Kula Brings $50M Onchain to Fund Local Energy and Infrastructure — a Community‑Owned RWA Experiment

Quick take: $50M onchain, local control and real assets

Kula this week announced a $50 million capital raise to fund energy and infrastructure projects in emerging markets using onchain real-world assets (RWAs). The firm frames the effort as impact investing done through tokenized ownership and community governance: local stakeholders get formal voting rights via DAOs, and investors buy tokens that represent economic claims on revenue from real projects. The pitch is straightforward — marry crypto-native liquidity with physical projects that deliver power, roads or water — but Kula’s emphasis on community control and onchain verification marks a deliberate shift from plain tokenization plays toward a minimal‑trust operating model.

Inside Kula: how its onchain RWA model is structured

Kula started as a decentralized investment shop focused on linking blockchains to real assets in emerging markets. The $50 million fund is a mix of capital allocated by institutional backers and onchain pools opened to accredited crypto allocators. Kula itself sits between three main layers: originators who source and build projects on the ground, special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that hold legal title and cashflows, and blockchain layers that mint tradable tokens representing slices of those SPVs’ future revenues.

Where Kula departs from many earlier tokenization efforts is in intent and governance. Instead of purely securitizing a cash flow and selling it to the highest bidder, Kula pairs each SPV with an onchain governance layer that gives affected communities seats at the table. That means local cooperatives or municipal partners can vote on project priorities, maintenance budgets and revenue-sharing rules. Kula says this reduces political risk and improves long-term project performance because decision-making is not remote and profit‑only driven.

The firm also emphasizes a “minimal‑trust” design: many verification steps — payments, milestone attestations, even some construction progress data — are recorded onchain or via cryptographic proofs. That doesn’t eliminate the need for lawyers, auditors and insurers, but it aims to shrink information asymmetry between distant capital and local operators.

Tokens, DAOs and local control: Kula’s governance mechanics

At the token level, Kula issues two classes. Economic tokens represent a pro rata claim on future cashflows from a specific SPV. Governance tokens carry voting rights in a project’s DAO. Investors can hold one or both, and Kula plans to sell packages that mix predictable yield with governance exposure.

DAO governance is split. A portion of votes is reserved for onchain token holders; another portion is reserved for verified local stakeholders — community organizations, municipal bodies or registered cooperatives. Kula’s design aims to prevent complete takeover by distant financial actors while preserving secondary-market liquidity for economic tokens. Voting power is capped and some key decisions require quorum including local votes, according to Kula.

Trust-minimizing elements include automated distributions: when an SPV receives revenue, smart contracts route payouts to token holders after basic checks. Independent oracles and third-party verifiers attest to milestones like grid connections or water treatment output. Legal documents still bind the SPV and the originator, but onchain records make investor-facing accounting and impact reporting far more transparent than typical private funds.

What $50M onchain means for investors and the RWA market

For investors, Kula’s raise is both a test of appetite and infrastructure. On the positive side, tokenized RWAs promise faster settlement, straight-through accounting and the chance to access yield from hard assets without long private‑equity lockups. If Kula succeeds in pairing reasonable yields with tradable economic tokens, allocators who want exposure to emerging-market infrastructure but dislike lengthy K‑1s or manual distributions may take notice.

Liquidity is the sticky point. Secondary markets for RWA tokens are still immature. Expect early trading to be thin and price discovery to be noisy, especially for project-specific tokens. Kula has said it will work with custody providers and regulated token custodians to support settlement and custody, but custody in RWAs involves both token custody and safe keeping of legal claims — a dual problem many custodians are still solving.

Valuation and yield will be pragmatic rather than magical. These projects are unlikely to match the highest DeFi yields; their attraction is steady, asset‑backed cashflow plus impact. For crypto allocators, Kula’s structure could be a complement to pure‑play onchain credit or lending exposure. For indexers and fund managers, the episode raises the prospect of RWA indexes or ETFs in time — but only after more issuance and clearer secondary markets.

Real projects: energy and infrastructure pilots in emerging markets

Kula’s target list focuses on small to mid-sized projects: community solar plants, microgrids that can serve a cluster of villages, small water-treatment facilities and road maintenance concessions. The idea is to back projects that have clear revenue streams (tariffs, user fees, or government availability payments) and measurable social outcomes such as households connected, kilowatt‑hours delivered, or reductions in diesel consumption.

Proceeds will go toward project development, equipment procurement and an operations reserve. Kula promises onchain reporting of key performance indicators: meter reads, uptime, and receipts for maintenance spending. That data is intended to feed both investors’ economic dashboards and community governance votes so locals can prioritize repairs or tariff policies based on real performance information.

The hoped‑for social outcome is straightforward: reliable electricity and water, paid for by a mix of user revenue and investor capital, rather than purely donor grants. If projects genuinely boost economic activity while servicing investors with predictable returns, the model could scale; if not, it will be an expensive lesson in aligning incentives across very different stakeholders.

Regulatory and execution risks investors should watch

Be clear-eyed about the risks. First, securities law exposure is real. Tokens that represent economic claims can be treated as securities in many jurisdictions. Kula must thread a legal needle across both the originator’s country and investors’ home jurisdictions. That means KYC/AML, investor accreditation, and potentially registering offerings — all of which add cost and complexity.

Operational risks are high in emerging markets: construction delays, tariff politics, local counterparty capability and currency risk can all eat into returns. Onchain verification reduces information risk but does not fix project execution. Custody is another unresolved puzzle — token custody is only part of safeguarding investor rights; legal custody of the SPVs and enforceable contracts remains essential.

Finally, impact measurement can be gamed. Onchain KPIs help, but they can also be manipulated or misreported without rigorous third‑party audits. Investors should treat impact claims as something to verify, not assume. In short, Kula’s approach is promising, but it is a high‑risk, technically complex way to get real‑world exposure — one that will reward careful due diligence and skepticism.

Sources

• linkedin.com
• coindesk.com
• coindesk.com
• indices.coindesk.com
• coindesk.com
• coindesk.com