when there's no snow, everyone pays
imagine a ski resort operator calling their insurance company after a disastrous season. no snow. no customers. no revenue.
but here's what the insurance conversation misses: the ski resort isn't the only one who lost.
who else depends on that snowpack?
| stakeholder | dependency |
|---|---|
| water utilities | snowmelt provides 50-75% of western US freshwater |
| farmers | irrigation timing depends on gradual spring release |
| fire departments | watershed health determines wildfire risk |
| rafting outfitters | river levels drive their entire season |
| seasonal workers | ski instructors, lodge staff, equipment techs |
| plants and animals | migration, hibernation, breeding cycles |
| hydropower operators | reservoir levels determine generation capacity |
| insurance companies | exposure across property, ag, and liability lines |
| reinsurers | correlated losses across the entire mountain west |
| municipalities | tax revenue from tourism and recreation |
they're all exposed to the same underlying risk. but they're not pooling resources to address it.
each one pays for the consequences separately. none of them pays to protect the source.
the lloyd's coffee house model
in 1686, edward lloyd opened a coffee house on tower street in london. it became the gathering place for merchants, shipowners, and underwriters who needed to manage maritime risk.
the genius wasn't the coffee. it was the congregation.
when multiple parties with shared exposure gathered in one place, they could:
- share information about vessels and routes
- pool capital to underwrite larger risks
- spread losses across many participants
- create accountability through reputation
from that coffee house emerged lloyd's of london—still the world's largest insurance market 338 years later.
the insight: when people with correlated risks coordinate, everyone becomes more resilient than they could be alone.
mutual insurance: pooling what you can't transfer
mutual insurance companies emerged from the same logic. farmers who couldn't afford individual fire insurance formed mutual aid societies. each member contributed premiums to a shared pool. when one barn burned, the pool paid.
the key principles:
| principle | how it works |
|---|---|
| shared exposure | members face similar risks |
| pooled premiums | contributions flow to a common fund |
| mutual benefit | claims paid from the pool |
| aligned incentives | members have stake in preventing losses |
| local knowledge | participants understand regional conditions |
these structures work because participants share a common interest in reducing the underlying risk, not just transferring its consequences.
the limits of risk transfer
modern insurance excels at risk transfer: moving the financial consequences of loss from one party to another.
but risk transfer has structural limitations when it comes to natural capital:
1. you can't transfer systemic risk when snowpack fails across the entire sierra nevada, there's nowhere to transfer the loss. reinsurers face correlated exposure. the risk doesn't disappear—it just concentrates.
2. risk transfer is reactive insurance pays after damage. it doesn't prevent the loss, restore the system, or build resilience for next time.
3. risk transfer fragments coordination the ski resort, the water utility, and the rafting outfitter each have separate policies with separate insurers. no mechanism connects their shared interest in protecting snowpack.
4. risk transfer ignores prevention economics it's often cheaper to maintain ecosystem function than to pay for its failure. but insurance markets aren't structured to fund prevention.
risk transfer without risk reduction is a diminishing game. as climate change accelerates, the losses grow faster than the premiums.
ensurance: risk reduction through coordination
ensurance applies the lloyd's insight to natural capital.
instead of everyone paying separately for consequences, ensurance creates pools where those with shared exposure can fund protection together.
$SNOWPACK is a working example:
| mechanism | how it works |
|---|---|
| shared pool | trading creates a liquidity pool |
| continuous premiums | every trade generates proceeds |
| directed funding | proceeds flow to water-abundance.ensurance and climate-stability.ensurance |
| proactive protection | funds support watershed conservation before loss |
| open participation | anyone with exposure can participate |
the ski resort, the water utility, the farmer, and the rafting outfitter can all hold $SNOWPACK. their trading activity funds the protection of the very system they all depend on.
syndicates: the modern coffee house
ensurance syndicates function like lloyd's syndicates—groups of agents with aligned mandates pooling resources for coordinated outcomes.
but instead of underwriting maritime risk, ensurance syndicates fund the protection of natural systems:
bioregion syndicates coordinate across entire landscape units:
| bioregion | scope |
|---|---|
| greater-california.bioregion | forests, watersheds, and fire regimes across the state |
| cascades-mountain-forests-valleys.bioregion | pacific northwest snowpack and forest systems |
| colorado-plateau-mountain-forests.bioregion | rocky mountain water towers |
| greater-alaska-taiga-tundra.bioregion | permafrost and arctic ecosystems |
ecosystem service syndicates aggregate funding across specific functions:
| service | agents |
|---|---|
| water-abundance.ensurance | snowpack, groundwater, precipitation |
| climate-stability.ensurance | carbon storage, albedo, temperature regulation |
| risk-resilience.ensurance | flood control, fire regimes, storm protection |
| pollination.ensurance | native pollinators, habitat connectivity |
ecoregion syndicates enable precision funding for specific landscapes:
there are 841 ecoregion agents in the system—from sierra-nevada-forests.ecoregion to great-basin-shrub-steppe.ecoregion—each capable of receiving and deploying funds for local protection.
from reactive to proactive
the fundamental shift:
| traditional insurance | ensurance |
|---|---|
| compensates after loss | funds protection before loss |
| transfers risk to another party | reduces risk at the source |
| fragments stakeholders | coordinates shared interest |
| pays for damage | pays for resilience |
| episodic claims | continuous proceeds flow |
| adversarial (claims vs. payouts) | aligned (ecological + financial success) |
this isn't replacing insurance—it's completing the system.
risk transfer still matters. but risk transfer without risk reduction is a losing strategy as climate change accelerates ecosystem degradation.
ensurance creates the coordination layer that traditional insurance lacks: a way for everyone who depends on functioning snowpack to fund its protection together.
real examples: coordinated protection
$ACEH demonstrates multi-beneficiary coordination:
following tropical cyclone senyar's catastrophic flooding in aceh (150+ dead, 500,000 displaced), the $ACEH coin routes proceeds to four different agents:
- peninsular-malaysian-sumatran-tropical-rainforests.bioregion
- tropical-forests.ensurance
- erosion-control.ensurance
- risk-resilience.ensurance
environmental groups documented 600,000 acres of primary forest lost in 2024—and images showed neatly-cut timber washing downstream during the floods. the connection between deforestation and flood damage is direct.
$KARIZ funds traditional water infrastructure across connected bioregions:
the kariz (qanat) is an ancient persian water-harvesting system. the coin routes proceeds to four interconnected bioregions facing water crisis:
- south-caspian-coastal-mountain-mixed-forests.bioregion
- persian-deserts-mountain-woodlands.bioregion
- zagros-mountain-forests-east-anatolian-steppe.bioregion
- caspian-sea-coastal-deserts-kopet-dagh-mountain-woodlands.bioregion
these bioregions are experiencing 40% rainfall deficits and "water bankruptcy." coordinated funding across the watershed is the only viable response.
who should participate?
the ensurance model works for anyone with exposure to natural capital:
water utilities: fund watershed protection instead of just paying for treatment after degradation.
municipalities: reduce disaster costs by investing in ecosystem resilience.
insurance and reinsurance companies: reduce exposure by funding the protection of the systems that drive correlated losses.
recreation businesses: ski resorts, rafting outfitters, fishing guides—your business depends on functioning ecosystems.
agricultural operations: farmers and ranchers with exposure to water availability, pollination, and soil health.
real estate developers: coastal and mountain properties facing flood, fire, and erosion risk.
conservation organizations: leverage market-based funding alongside philanthropic capital.
individuals: anyone who cares about a place, an ecosystem, or a species.
the model that's been waiting
lloyd's coffee house worked because it gathered people with shared exposure into a common space for coordination.
mutual insurance worked because farmers with correlated risk pooled resources for mutual protection.
ensurance applies the same logic to the natural systems that underpin all economic activity:
when those who depend on nature pool resources to protect it, everyone becomes more resilient than they could be alone.
the $1 trillion biodiversity funding gap isn't a problem of scarcity—it's a problem of coordination. the money exists. the exposure exists. the technology exists.
what was missing was a mechanism for pooling premiums across fragmented stakeholders toward shared resilience.
that mechanism is now live.
next steps
explore general ensurance coins — see how trading funds ecosystem protection across the protocol
view specific certificates — direct funding for named natural assets
see proceeds in action — track how trading activity flows to beneficiaries
talk to someone — discuss how ensurance applies to your organization's risk exposure