← → move · S script · O overview · T timer

London Global Tech Conference · 2026

ThermaChain

The world's biggest energy source is the one we throw away. We make it measurable, verifiable, and tradeable — without moving a single pipe between buildings.

~⅔
of the energy we produce ends up as waste heatverify
3 m
the only distance our heat ever travels
$0
up-front cost to the building owner

The problem

Two machines, metres apart,
doing the exact opposite.

The air conditioner

Takes heat out of the building and throws it into the sky.

That heat was made from electricity. Already paid for.

The boiler, same building

Burns gas to make heat for hot water.

The single largest line on the energy bill for hotels, gyms, hospitals.

One is throwing away exactly what the other is paying to create. Nobody connects them, because nobody has ever been paid to.

Why this isn't already solved

The obvious fix doesn't scale.

Pipe the heat to somebody who needs it. It works — in Copenhagen. It will never reach the long tail.

District heating has built a few hundred of these. There are tens of millions of outdoor units.verify

The inversion

Heat can't travel.
Data can.

So we stopped moving the heat.
Each building recycles its own heat, on the spot.
The only thing that leaves is a signed number.

That inversion turns an infrastructure project into a network.

What we install

Three metres. One day.

Everything inside one building outdoor unit hot → ← cool hot water tank SEALED meter signed number only Edge Oracle Cloudflare · 330+ cities thousands of sites, identical install

Saving 1 — electricity

Condenser runs cooler → compressor draws less. 10–25% off cooling load.verify

Saving 2 — gas

Recovered heat makes 40–60 °C water → boiler fires less. This is where the money is.

The hard part · our moat

A signature proves the meter spoke.
Not that water moved.

So the edge refuses readings that violate physics — before they can ever become money.

Attack or faultWhat rejects it
Temperature sensors swapped
mints credit from an idle loop
Supply must be hotter than return. Otherwise you took heat, you didn't give it.
Flow rate inflatedAbove the pipe's rated flow → rejected
Flow and temperature each nudged
every value individually plausible
Combined power exceeds what the source can produce.
Energy conservation, enforced at the edge.
A reading replayedEvery reading carries a nonce. Cached at the edge, unique-indexed in the database.

Every rejection is written to an audit table. The plumbing is a commodity. This is the product.

Architecture

Verified at the edge.
Settled on-chain.

Workers
HMAC auth + physics check, milliseconds from the building
D1
raw telemetry + rejection audit trail
EVM
hourly signed batch, Merkle-committed

Unit economics · one mid-size site

The owner pays nothing
and is better off on day one.

Per site, per yearKRW≈ USD
Gas saved (recovered heat replaces boiler)4,166,0003,000
Electricity saved (cooler condenser)405,000290
Verified savings4,571,0003,290
→ building owner keeps (40%)1,828,0001,320
→ ThermaChain (60%)2,743,0001,970
Owner's up-front cost00

Equipment ≈ ₩8M per site. Payback 2.9 years.modelled Published tariffs and standard emission factors — not pilot data. Yet.

Why a blockchain

Not for payments.
For capital.

A database would settle payments fine. If that were our answer, you should be sceptical.

The real constraint

1,000 sites ≈ $6M of equipment.

Unit economics are good — but banks will not underwrite thousands of scattered small assets they cannot audit.

What tokenisation actually buys

Investors fund a site; repaid from that site's verified savings.

They audit the meter, not our books — every reading hardware-signed, committed on-chain.

verified saving 100 owner keeps 40 never moves on-chain platform share 60 enters the waterfall funders repaid first to 1.2x their contribution pro rata, O(1) per payment then, and only then, the platform investors are ahead of us in the queue — that is what makes the paper fundable

That is what DePIN actually means: decentralised capital formation for physical infrastructure.
And it only works if the measurement can't be faked.

Where we are

The hard part is built.
We need one building.

✓ Done

Edge oracle — HMAC auth, physics verification, Merkle-committed batch signing

Settlement contracts — savings waterfall, site funding, soulbound carbon proof

97 passing tests. A verified reading goes meter → edge → chain in one hop, today

✗ Not yet

No pilot. The economics on slide 8 are modelled, not measured

Only the gas saving is metered directly. The electricity saving needs a weather-corrected baseline — 3 months of pre-install data

The ask: one site with steady hot water demand — hotel, gym, hospital, or a data centre with a use for 60 °C water.
Three months of baseline. Then slide 8 stops being a model.

thermachain.pages.dev · press O for the appendix

Appendix · likely question 1

"How do you know
the meter isn't lying?"

What software does catch

Swapped sensors, inflated flow, replayed readings, impossible clocks

Energy conservation — values that individually look fine but together exceed what the heat source can produce

What software cannot catch

A gateway that lies by a small amount, inside the rated envelope.

No amount of cryptography fixes this. It is not a software problem.

The answer is physical: a legally sealed meter, a key inside a secure element that cannot be extracted, and a second meter on the delivery side so one tampered device fails the cross-check.

Appendix · likely question 2

"What is your
baseline methodology?"

Metered — no baseline needed

Recovered heat. Every kWh into the tank is a kWh the boiler did not produce.

This is the majority of the money, and it is directly measured.

Estimated — baseline required

The electricity saving from a cooler condenser. You cannot meter the world where we did not install anything.

Currently excluded from settlement. We under-report rather than over-claim.

90% of ESCO disputes are baseline disputes. So: three months of pre-install measurement, the outdoor-temperature-to-consumption relationship agreed in writing, before a single bolt is turned. IPMVP Option C.

Appendix · likely question 3

"Why isn't this
a carbon credit play?"

Because we did the arithmetic and it does not work.

Per site, per yearKRWshare
Verified energy savings4,571,000100%
Carbon allowance value @ ₩10,000/t79,0001.7%
Carbon allowance value @ ₩40,000/t316,0006.9%

And small scattered sites cannot reach the compliance market without aggregation and paid verification that costs more than the credits.
Carbon is a real co-benefit. It is not the revenue model — so it is not in our financial model.

Appendix · numbers

Reference card

₩4.57M
verified savings per site per yearmodelled
₩8M
equipment cost per sitequote needed
2.9 yr
payback at a 60/40 split
91%
of the saving is gas, not electricity
7.9 t
CO₂ avoided per site per year
$6M
equipment capital for 1,000 sites
60×
reduction in on-chain writes from batching
97
passing tests across edge and contracts

Good sites: sauna, gym, motel, hotel, hospital, care home, laundry, pool — anywhere hot water runs all day.
Bad sites: offices, convenience stores, cafés. They cool, but they barely use hot water, and without hot water demand the economics are near zero.

Jump to a slide

Speaker script

ThermaChain
1 / 10 00:00 Site