Wouldn't anyone then be able to provide proof of that participant having exited? The participant would have generated a signature the moment they exit.
The point about the extra energy is potentially valid, although it would need data.
Methane being worse than CO2 doesn't change the fact that it's a cycle and thus it's not causing extra warming as long as the amount of animals is constant.
Alternative forests, etc, is equally a one off thing. Keeping the pastures doesn't make anything worse, and reverting them back would only be a one off improvement.
I guess that would depend on the tree, wouldn't it? How is a tiny little seedling going to clean as much carbon as a tree that took 40 years to become anything substantial?
Well... the process of that seedling growing into the big tree over 40 years is what takes carbon out of the atmosphere. The carbon just goes into the tree's biomass. So - long term, if you have a steady state where the biomass of the trees you're talking about remains roughly constant (or dips but comes back to the same level) - it is carbon neutral. Even if you're cutting down big trees and planting seedlings.
Of course, you're right, there's nuance there. If you start with a mature forest, cut it all down, and replant it with seedlings, that's not a steady state (yet) - particularly when you take ecosystem effects into account, I suspect.
If you take land that doesn't currently have trees on it, and plant a bunch of trees that you periodically cut down and replant then you're at worst carbon neutral. Unless that land would have otherwise be planted and left alone entirely.
I don't find this credible. The tweet itself is fishy: Treasury doesn't charge money laundering (DOJ does) & a case against several FIs at once would be unusual. Also, criminal investigations are kept strictly confidential & rarely leak. I'm not convinced by unnamed "sources."
Binance has its own dollar based stablecoin, BUSD.