer.
Platform Overview
Cloverly provides digital infrastructure and a purpose-built commerce platform (Catalyst) that enables suppliers to manage inventory and buyers to procure and retire carbon credits via marketplace or API.
It enables developers to operationalize inventory and pricing, and it enables enterprise buyers and Climate SaaS platforms to automate procurement and retirement through API and embedded checkout workflows. While Cloverly emphasizes vetting and expertise in marketing, the public legal posture is closer to a technology facilitator than a fiduciary—meaning commodity-level quality and permanence risk largely remains with the buyer and underlying project counterparties.
Platform Model
Hybrid Marketplace & SaaS
Primary Function
Credit Management & Procurement
Target Users
Enterprise Buyers & Project Developers
Workflow Lens
API-Integrated Retirement
🔄Procurement Mechanics
- Fulfillment: Public terms reference a typical delivery cycle (commonly framed around ~30 days) for issued credits and issuance-linked timelines for pre-issued credits.
- Retirement: Programmatic retirement workflows support an audit trail and downstream reporting (registry linkage + documentation).
- Embedded Programs: API + co-branded experiences enable “offset at checkout” or embedded climate action within third-party products.
- Risk Transfer: Buyer bears economic exposure to supplier performance and project controversy unless additional contractual protections exist.
Key Gaps & Non-Disclosures
- Commercial settlement terms and dispute remediation may be governed by non-public agreements.
- Public terms do not clearly define standardized remedies if a credit becomes controversial or invalidated after retirement.
- Enterprise MSAs/Order Forms may supersede public ToS (liability caps, SLAs, indemnities)—buyers should verify.
Investment Structures
Cloverly facilitates procurement for environmental consumption (retirement) and embedded climate-action workflows. It does not issue securities or offer investment vehicles designed for capital gain.
- Procurement and retirement workflow layer, not an investment product.
- No native secondary market/transferability path for speculative holding.
- Public terms emphasize facilitator posture and individual arbitration for disputes.
Risk Structure
AIAltStreet Risk Inferences
- If you cannot obtain (or negotiate) enterprise-grade contract terms, treat the public ToS as the binding risk allocation—especially the low liability cap and broad disclaimers.
- Treat “vetted” language as marketing unless you can review: (a) project screening criteria, (b) monitoring cadence, (c) reversal/invalidations policy, and (d) insurance/policy summaries where applicable.
- Reputational risk can dominate financial risk in voluntary carbon—buyers should define escalation playbooks for contested methodologies or press cycles.
Contractual Relationship
Public terms position Cloverly as a facilitator, not a direct counterparty to buyer–supplier transactions—limiting platform-level commercial responsibility for supplier performance.
Liability Allocation (Public)
Public terms cap liability at the greater of $100 or fees paid in the prior six months—economically immaterial for most enterprise-scale procurement unless superseded by an MSA.
Verification Burden
Broad “AS IS” disclaimers and supplier-data caveats imply buyers must implement independent diligence across registry status, methodology integrity, and ongoing monitoring.
Dispute Resolution
Individual arbitration and class action waivers constrain collective remedies and can raise friction/cost for buyers seeking systemic remediation.
Supplier & Project Delivery Risk
Risk Summary
Suppliers may fail to deliver credits on time, experience operational disruption, or provide inaccurate project information that impacts delivery and claims integrity.
Why It Matters
Public terms reduce platform responsibility for supplier conduct, meaning the buyer’s remedies may primarily run against the supplier or be limited by private agreements.
Mitigation / Verification
Validate registry listings and issuance/retirement documentation; request delivery SLAs, remedies, and escalation contacts in writing for high-value purchases.
Quality, Methodology & Reputational Risk
Risk Summary
Even legitimately issued credits can become controversial due to methodology critiques, additionality concerns, or media scrutiny—creating reputational exposure for buyers.
Why It Matters
A retired credit can still create “headline risk” for corporate claims; remediation may be unclear in public terms and could require voluntary replacement.
Mitigation / Verification
Define internal claim language standards; maintain an internal “replacement reserve” policy; require transparency on monitoring and reversal handling for higher-risk categories.
Commercial Opacity Risk (Fees/Markups)
Risk Summary
Public-facing pricing mechanics may not fully disclose markups, order management fees, or advisory spreads—making vendor comparisons difficult.
Why It Matters
Without standardized disclosure, total program cost can drift upward and become hard to audit across departments or embedded partners.
Mitigation / Verification
Request a fee schedule (including any programmatic/API fees), confirm whether pricing is pass-through or includes spreads, and require itemized invoices for auditability.
⚠️Walk-Away Signals
- Refusal to provide written clarification on liability caps, dispute process, and which agreement governs (public ToS vs. MSA/Order Form).
- Inability to provide policy summaries and trigger definitions for any credits marketed as “insured” or “pre-wrapped.”
- No documented remediation posture for controversy/invalidations (e.g., replacement policy, buyer options, timeframes).
- High-value purchases forced to remain under the $100-cap public ToS with no contract negotiation path.
Clarification & Verification Items
- Which registries are supported for retirement evidence and how audit trail artifacts are generated/stored.
- How project vetting is performed (initial screening + ongoing monitoring), and whether any third-party ratings are incorporated.
- Whether buyers can obtain enterprise MSAs with SLAs, indemnities, and higher liability caps for API uptime and program operations.
- Whether fee schedules differ for marketplace vs. API programs and whether any spreads are embedded in credit pricing.
Regulatory & Legal Posture
Security Status
Not a Security
Cloverly facilitates the purchase and retirement of voluntary carbon credits for environmental claims and operational ESG programs, rather than offering an investment contract where profit is expected from the efforts of others.
Disclosure Quality
High for legal disclaimers and facilitator posture; low for standardized commercial fee transparency in public materials.
Custody Model
No Custody (Facilitator)
Public terms reference New York governing law and individual arbitration (JAMS) with class action waivers (verify the governing sections in your executed agreement).
Tax Treatment
Reporting
Not Applicable
No standard investment tax reporting (e.g., 1099/K-1) is typically issued because this is a procurement workflow, not an investment vehicle.
Income Character
Procurement Expense
For most enterprises, carbon credit purchases used for retirement are treated as an operating/procurement expense supporting ESG and claims workflows rather than investment income.
Tax and accounting treatment varies by jurisdiction, entity structure, and whether credits are retired internally or passed through to end users—consult qualified tax and accounting advisors.
Special Considerations
- Claims substantiation and disclosure language can create legal/compliance risk distinct from tax reporting—coordinate ESG, Legal, and Finance.
- Embedded offsets can introduce customer-facing disclosure requirements (what is being purchased, what is retired, and when).
Account Suitability
Taxable
N/A (procurement workflow). Consider internal controls for approvals, audit evidence retention, and vendor management.
Investor Fit
Institutional / Enterprise Buyers
Best for enterprises with internal ESG/procurement capacity who want scalable retirement workflows and can perform project-level diligence (or contract for it) while maintaining a defensible audit trail.
ESG / Climate SaaS Providers
Strong fit for Climate/ESG SaaS platforms seeking embedded climate action (offset at checkout) and programmatic retirement with documentation suitable for downstream reporting.
Investors Seeking Financial Returns
The product is structurally oriented around retirement and claims support; it is not designed as a venue for holding/trading credits for appreciation.
Key Tradeoffs
Scale vs. Indemnity
Automation and embedded UX improve adoption and operational throughput, but public terms place substantial performance and quality risk on the buyer unless contractually mitigated.
Selection vs. Transparency
A broad project catalog reduces sourcing friction, but fee/markup disclosure and non-public commercial agreements can reduce price comparability and audit clarity.
Who This Is Not For
Investors seeking financial returns
Cloverly is designed for procurement and retirement workflows, not holding or trading carbon credits for price appreciation.
Retail offset buyers
The platform is oriented toward B2B procurement and API programs; individuals seeking a simple one-click offset experience may find the workflow and disclosures enterprise-centric.
Buyers without diligence capacity
Public terms shift meaningful verification burden to the buyer; teams without project-level diligence processes may be exposed to methodology, reputational, and supplier risks.
AltStreet Perspective
Verdict
Cloverly is a premier climate-commerce engine, not an investment platform.
Positioning
Best suited for enterprise buyers and Climate SaaS platforms that need scalable procurement + retirement automation and can accept (or renegotiate) a risk allocation that is typically buyer-favorable at the project level. Buyers should treat contract terms, fee clarity, and remediation posture as first-order diligence items.
"High-scale procurement infrastructure with a legal posture that shifts primary risk to the buyer."
Next Steps
Identify who owns verification internally (ESG vs. Procurement vs. Legal) and formalize a minimum diligence checklist for projects and claims.
Request fee schedules (API fees, order management fees, advisory fees) and confirm whether credit pricing is pass-through or includes spreads.
For any credits marketed as “insured” or “pre-wrapped,” request policy summaries, beneficiaries, triggers, payout caps, and coverage duration in writing.
If you are an enterprise buyer, determine whether a negotiated MSA/Order Form can supersede public ToS (liability caps, SLAs, indemnities, dispute resolution).
If acting as a supplier, obtain and review the non-public Marketplace/Supply agreements governing settlement, delivery, and remediation.
Related Resources
Explore Asset Class
Carbon & ClimateSimilar Platform Reviews
- Patch
Buyer-centric procurement marketplace vs Cloverly’s two-sided climate-commerce infrastructure.
🔍Review Evidence
Scrape Date
2025-12-17
Methodology
Recursive Domain Scrape + Enhanced Legal Analysis
Scope
111 Pages Scraped
Key Findings
- •$19M Series A funding (May 2023) led by Grotech Ventures.
- •Partnership with Oka for reversal/invalidation protections (product-specific, as marketed).
- •Contractual liability limited to $100 or 6 months of fees in public ToS (verify in the then-current terms and your executed agreement).
Primary Source Pages
- https://cloverly.com/terms-of-service
- https://cloverly.com/supply-terms-of-service
- https://cloverly.com/privacy-policy
Comparable Platforms
- Patch
Buyer-centric marketplace facilitator.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are the $100 liability caps in the public Terms of Service negotiable?
For public/marketplace users, the $100 or 6-month fee liability cap is commonly presented as standard. Enterprise buyers should verify whether these limits are superseded by a negotiated Master Service Agreement (MSA), Order Form, or other executed commercial terms before committing meaningful spend.
What is the 'Marketplace Agreement' and can buyers review it?
Cloverly’s public materials reference non-public agreements governing certain marketplace/supplier workflows. Buyers doing complex, forward, or high-value programs should request clarity on which agreement governs delivery, settlement, dispute handling, and remediation—especially if the public ToS is not intended to be the controlling document.
Who benefits from “insured” or “pre-wrapped” credit protections (if offered)?
Where credits are marketed as having insurance/protection features, buyers should confirm (in writing) who the beneficiary is (buyer vs. platform), what triggers apply (reversal/permanence vs. delivery/certification failure), the payout cap, coverage duration, and the operational claims process. Policy summaries matter more than marketing language.