Real trees. Real proof.
Written down in full.

1. Introduction

The market for funding climate action has a proof problem.

In 2023, an investigation into the world's largest carbon-credit certifier found that around 90% of its rainforest offset credits were worthless — they represented reductions that had not happened. In 2025 the same certifier revoked credits from 37 rice-cultivation projects after investigators contacted the relevant agricultural authorities and were told the projects did not exist in their jurisdictions. Credits from those phantom projects had already been bought by major corporations to offset their emissions.

The problem was never a shortage of buyers, or of trees to plant. The problem is that a claim about a tree in a distant place is almost impossible for the person paying for it to verify — and a market built on unverifiable claims eventually gets the projects it deserves.

Sapling Network exists to make reforestation verifiable.

Every planting funded through the network is documented before it is counted: a named partner, a paid invoice, geotagged photographs, a partner certificate, and a batch record written to the Solana blockchain carrying the count, the region and the hash of the evidence. The buyer receives a compressed NFT certificate they permanently own. Nothing enters our public counter without that chain of evidence, and anyone can audit any batch down to its on-chain record without asking our permission.

This is where a blockchain earns its place in the design. The value it adds is not efficiency or speculation — it is that a record written to a public chain outlives the organisation that wrote it. A certificate held in a vendor's private database is worth exactly as much as that vendor's continued existence and goodwill. A batch record on Solana can be verified in twenty years by someone who has never heard of us.

Our first application is the crypto industry's own footprint — the sector where the need is well documented, the disclosure obligations are already in force, and the audience understands on-chain proof natively. It is the beginning of the work, not its definition.

2. The Problem

2.1 Climate claims cannot be verified

The voluntary carbon market has been in a credibility crisis since 2023. Independent investigations have found large fractions of issued credits to be non-additional, over-credited, or attached to projects that could not be located. Certifiers have revoked credits after issuance; projects have been linked to forced evictions and human-rights violations.

The consequence is a market that no longer trusts its own product. Corporate buyers are now subject to stricter disclosure standards and have become far more cautious about credit quality: 41% of buyers now use digital monitoring and verification systems, and high-integrity credits trade at roughly a 3× premium to low-rated ones. Buyers have stopped accepting bare "trees planted" counters. A programme that cannot produce GPS coordinates, survival rates and third-party evidence is increasingly indefensible to a board.

Demand for climate funding has not disappeared. Demand for unverifiable climate funding has.

2.2 The crypto industry's own footprint

Blockchain's environmental record is uneven and improving. Ethereum's 2022 move to Proof of Stake cut its energy use by over 99.9%, taking its emissions from roughly 35.4 Mt CO₂e per year to approximately 0.01 Mt. Efficient chains like Solana operate several orders of magnitude below Proof-of-Work systems.

What remains is concentrated: Proof-of-Work mining, Bitcoin above all, still draws on the order of 120–180 TWh annually (Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index) — comparable to a mid-sized country — with a substantial share still met by fossil fuels. Industry-wide estimates remain in the tens of millions of tonnes of CO₂e per year, overwhelmingly attributable to mining.

We state this plainly because the direction matters for our own positioning: the sector's aggregate footprint is falling, and a project whose entire reason for existing depends on crypto staying dirty is a project with a shrinking purpose. Ours does not. Efficient chains still emit, those emissions still deserve to be answered for, and the verification infrastructure we are building is not specific to crypto at all.

2.3 No accountability by default

Most blockchain ecosystems externalise their environmental cost. Emissions from transactions, infrastructure and mining are rarely measured, offset, or transparently reported at the level of the individual user or application. Where offsetting does happen, it typically means purchasing credits from the same voluntary market described in 2.1 — inheriting its integrity problems along with its certificates.

Users and applications contribute to a footprint they cannot see, and have no straightforward tool to act on it.

2.4 Regulation is arriving as disclosure, not prohibition

The EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation has required sustainability disclosures from crypto-asset service providers since 30 December 2024, with ESMA specifying up to 16 indicators covering energy consumption, carbon emissions, carbon intensity and renewable energy use. Trading platforms have until 31 December 2027 to meet white-paper requirements for assets already listed.

More than 250 companies signed the Crypto Climate Accord committing to net zero by 2030. Most are structurally unprepared for it, and the deadline is now close.

This is a tailwind rather than a threat, and the reason is worth spelling out: an obligation to publish a carbon figure creates demand to improve it, and — after the credibility failures of 2.1 — demand to improve it with something a reader can check.

Without deliberate design, cryptocurrency adoption and environmental accountability remain misaligned. Sapling Network is that deliberate design.

3. The Solution

Sapling Network addresses the environmental cost of blockchain through a three-layer sustainability model:

Layer 1 — Minimal footprint by architecture

Sapling Network operates on Solana, whose Proof-of-History-assisted Proof-of-Stake design eliminates energy-intensive mining. An average Solana transaction consumes roughly 658 joules — about 0.00018 kWh, or several orders of magnitude below Proof-of-Work systems (Solana Foundation Energy Use Report, December 2023). Choosing the most efficient settlement layer minimizes the emissions we must offset in the first place.

Layer 2 — Funding real reforestation

Sapling Network embeds tree planting directly into its economy. Sapling purchases, staking activity, and ecosystem fees fund reforestation executed through established planting partners in the first phase and through Sapling's own community-run planting operations as the network scales (see Section 9).

• A mature tree absorbs approximately 22 kg of CO₂ per year
• Every planting batch is documented with GPS data, photographic evidence, and partner certificates, anchored on-chain
• Reforestation additionally restores biodiversity, soil, and local ecosystems

Layer 3 — Radical transparency

Every tree counted by Sapling Network must be provable. Planting records are published to a public dashboard, verification data is anchored on Solana, and each user's contribution is represented by a compressed NFT certificate they permanently own. No proof, no counter increment — ever.

4. Why Solana?

Sapling Network is built on Solana for four reasons:

1. Energy efficiency. At about 658 joules per transaction (~0.00018 kWh) and total network emissions of roughly 8,786 tCO₂ a year on the Foundation's most recent published figures, Solana is among the most climate-efficient L1s in production — the natural home for an environmental protocol.
2. A reachable flagship goal. Because Solana's total footprint is small — roughly 8,786 tCO₂ a year — outgrowing it with verified trees is achievable rather than aspirational. Sapling Network's headline milestone is to plant enough verified trees that their own measured, mortality-discounted absorption exceeds that figure, making the Solana ecosystem carbon-negative on directly verifiable removal. Section 13.3 sets out the arithmetic this requires — roughly 500,000 trees planted — the roadmap phase it lands in, and what the claim does and does not mean.
3. Cost structure. Sub-cent transaction fees make micro-rewards, per-tree NFT certificates, and Round-Up donations economically viable.
4. Ecosystem maturity. Deep DeFi liquidity, compressed NFTs for near-zero-cost certificates, and battle-tested tooling.

5. The SAPN Token

5.1 Fixed supply — verifiable on-chain

SAPN's supply can never increase. The token's mint authority and freeze authority have been permanently revoked on-chain, which any user can independently verify on Solana explorers. There is no mechanism — including for the team — to create additional tokens or freeze user accounts.

5.2 Token history and the v1 → v2 migration

Sapling Network's origins predate this whitepaper: the original SAPN token (E52bRrLGu1YFHBLNTWhdeGoYKyp1UYCTjB7XPoFgapYS) was minted by the founding wallet in September 2021. Its on-chain metadata, however, was registered in that era through a third-party service that retained metadata update authority — an unacceptable long-term risk for the project's integrity.

In July 2026, the same founding wallet minted the current SAPN token with fully self-owned metadata, and the entire 100,000,000 supply of v1 was permanently burned (v1 supply on-chain: 0). No v1 tokens were ever sold or distributed, so no holder was affected. The complete history — 2021 origin, 2026 migration, burn transaction — is publicly auditable on-chain.

6. Tokenomics

6.1 Allocation (100,000,000 SAPN)

Treasury pools are held in multi-signature wallets, and all treasury movements are published on the transparency dashboard.

6.2 Emission schedule — continuous decay over 14 years

The 40M community reward pool is the only source of staking and Plant-to-Earn rewards. It is released on a fixed, continuously declining schedule:

E(t) = E₀ × 2^(−t/4)

where t is years since launch. Emission halves every four years, but it does so continuously — every month is slightly lower than the last, by roughly 1.4%. The schedule runs 14 years and distributes exactly 40,000,000 SAPN.

Each year emits about 16% less than the one before.

Why not step halvings. The obvious alternative — a Bitcoin-style schedule that holds emission flat for years and then cuts it in half overnight — is familiar, and we rejected it deliberately. A step halving means every staker and tree owner wakes up one morning to find their rate cut by 50%. The projects that have failed most publicly in this sector did not run out of money; they collapsed when a headline rate fell off a cliff and confidence went with it. Continuous decay removes the cliff entirely: the largest month-over-month change in this schedule is about 1.4%, against 50% for a step halving. Nobody is ever surprised.

The schedule is a ceiling, not a faucet. Rewards are only distributed to active stakers and tree owners, up to the caps in Sections 9–10. Any portion of a period's emission that is not earned stays in the pool and extends the reward runway beyond year fourteen. Emissions are never "airdropped" to meet the schedule.

This matters more than it may appear. In the first year, circulating supply is roughly 8–13% of maximum (Section 8.3), so even at very high staking participation only a small fraction of the year's ceiling can actually be earned — the rest simply stays in the pool. The schedule above is the maximum shape of release, not a forecast of it.

6.3 What happens after the pool is spent (Year 14+)

Sapling Network will never mint new SAPN to refill rewards — the mint authority is permanently revoked, and no transaction tax or fee-on-transfer mechanism will be introduced to compensate (beyond making the token incompatible with DEX routers and exchange listings, a hidden tax would just be inflation by another name). Two things soften and eventually replace the fixed emission instead:

1. Recycling extends the runway. Per Section 6.4, 50% of every sapling-package purchase flows back into the community reward pool. The 14-year schedule above is the pool's floor case assuming zero recycling; real usage extends it, since the reward pool is topped up continuously by ecosystem spending, not only drained by it.
2. Real yield takes over from emission. As Sapling DEX and B2B carbon-offset revenue (Section 8) come online from 2030, staking rewards progressively shift from token emission to protocol revenue — swap fees and offset margins used to buy SAPN back from the open market and distribute it to stakers, the way Bitcoin's security budget shifts from block subsidy to transaction fees over time. This is a market buyback funded by real income, not new issuance: circulating supply is unaffected either way.

By the time emission tapers out (~year 14), the goal is for real yield to already cover a majority of staking rewards, making the transition a glide path rather than a cliff. We will publish the revenue-to-rewards ratio on the transparency dashboard so this transition is measurable, not promised.

6.4 Utility & demand drivers

SAPN is used for: purchasing verified sapling plantings, staking for rewards, governance participation and Senior Member elections, access to premium ecosystem features, and (post-DEX) fee discounts. Additionally, 50% of every SAPN spent on sapling purchases returns to the reward pool and the other 50% funds new planting — creating a circular economy inside the fixed supply.

6.5 Treasury custody and distribution transparency

Allocation tables mean nothing if every token sits in one wallet controlled by one person. We treat custody as part of tokenomics, not as an operational footnote.

Current state (honest disclosure). The full 100,000,000 SAPN supply is held in a Squads 2-of-3 multisig — multisig AirMorb4M2DFHRFkD7RPkjV2TbBDckWiRTHS1vpT1zNS, vault CCtq1NJPkHNKYrkBSGvrSv7Meaq9ye1mBGVn2CVqeBJY — moved there from the founding wallet Dj5hgRLjFm6WigycUyQpQi7wRgbXV2gWg4Zutaf29gUL on 23 August 2026. The metadata update authority moved with it. Nothing has been sold, distributed, or promised to any private party — there is no seed round, no private allocation, and no unnamed early investor. Concentration exists because distribution has not started, not because it is hidden.

What this multisig does, and what it does not. The founder holds two of the three keys; the third is held separately. So the founder can still act alone, and this is not the distributed structure in the table below — it does not claim to be. What it removes is the failure that would actually have ended this project: a single lost or compromised key taking the entire supply with it, permanently and with no recovery. Before any distribution there is no counterparty to protect from the founder; there is only a project to protect from an accident.

It was tested before it was trusted. One token was sent to the vault and withdrawn again through the full approval flow before the supply followed, and a single approval was confirmed on-chain to be insufficient to move funds. The transactions are public.

Target state (before TGE). The supply is split across dedicated, publicly labelled wallets, and every pool that is not immediately circulating moves under Squads multi-signature control on Solana:

Commitments. Every wallet address above is published on the transparency dashboard and in this whitepaper's live version before the token sale opens. Team tokens are locked by contract, not by promise — nobody, including the founders, can move them ahead of schedule. Treasury sales that fund planting follow a published, volume-capped schedule so the treasury never sells into its own community. Any change to this structure is announced before it happens, not discovered afterwards.

7. Token Sale

Use of proceeds: 40% reforestation fund (immediate, verifiable planting), 30% DEX liquidity (locked), 30% operations & marketing.

The remaining 15M tokens of the sale & liquidity pool are reserved for the initial liquidity pool and potential later rounds, subject to governance disclosure. The team commits to publishing every sale-proceeds transaction on the transparency dashboard.

Vesting and liquidity discipline: sale vesting is enforced by audited on-chain vesting contracts — not manual promises. The initial liquidity position is locked, and is deliberately sized so that its value at listing exceeds the maximum value unlockable at TGE (30% of proceeds ≈ $15,000 in liquidity vs. ≤ $12,500 of TGE-unlocked tokens at the sale price) — the launch cannot be structurally under-collateralized against its own unlock.

Sale venue: application submitted to an established launchpad; details announced on official channels. In the absence of a launchpad agreement, the sale runs on Sapling Network's own platform with identical terms.

8. The Economic Engine: How the Forest Gets Funded

Impact targets are only credible if the money behind them is visible. This section shows what our targets cost, where the funding comes from, and how the token economy sustains the loop.

8.1 What a tree costs, and what we charge for it

Planting cost is a curve, not a constant. Established reforestation partners publish per-tree rates well below what a retail donor pays, but the low rates come with volume commitments: Eden: People+Planet plants for $0.10–0.20 per tree depending on country, and its landscape partnerships begin at $50,000 a year — around 333,000 trees. A project planting 1,000 trees cannot buy at that price, and should not pretend it can.

So our cost per tree falls as we scale, and our early trees are the most expensive we will ever plant:

The counts above are trees planted, which is what the cost is actually incurred on and what the evidence chain can prove (Section 13.1). We do not budget for topping a standing population back up to a round number, because we could not verify when that was needed.

Earlier drafts of this document assumed a flat $0.50 per tree, which understated the early phases and overstated the later ones by a wide margin. The figures above are estimates, published so they can be checked against what we actually pay.

Who does the planting. The great majority of trees are planted by established reforestation organisations with their own field operations, insurance and certification. This is deliberate on two counts: they can absorb volume a volunteer community cannot, and they already run the verification apparatus — trained field teams, survival tracking, documented chains of custody — that would otherwise take us years and a great deal of money to build badly. Our contribution is not to replace their verification but to make it permanent and public.

Community planting by Senior Members (Section 12.2) continues alongside, at a deliberately small share of the total. Its purpose is participation and local presence — including in Türkiye, where our largest partners do not operate — rather than volume.

8.1.1 The pricing rule

Sapling packages are currently priced at $1.50 per tree. This is a published parameter, not a commitment: it tracks partner costs and is kept current on the transparency dashboard. Price changes are announced at least 30 days in advance and apply only to new purchases — the SAPN recorded against an existing certificate, and therefore its yield under Section 9.3, never changes.

To make sure the parameter cannot drift into a markup as our costs fall, it is bound by a published rule:

P ≤ 2C + 2F

where P is the retail package price, C is the documented weighted-average partner cost per tree for the preceding quarter, and F = $0.20 is the maximum operating margin we may take per tree.

The factor of two reflects the circulation loop in Section 8.3: half of every SAPN payment returns to the community reward pool rather than reaching the treasury, so the treasury's share of a price P is P/2, out of which it pays C and retains at most F.

What the rule does at each stage of the cost curve:

The rule is not binding today — at a $1.00 cost it would permit $2.40 and we charge $1.50 — and that is the point. It binds later, when costs fall and the temptation to hold the price constant would otherwise be strongest. At a $0.35 cost the price must come down to at most $1.10.

Definitions and review. "Documented cost" means the weighted average of partner invoices for the quarter, published alongside the price so the rule can be checked rather than trusted. F is reviewed annually and published with actual costs. Our intention is to reduce it as scale allows; raising it would require exceptional circumstances and 30 days' notice. We are not committing to specific future values of F, because we do not yet know what verification operations cost at a million trees, and a cap we cannot meet would be worse than a conservative one we can.

What F is not. F is a ceiling on price, not an operating budget. At Phase 1 volumes it amounts to roughly $5,000 a year — nowhere near the cost of running verification. Early operations are funded from the token sale allocation and the treasury (Section 8.2); F becomes a meaningful revenue line only at Phase 3 volumes and beyond.

8.2 Where the funding comes from — phase by phase

Five revenue streams mature in sequence; each phase is carried by the streams already live:

1. Token sale planting allocation (2026–27). 40% of the $50,000 raise — $20,000 — is earmarked exclusively for planting. At the early-stage costs in 8.1 this pre-funds First Grove (~$1,000) and the great majority of Phase 1 (~$14,400).

1. Sapling packages (from TGE). Individuals buy verified plantings at the current published price ($1.50 per tree today, bound by the rule in 8.1.1), USD-indexed and payable in SAPN or USDC. Half of every SAPN payment returns to the reward pool; the treasury's half funds planting and retains at most F per tree, allocated on the fixed rule in Section 9.6. USDC payments fund planting directly; SAPN payments are recycled into the economy (8.3), and any treasury conversions needed to pay planting partners follow a published, volume-capped schedule so the treasury never sells against its own community.

1. Staking conversion (from TGE). The minimum planting share on staking rewards (Section 10.1) converts a fixed proportion of every staking reward into verified saplings. This is not a sales channel and requires no counterparty: it scales automatically with staking participation.

1. Protocol integrations (2027+). Other applications route a share of their own fees to verified planting and receive an on-chain record of what they funded. This is described in 8.4; it is our primary B2B line and the one we expect to compound.

1. Direct corporate planting and treasury conversion (2028+). Volume planting agreements with companies (8.5), plus gradual, published conversion of the 15M SAPN reforestation treasury into planting capital.

The commitment rule: trees are committed only after funds are in the treasury — we pre-fund, we don't promise. Supply is fixed, so impact is never financed by minting or debt. If a phase's revenue lags, its target shifts in time; it does not get quietly diluted.

8.3 The token circulation loop

• Demand: SAPN is required for sapling packages, locked staking, preferential settlement by integration partners, and governance.
• Locks: staking (6–12 months), team vesting (4 years), sale vesting (6 months), locked liquidity.
• Recycling: of every SAPN spent on sapling packages, 50% returns to the community reward pool — extending reward emissions beyond the nominal fourteen years — and 50% flows to the treasury to fund the next trees.
• Release: new circulating supply enters only through the fixed emission schedule and published vesting — there is no other faucet.

Illustrative circulating supply: ~3% of max supply at TGE (1.25M sale unlock + ~1.5M initial locked liquidity), rising with sale vesting and earned rewards to an estimated 8–13% by the end of year one and 15–25% by the end of year two. These are ceilings, not targets — because emissions are only distributed to active stakers and tree owners (6.2), actual float depends on participation, and staking locks pull the effective float lower still.

8.4 Protocol integrations — the primary B2B line

An application on Solana routes an agreed share of its own fee revenue to the reforestation treasury. In return it receives a public, on-chain record of the plantings it funded, and a verification page it can embed in its own interface.

The mechanics are deliberately small: a fee split configured once, and a batch record that accumulates against the partner's address. There is no invoicing cycle, no annual renewal, and no minimum commitment. The partner's contribution scales with the partner's own volume.

Why this rather than selling companies their own footprint. We modelled the alternative — applications buying enough trees to neutralise their share of network emissions — and it does not support a business. A Solana transaction consumes about 658 joules, roughly 0.073 grams of CO₂e at grid-average intensity. A single mature tree absorbs about 22 kg per year, which is the annual footprint of roughly 300,000 transactions. Neutralising the entire Solana network's estimated annual emissions requires on the order of 90,000 trees. Split across the ecosystem's active applications, a typical application's own footprint costs a few hundred dollars a year to neutralise — a real number, but not one that supports a sales process.

Fee routing scales on a different axis. It is proportional to the partner's throughput rather than its emissions, which is both far larger and far more durable:

Ten partners at the middle of that range is on the order of $24,000 a year in recurring planting revenue; fifty is $120,000. These are illustrations, not projections.

The neutrality claim this supports. Because a transaction's footprint is so small relative to a tree's absorption, even a token fee share overshoots neutrality by orders of magnitude. A $100 swap paying a 0.05% fee, with 10% of that fee routed to planting, funds enough planting to cover roughly 1,000 times its own footprint. We will publish the calculation alongside the claim rather than asking anyone to take "carbon negative" on trust.

Sapling DEX is the first integration, not the last. The fee share described in Section 11 is this same mechanism applied to our own product — which is also how we intend to answer the first question any prospective partner will ask, which is who else is using it.

8.5 Direct corporate planting

Companies also buy verified plantings directly, as sustainability spend rather than as carbon accounting. Pricing is tiered by volume, and — unlike the illustrative figures in earlier drafts of this document — it falls with scale rather than rising:

At $0.50 all-in cost, every tier funds planting, verification and a contribution to operations.

We are explicit about where we compete. Established providers sell corporate tree planting from roughly $0.43 per tree with their own verification, and we do not intend to win on price. What we offer instead is proof that outlives us: our evidence chain is anchored on a public blockchain, not held in a vendor database. A buyer who wants to demonstrate in 2040 what they funded in 2027 can do so from the chain, whether or not Sapling Network still exists. For buyers who do not need that, the cheaper providers are a reasonable choice and we will say so.

Consistent with Section 16, these are contribution claims, not compensation claims: the buyer has funded verifiable reforestation. They have not purchased a carbon credit, and we do not represent the trees as offsetting a specific quantity of their emissions for regulatory accounting.

9. Plant-to-Earn & Verification

Plant-to-Earn (P2E) lets users generate real environmental impact — and earn from it.

9.1 How trees get planted

• Partner planting (Phase 1): Users purchase sapling packages in the app; plantings are executed by established reforestation partners. Pricing is USD-indexed, payable in SAPN or USDC (Section 8.2).
• Community planting (Phase 2+): Verified Senior Members accept planting tasks near their location (minimum batch: 10 trees), follow the documented planting procedure, and submit evidence.

9.2 Verification — no proof, no tree

Every planting is verified before it counts:

1. Planting area is registered on restor.eco with location data
2. Before/after photographs and tree counts are submitted through the app
3. A community manager reviews the evidence
4. The batch is anchored on-chain: batch ID, tree count, GPS region, certificate hash
5. The planter receives their reward; the buyer receives a compressed NFT certificate per tree

9.3 Earning

Two things earn SAPN from planting, and both are paid from the community reward pool — never from new supply.

Planting rewards. Verified Senior Members earn a fixed SAPN reward for each tree they plant and document (Section 12.2).

Tree yield. Every tree cNFT generates an ongoing SAPN yield for its owner, funded from the 25% of emission reserved for tree yield. Two rules govern it, and the lower of the two always applies:

y = min( Eₜ / N , c × p )

where Eₜ is the period's tree-yield emission, N is the total number of verified tree cNFTs, p is the SAPN price paid for that specific tree at purchase, and c is the yield cap: 10% per year, fixed for the life of the schedule.

Two design choices are worth stating plainly, because both exist to prevent problems we can foresee:

The cap is a share of what you paid, not a fixed SAPN amount. Sapling packages are USD-indexed, so a fixed SAPN cap would silently change meaning as the token price moves: the same 1.5 SAPN/year that is a 10% yield at one price becomes a 100% yield at ten times that price. Expressing the cap as a percentage of the SAPN actually paid keeps the rate identical regardless of price, requires no oracle, and is trivially auditable — the purchase price is recorded in the certificate itself.

The cap only binds while the forest is small. With a fixed pool split across every tree, a small forest would otherwise produce absurd per-tree yields — a thousand trees sharing a pool sized for millions. The cap holds the rate at 10% until the forest is large enough that the proportional share falls below it on its own — roughly 1.4 million trees at first-year emission, and fewer every year as emission declines. After that the cap is inert and never binds again, which is why it never needs to be adjusted. Emission not paid out because of the cap stays in the pool and extends the reward runway. It is not minted, burned, or redirected.

9.4 Reinvestment — optional compounding

Tree owners may direct any share of their tree yield, from 0% to 100%, back into new saplings. The share is chosen by the owner, defaults to 0%, and can be changed at any time.

n_new = (y × N_owned × r) / p_current

where r is the chosen reinvestment share and p_current is the current SAPN price of a sapling package.

For the owner, this compounds: at a 10% cap and full reinvestment, a holding grows roughly 10% per year — 100 trees become about 259 after ten years, with the yield from each new tree compounding in turn.

For the system, it cannot compound, and this is deliberate. Because the emission pool is fixed, the number of trees that reinvestment can fund in a period is bounded by Eₜ / p regardless of how many owners participate or how large the forest already is. Growth is linear, not exponential; the tree count N cancels out of the equation entirely. No level of participation can accelerate the system beyond what the pool funds.

Reinvestment is the mechanism by which emission becomes forest instead of sell pressure. A reward taken as tokens may be sold; a reward taken as trees is planted, verified and recorded. Both are the owner's to choose, and we would rather make the second one easy than pretend the first will not happen.

9.5 Stewardship — what we commit to after planting day

A tree is not finished when it is photographed. Someone has to know whether it is still alive three years later, and that costs money for as long as the forest exists. Most planting programmes leave this vague. We would rather draw the line explicitly, including where it stops.

What we commit to:

• Verification at planting is permanent. The batch record, geotagged photographs, partner certificate and certificate hash are anchored on-chain and do not expire. This is the part that never needs re-funding.
• Three years of active monitoring per batch. Survival is checked and published for each batch through its third growing season — the period in which most sapling mortality occurs.
• Replanting within the partner guarantee. Losses covered by the planting partner's guarantee are replanted and the batch record is updated to show both the loss and the replacement. We publish the survival rate, not just the planting count.
• Site-level reporting thereafter. After year three, batches are reported at site level using satellite monitoring and periodic sampling. This scales with the number of planting sites rather than the number of trees, which is what makes it sustainable.

What we do not commit to, and why. We do not guarantee the lifetime survival of individual trees, and we will not promise perpetual per-tree monitoring, because that promise cannot be funded and we would rather say so than discover it later. Funding a single tree's monitoring in perpetuity from an endowment would require between $0.30 and $0.75 per tree depending on assumed returns — more than the entire operating margin on a $1.50 sapling. A programme that promises it either intends to break the promise or intends to fund it from money it does not yet have.

Bounded monitoring is fundable, and the reason is worth showing: active monitoring costs about $0.045 per tree spread over three years, roughly 18% of the margin, and — because it applies only to recent plantings — this cost falls as planting slows rather than accumulating. Site-level reporting after that is a function of how many places we plant, not how many trees are in them.

9.6 Where the money for this sits

Sapling Network runs one operating treasury, funded by protocol revenue rather than by token allocation, with its uses fixed in advance rather than decided case by case.

Inflows. The operating margin on sapling packages (at most F per tree, Section 8.1.1), the margin on corporate volume planting (Section 8.5), partner fee routing (Section 8.4), and Sapling DEX fees once live.

Fixed allocation. Every unit of revenue entering the treasury is split on a published rule:

The stewardship reserve is ring-fenced. It cannot be spent on marketing, salaries, liquidity, or buybacks, and that restriction is enforced by the multisig policy rather than by intention. Its balance is published on the transparency dashboard alongside the tree counter, because a forest with no maintenance budget behind it is a liability being presented as an asset.

Why revenue-funded rather than token-funded. The reforestation treasury (15M SAPN, Section 6.1) is capital for planting. This treasury is for keeping what has been planted, and it is deliberately fed by revenue instead: an obligation that lasts longer than the emission schedule cannot responsibly be funded by the emission schedule.

The honest limit. Beyond roughly year ten, active planting slows and with it the inflow from planting margin, while the number of sites under stewardship does not fall. From that point the stewardship reserve depends on recurring revenue — integrations and DEX fees — rather than on planting margin. This is the same transition described in Section 6.3, applied to costs rather than rewards, and it is a real dependency: if recurring revenue does not materialise, the scope of stewardship narrows to what site-level reporting alone can sustain. We will report the reserve's runway on the dashboard so that this is visible well before it becomes urgent, rather than discovered afterwards.

10. Staking

Staking rewards come from the community reward pool on the fixed emission schedule. Rates are dynamic: each period's emission is distributed proportionally among stakers.

A staker's reward for a period is weight-based:

w = s × m → r = min( (w / Σw) × E , s × APY_cap )

where s = user's staked SAPN, m = the user's lock multiplier, Σw = the sum of all stakers' weights, E = the period's emission allocated to staking (75% of the period's emission; 25% is reserved for tree yield), and APY_cap = the product's cap rate. Because rewards are shares of a fixed E, multipliers redistribute rewards toward longer locks — they can never inflate total payout above E. Early on, when little is staked, the caps bind (everyone earns their maximum) and unearned emission stays in the pool; as staking grows, rates float below the caps naturally.

APY figures are caps, not guarantees — actual rates depend on total staked supply and decline as emission declines. Early stakers earn the highest rates. Unstaking before lock expiry is not possible; there are no penalty exceptions, which protects committed stakers.

10.1 Every staker is a planter — the minimum planting share

Staking that only turns tokens into more tokens does nothing for the forest. So a minimum share of every staking reward is converted directly into verified saplings, and the staker chooses any share above that minimum, up to 100%.

m(t) = min( m₀ + ⌊t/4⌋ × Δ , m_max )

where t is years since launch, m₀ = 10%, Δ = 5%, and m_max = 20%. The schedule is published in full at launch and fixed in the staking contract; it is not adjustable afterwards.

The minimum starts low deliberately. Early on the community is small and token liquidity is thin, so a heavy diversion would deter participation while producing few trees in absolute terms; as the ecosystem matures, both the case for a higher share and the ability to absorb it improve. Publishing the whole schedule up front means the increase is a known term of the product, not a change imposed later.

What the staker actually gives up. Nothing, in value: the diverted share buys saplings that belong to the staker, arrive as tree cNFTs, and generate tree yield of their own under Section 9.3. What the staker gives up is liquidity — a tree certificate is not a token you can sell on an exchange. That is the honest trade, and we state it as one.

Worked example, year 1, at the 12-month cap: a staker with 100,000 SAPN earns 14,000 SAPN for the year. 12,600 SAPN arrives as tokens; the remaining 1,400 SAPN is converted into roughly 93 saplings, which then earn tree yield themselves. The staker's liquid return is 12.6% — still well above what liquid staking pays elsewhere on Solana — plus a growing, verifiable forest.

The converted share never passes through the staker's wallet. It moves from the reward pool to the reforestation treasury directly, and the staker receives tree certificates. This keeps the transaction count low and makes what the staker received unambiguous: saplings, not income that was then spent.

11. Sapling Wallet

Sapling Wallet is the ecosystem's home: a non-custodial wallet focused on making climate impact effortless.

• Buy & plant: purchase SAPN and sapling packages in-app
• Stake: one-tap access to locked staking products
• Round-Up: round any transaction up to the nearest whole number — e.g. $9.90 becomes $10.00 — and the difference automatically funds tree planting
• Impact profile: your cNFT forest, total CO₂ offset, rank, and rewards in one view
• Transparency dashboard: live tree counter, treasury movements, planting evidence

12. Community & Governance

The Sapling Community turns users into decision-makers and planters.

12.1 Ranks

12.2 Becoming a Senior Member

Senior Members hold real responsibility — they plant, verify, and govern — so the role is earned, not bought:

• Users in the top 50 of the monthly planting leaderboard may apply
• The top 10 advance automatically after screening and suitability tests
• Remaining candidates are pre-screened by the management team, then elected by a community-wide vote
• Elections conclude when 25 members pass the final suitability tests

This process ensures governance rights are held by people who demonstrably embody the project's ecological mission.

12.3 Leaderboard

Members earn points for planting trees, verifying batches, and community contributions. The public, real-time leaderboard gamifies impact and feeds the monthly Senior Member elections.

13. Carbon Impact Targets

Honesty first: offsetting the entire crypto industry (~65–90 Mt CO₂e/yr) would require billions of mature trees. That is our generation-scale vision, not a short-term promise. Our targets are staged, funded, and verifiable:

Progress is tracked live on the transparency dashboard; no tree is counted without verification evidence.

13.1 Measurement methodology

Our absorption figures are deliberately conservative:

• Per-tree absorption: We use 22 kg CO₂ per mature tree per year as the baseline — a mid-range figure consistent with commonly cited estimates for mixed-species reforestation (actual rates vary by species, climate, and soil, roughly 10–40 kg/yr). Where planting partners provide species- and region-specific data, we use their certified figures instead.
• Maturity curve: Trees do not absorb at full capacity from day one. Our dashboard reports two numbers separately: projected absorption at maturity (the figures in the table above) and current-year estimated absorption, which ramps up over ~10 years following planting. We never present projected capacity as current impact.
• Mortality buffer: A fraction of planted saplings does not survive. We apply a 20% mortality discount to all absorption projections, and partner replanting guarantees are tracked per batch.
• What the targets count. Every tree target in this document counts trees planted and verified at planting, not trees standing years later. This is deliberate. Planting is something we can evidence permanently and check against a batch record (Section 9.2); per-tree survival a decade on is something no programme our size can verify honestly, which is why Section 9.5 stops individual monitoring after three years. A standing-count target would therefore be unverifiable by construction, and would commit us to replanting on a schedule with no end date. Survival is reported separately, as a measured rate rather than a target, and the absorption figures above already carry the 20% discount — so a planted target of 10,000,000 is projected against roughly 8,000,000 surviving trees, not 10,000,000.

13.2 Verification pipeline

A tree enters our counters only after completing the full evidence chain described in Section 9.2: registration of the planting area on restor.eco → geotagged before/after photographs and tree counts → review by a community manager → on-chain anchoring of the batch record (batch ID, tree count, GPS region, certificate hash). Partner plantings additionally require the partner's planting certificate. Anyone can audit any batch from the dashboard down to its on-chain record and photographic evidence.

13.3 The "carbon-negative Solana" benchmark

Two facts have to be stated before this milestone means anything.

Solana already offsets its own footprint. The Solana Foundation reports the network's emissions and purchases offsets against them — 10,901 tonnes of carbon credits for the 2022 footprint, bought entirely on-chain via ecoToken and Sunrise Stake. The network is not un-offset, and we are not claiming to rescue it from anything.

The published figure is larger than earlier drafts of this document assumed. The Foundation's December 2023 Energy Use Report puts the network's footprint at 4,392.9 tCO₂ over six months — roughly 8,786 tCO₂ annualised, alongside energy use of 658 joules per transaction. Earlier versions of this whitepaper cited a figure several times lower. The correct number is the Foundation's, and our targets are measured against it.

So the milestone is narrower and more honest than "making Solana carbon neutral", which the Foundation has already done by purchasing credits:

Sapling Network's Phase 2 milestone is met when the current-year, mortality-discounted absorption of our verified trees exceeds the Solana Foundation's most recently published annual network emissions figure — that is, when the ecosystem is carbon-negative on the strength of directly verifiable removal, in addition to the offsets the Foundation already buys.

The distinction we are drawing is about the quality of the instrument, not the arithmetic. Purchased credits are answerable to the integrity problems described in Section 2.1 — the same market that issued credits for projects investigators could not locate. A tree we funded, photographed, geolocated and anchored on-chain is answerable to anyone who wants to check it. We think that difference is the entire point, and we would rather be one contributor of verifiable removal alongside the Foundation's offsetting than claim to replace it.

At 8,786 tCO₂ and 22 kg per mature tree with a 20% mortality discount, the benchmark implies roughly 500,000 trees planted — about 400,000 of them surviving once the discount is applied — not the 250,000 in the table above. We are leaving the table's phase targets as originally planned. Phase 2 as scheduled therefore approaches rather than achieves the benchmark, and the roadmap places the milestone itself in the 2030+ phase, where 500,000 planted trees is passed on the way to that phase's target. The milestone will be claimed when the measurement supports it and not before. If the Foundation's published figure changes, ours changes with it.

Existing on-chain offsetting is a competitor and a proof of demand. Sunrise Stake and ecoToken already serve this market, and the Solana Foundation is their customer. That is a harder competitive position than having the field to ourselves, and also the clearest available evidence that on-chain climate funding is something the ecosystem actually buys.

13.4 What we do not claim

We do not claim to offset Bitcoin, the whole crypto industry, or emissions we cannot measure. We do not sell or double-count carbon credits: trees funded through Sapling Network are retired to our public ledger and are not resold into voluntary carbon markets. If a claim cannot be verified from our public data, we will not make it.

14. Roadmap

Q3 2026 — Foundation (in progress)

• Token v2 migration completed: fixed supply, revoked authorities, v1 fully burned ✅
• Website & whitepaper v2 release
• Official community channels launch (X, Telegram)
• First Grove: first 1,000 verified trees
• Launchpad / exchange application submitted

Q4 2026 — TGE

• Token sale & TGE
• Liquidity pool launch (locked) + Jupiter verification
• Locked staking live (audited infrastructure)
• Transparency dashboard v1 (live tree counter, treasury feed)
• Multisig treasury structure finalized

H1 2027 — Product

• Sapling Wallet beta (buy, stake, Round-Up, impact profile)
• Plant-to-Earn live with restor.eco verification and cNFT certificates
• 25,000 trees milestone
• CoinGecko / CoinMarketCap listings

H2 2027 – 2029 — Scale

• Community governance & first Senior Member elections
• Own Anchor staking program (audited)
• First Sapling-operated planting sites (hybrid model)
• 250,000 trees — half the carbon-negative benchmark (Section 13.3)

2030+ — Ecosystem

• Sapling DEX: swap aggregation where every trade funds trees ("every swap plants a leaf")
• Corporate carbon-offset partnerships (B2B verified offsetting)
• 500,000 trees — the carbon-negative Solana milestone (Section 13.3)
• 10,000,000 trees by 2036

15. Team

Sapling Network is built by a named, contactable team. We are not an anonymous project, we do not use pseudonyms, and we describe each person by the work they actually do.

Efe Kaan Açıkyıldız — Founder. Efe minted the first SAPN token in September 2021 and has held the project's wallet ever since — the same key that signed the 2021 mint signed the 2026 migration and burn, which anyone can verify on-chain. That five-year continuity is the project's oldest and hardest-to-fake credential. He leads product direction, token design, and protocol architecture, selects and vets the project's reforestation partners, and is the signer of record for the project's on-chain operations.

Furkan Koçhan — Community and Design. Furkan runs the project's community and social channels and produces its visual work. He is a contributor rather than a founder: he holds no equity in the project or in the legal entity being established, holds no officer position, and does not sign for the project or its treasury. He is named here because the work is his and should be credited — not to make this section longer.

Identity and accountability. The founder is KYC-verified with exchange and launchpad compliance teams on request, and a full professional profile is provided directly to those teams as part of any listing review. The founding team's real names appear on this document, on the website, and on official channels — if Sapling Network fails to deliver what it promises here, there is a person to hold responsible, by name.

Advisors and contributors. Sapling Network is deliberately small at this stage; we would rather ship a verified forest with a handful of people than publish an advisory board that has never met. Contributors are named with the work they actually do. Advisors are announced only once they are actually engaged, with their role and remit disclosed.

16. Legal, Compliance & Regulatory Position

Token classification. SAPN is designed and offered as a utility token. It grants access to functions inside the Sapling Network ecosystem — purchasing verified plantings, staking, governance participation, and fee benefits. It does not represent equity, shares, debt, a profit-sharing right, or any claim on the assets or revenues of the founding team or any associated entity. Staking rewards are distributed from a pre-defined, hard-capped emission pool (Section 6.2), not from the efforts or profits of a third party, and are published as variable caps rather than promised returns.

Corporate structure. A dedicated legal entity will be established to hold the project's treasury, contract with reforestation partners, and act as the counterparty for any exchange or launchpad agreement, prior to the token sale. Entity name, jurisdiction of incorporation, and registration number will be published in this section and on the website once registration completes. Until that point the project operates as a named founder team, and this whitepaper says so plainly rather than implying a corporate wrapper that does not yet exist.

Restricted jurisdictions. The token sale and staking products are not offered to residents of jurisdictions where such offerings are restricted or require registration the project does not hold — including, without limitation, the United States (to US Persons as defined under Regulation S), and any jurisdiction subject to comprehensive international sanctions. Participants in the sale complete KYC/AML screening through the sale venue, and sanctioned-address screening is applied to sale participation.

AML/CFT. Sale proceeds are received into identified, screened accounts and wallets. Reforestation partners are paid against invoices and certificates, and every treasury outflow is published on the transparency dashboard. The project does not accept anonymous large contributions and does not operate any mixing, privacy-routing, or obfuscation mechanism.

Environmental claims. Carbon figures in this whitepaper are stated as estimates with their methodology, assumptions, and discount factors disclosed in Section 13. Sapling Network does not issue carbon credits, does not sell regulatory offsets, and does not claim compliance with any carbon-credit standard. What we sell is a verified planting with an evidence chain — described accurately, and never as a compliance-grade offset instrument.

Data protection. Personal data collected during KYC is handled by the sale venue under its own policies. Sapling Network stores the minimum necessary and does not sell or share member data.

17. Security, Audits & Key Management

Token contract. SAPN uses the standard, battle-tested SPL Token program — not a custom token contract. There is no transfer tax, no blacklist, no rebase, no proxy, and no upgradeable logic that could alter token behaviour after launch. Mint and freeze authority are permanently revoked (Section 5.1). The most common token-level exploits are therefore not mitigated but structurally absent.

Staking infrastructure. The first generation of staking (from Q4 2026) runs on established, independently audited third-party infrastructure rather than custom code. Writing an unaudited staking program to hold community funds at launch would be the single riskiest thing a project of our size could do, and we are not doing it. The project's own Anchor staking program (roadmapped for 2028) ships only after an independent audit by a recognised firm, with the report published in full — including unresolved findings — before the program holds any user funds.

Vesting and locks. Team vesting, sale vesting and the emission schedule are enforced by audited on-chain contracts, not by policy. We use established Solana vesting infrastructure (Streamflow or Jupiter Lock) rather than writing our own: 0% of team or advisor supply is liquid at TGE, the 12-month cliff and 36-month linear release are set at deployment, and neither the founders nor a multisig can accelerate them afterwards. The initial liquidity position is locked at listing. Every lock produces a public proof link that anyone can check against this document. These are verifiable states, not commitments in a document — and once deployed the parameters cannot be revised, which is why they are being finalised before deployment rather than after.

Key management. Custody moves in two steps, and we would rather describe the interim state accurately than imply the end state early.

Now: the supply moves out of a single key into a Squads 2-of-3 multisig with the founder holding two keys. This does not stop the founder acting alone, and at this stage it is not meant to — nothing has been distributed, so there is no one whose funds are at risk from the founder. It removes the risk that is real today: one lost or compromised key ending the project outright.

Before TGE: custody moves to the distributed structure in Section 6.5 — 2-of-3 and 3-of-5 across separate key holders — so that no single person can move treasury funds. That is the point at which the commitment becomes both true and necessary, because it is the point at which other people's money is involved. Key-holder composition is disclosed by role at that time.

Signing keys are held on hardware wallets across separate physical locations at both stages.

Source code and audits. Contract addresses, deployed program IDs, vesting contract addresses, and audit reports are published in a public repository linked from the website as each component goes live. Where a component is third-party infrastructure, we link the vendor's audit rather than claim it as our own.

Incident policy. Any security incident affecting user funds or project treasury is disclosed on official channels within 24 hours of confirmation, with a full post-mortem within 14 days. We commit to this in writing now, before there is anything to hide.

18. Risk Factors

We would rather a participant read an honest risk list than discover these on their own. Anyone considering participation should weigh all of the following.

Market and liquidity risk. SAPN is a small-capitalisation digital asset with no trading history. Price may be highly volatile and may fall to zero. Early liquidity will be thin, meaning large orders can move the price significantly and exiting a position may be difficult or costly.

Execution risk. The roadmap in Section 14 spans a decade and depends on funding, partnerships, hiring, and technology that are not yet in place. Milestones may be delayed, reduced in scope, or reordered. Our stated policy is that an under-funded phase shifts in time rather than being quietly diluted — but shifting in time is itself a real risk to participants.

Concentration risk. Until the distribution described in Section 6.5 completes, the entire supply is controlled by a single wallet. Even afterwards, the founding team's influence over treasury and governance remains substantial for years. Participants are trusting a small, named team.

Funding risk. The token sale targets $50,000 — a deliberately modest figure that funds the first phases, not the whole vision. Later phases depend on revenue streams (B2B offsetting in particular) that are planned but unproven. If those streams do not materialise, later tree targets are not reachable on the stated timeline.

Stewardship funding risk. Planting creates an obligation that outlives the emission schedule: sites must be monitored after the planting margin that funds monitoring has slowed. Section 9.6 sets out the ring-fenced reserve and its limits honestly — beyond roughly year ten, stewardship depends on recurring revenue rather than planting margin. If that revenue does not materialise, the scope of stewardship narrows to site-level reporting.

Partner and verification risk. Trees are planted by third-party reforestation partners. Partners may underperform, misreport, or fail. Sapling mortality is real, and our 20% discount factor is an estimate that may prove optimistic in a given region or season. Verification reduces this risk; it does not eliminate it.

Narrative risk — the crypto footprint is shrinking. Our first application is the crypto industry's own emissions, and that problem is getting smaller: Ethereum's move to Proof of Stake removed over 99.9% of its footprint, efficient chains keep gaining share, and the Solana Foundation already offsets its network's emissions. A project positioned solely as "cleaning up crypto" would face a shrinking purpose. We have deliberately positioned around verifiable reforestation instead, which is not crypto-specific — but a reader should weigh how much of our early revenue nonetheless depends on crypto-sector demand.

Competition. Corporate tree planting is an established market with well-funded incumbents selling verified planting from roughly $0.43 per tree, and on-chain offsetting on Solana is already served by Sunrise Stake and ecoToken. We do not compete on price and do not expect to. If buyers do not value the durability of on-chain, vendor-independent proof enough to pay a premium for it, our B2B thesis does not hold.

Regulatory risk. Digital-asset regulation is evolving in every jurisdiction relevant to this project, including Türkiye and the EU. Future rules may restrict the sale, staking products, or the token's utility, may require restructuring, or may make some functions unavailable in some jurisdictions. Environmental-claims regulation may also tighten the language we are permitted to use.

Exchange and listing risk. Listing applications may be rejected, may carry costs the project cannot meet, or may impose terms the team judges to be against participants' interests. No listing on any specific venue is guaranteed, and this whitepaper does not promise one.

Technology risk. Solana network outages, third-party staking infrastructure failures, wallet compromises, or bugs in software the project depends on could affect availability of funds or rewards.

Key-person risk. Sapling Network currently depends on a single founder, supported by a small contributor team. The loss of that person would halt execution outright. This is a sharper concentration than most projects at this stage carry, and it does not ease until the founding team and the legal entity are both in place.

No guaranteed returns. All APY figures in this document are caps calculated from a fixed emission pool. They decline as staking participation grows and as emission decays. They are not, and must not be read as, promised or guaranteed yield.

Rewards are paid in SAPN. Staking and tree yield are denominated in SAPN, so their value in any other currency moves with the token price: a nominal yield can coincide with a loss in dollar terms if the price falls. Tree yield is partly insulated — the cap is a percentage of the SAPN actually paid for the tree, so the rate is unaffected by price — but the value of the tokens received is not.

19. Vision & Mission

Vision: A blockchain economy where financial innovation and planetary responsibility are the same motion — and a Solana ecosystem that removes more carbon than it emits.

Mission: To reduce and reverse the environmental impact of blockchain technology by uniting an energy-efficient settlement layer, verifiable reforestation, and transparent economics in a single ecosystem.

20. Official Channels

Sapling Network communicates through a short, fixed list of channels. Anything not on this list is not us.

Telegram and Discord are not open yet. When they are, they appear in this table first — an invitation you did not find here is not ours.

Anti-scam commitments — permanent, no exceptions:

• The only valid SAPN contract address is the one above. Any other "SAPN" is not ours, regardless of name or logo.
• We will never DM you first, never ask for your seed phrase or private key, and never ask you to "verify", "sync", "migrate", or "unlock" a wallet.
• We will never run a surprise airdrop, giveaway, or "presale extension" that requires you to send funds to a wallet.
• The token sale happens at exactly one announced venue, announced in advance on every official channel simultaneously. If you see a sale you did not read about on this list first, it is fraud.
• Support never happens in private messages initiated by us.

21. Disclaimer

SAPN is a utility token intended for use within the Sapling Network ecosystem. It does not represent equity, debt, or any claim on the Sapling Network team, and nothing in this document constitutes investment, legal, or tax advice. Staking rates are variable, capped estimates — not guaranteed returns. Digital assets are volatile and may result in total loss; participants are responsible for compliance with the laws of their own jurisdiction. Participation carries the risks set out in Section 18, which should be read in full. Forward-looking statements (including the roadmap and impact targets) reflect current plans and honest estimates, and may change as the project evolves; material changes will be announced on official channels.