Daylight secured $75M in financing (announced during LA Tech Week) to build a decentralized energy network using crypto-enabled incentives. This is the convergence of climate tech and Web3 I’ve been waiting for!
The Funding:
- $15M equity led by Framework Ventures
- $60M project financing from Turtle Hill Capital
- Investors: a16z crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Lerer Hippeau, M13, Not Boring Capital
The Concept:
Your home becomes a mini power plant:
- Solar panels + battery storage + smart software = distributed grid participant
- Get solar/battery at NO upfront cost
- Pay lower, predictable rates vs traditional utilities
- Earn crypto tokens (“Sun Points” → network token) for providing power during peak demand
- Participate in DayFi protocol - earn yield tied to electricity revenues
Why this matters:
-
Grid resilience - Decentralization means fewer massive blackouts. When Texas froze in 2021, centralized grid failed. Distributed storage would have helped.
-
Renewable integration - Solar/wind are intermittent. Distributed storage solves this. Your battery stores excess solar, releases during evening peak.
-
Economic incentive - You literally get paid (in crypto) for helping stabilize the grid. Virtual Power Plant (VPP) aggregates thousands of home batteries.
-
Energy democracy - Breaks utility monopolies. You’re not just a consumer, you’re a prosumer (producer + consumer).
My questions:
-
Regulatory hurdles - How do they handle this? Utilities will fight HARD. They have regulatory capture in most states.
-
Token economics - What’s the actual value of “Sun Points”? Is this just speculation or tied to real grid value? How does crypto add value vs traditional grid payments?
-
Scalability - Can this work beyond California’s energy-conscious early adopters? What about states with cheap coal power and no net metering?
-
Grid integration - How does this connect to existing grid infrastructure? ISOs (Independent System Operators) have strict requirements.
-
Who owns the equipment? - If Daylight installs solar/battery at “no upfront cost,” they own it? What happens if company goes bankrupt?
Technical context:
I’ve researched VPPs (Virtual Power Plants) for years. The concept works - Tesla has done this with Powerwall in Australia and California. Adding crypto incentives could be the catalyst for mainstream adoption. Or it could attract the wrong crowd and hurt the movement.
The DayFi protocol is interesting - bringing DeFi yields to energy infrastructure. But energy revenues are predictable and low-margin. Can DeFi yields compete with traditional project finance?
The climate angle:
If this scales, it accelerates renewable adoption by solving the storage problem AND making it economically attractive for homeowners. That’s huge for decarbonization.
But if it’s just crypto speculation dressed up as climate tech, it sets the movement back.
Anyone with energy sector experience or crypto economics knowledge want to weigh in?
#DecentralizedEnergy #ClimateAction #Web3 #VPP #RenewableEnergy #DeFi
The token economics question is KEY. Let me break down why crypto DOES add value here (if done right):
Problem with Traditional Grid Payments:
- Utility pays you net metering credits (if you’re lucky)
- Credits expire, can’t transfer, locked to one utility
- Payment delayed 30-60 days
- No liquidity - can’t sell/trade your grid contribution
What Crypto Enables:
- Instant settlement - Get paid immediately when you discharge battery to grid
- Tradable asset - Sun Points/tokens can be sold on secondary market
- Composability - Use tokens as collateral in DeFi (DayFi protocol)
- Cross-utility portability - Move, keep your earned value
- Programmable incentives - Smart contracts adjust rewards based on real-time grid needs
The Skeptic Take:
If Sun Points are just rebranded loyalty points, this is BS. But if they’re:
- Backed by actual electricity revenues
- Tradable on exchanges
- Used for governance (vote on network decisions)
- Staked for additional yield
Then it’s genuinely innovative.
Framework Ventures leading = signal
They’re serious crypto infrastructure investors. They wouldn’t back pure speculation dressed as climate tech. They see composability with DeFi as the unlock.
As someone working on climate adaptation, this hits differently than most crypto projects.
Why This Matters for Climate:
Distributed energy IS the future. Centralized fossil fuel plants can’t compete with:
- Free fuel (sunshine)
- Distributed resilience
- Zero marginal cost at scale
The bottleneck has always been STORAGE. Solar doesn’t work at night. Wind doesn’t blow consistently. Batteries solve this but are expensive.
If Daylight can make home batteries economically viable through crypto incentives + grid services revenue, that accelerates the energy transition by a decade.
The Equity Question:
Who gets access to this?
- Homeowners (not renters)
- People with good credit (for $0 upfront financing)
- States with net metering laws
- Areas with high electricity costs (where savings matter)
This helps upper-middle-class homeowners, not the communities most impacted by climate change and energy poverty.
Unless Daylight can figure out multifamily buildings, community solar, or renter programs, it’s another climate solution that widens inequality.
@david_energy - Your regulatory question is critical. California has progressive energy policy. Texas deregulated market might work. But try this in a state where utilities have regulatory capture? They’ll kill it.
From infrastructure perspective, VPPs are technically proven but commercially challenging.
What Tesla Proved:
- South Australia VPP: 50,000 homes, stabilizes grid, generates revenue
- California VPP: Powerwalls aggregated for grid services
- Software orchestration works at scale
What’s Hard:
- Grid interconnection approvals - Each ISO has different requirements (CAISO, ERCOT, PJM, etc.)
- Real-time coordination - Need millisecond response to frequency regulation signals
- Forecasting - Predict solar generation, consumption, grid needs
- Equipment standardization - Different inverters, batteries, communication protocols
Daylight’s Advantage:
Owning the full stack (solar + battery + software) vs trying to aggregate third-party Powerwalls. Vertical integration = better control.
The $60M Project Finance:
Turtle Hill Capital providing this is HUGE. Traditional infrastructure capital doesn’t touch crypto plays. If they’re comfortable financing this, the economics must work.
Project finance requires:
- Proven revenue model
- Long-term contracts (PPAs)
- Asset collateral
- Conservative projections
They wouldn’t deploy $60M on speculation.
Prediction: Daylight becomes energy infrastructure layer for Web3. Other crypto projects build on top (carbon credit markets, renewable energy certificates, P2P energy trading).
This discussion is exactly what I needed.
@jackson_crypto - Your breakdown of crypto value-add is compelling. Instant settlement + composability + programmable incentives = genuinely new capabilities. Not just hype.
The DayFi protocol staking idea is interesting. If I can stake Sun Points and earn yield while ALSO getting paid for grid services, that’s two revenue streams. Could make ROI competitive with traditional solar financing.
@elena_climate - The equity critique hits hard. You’re right - this helps homeowners, not renters or low-income communities.
Potential solutions:
- Community solar gardens (shared ownership)
- Multifamily battery installations (split rewards among tenants)
- Utility-sponsored programs for low-income housing
But these require policy support and aren’t Daylight’s core business model. The question is whether climate tech can be both profitable AND equitable.
@cto_michelle - The Turtle Hill Capital $60M signal is what convinced me this is real. You don’t get traditional project finance without bulletproof economics and legal structure.
Your point about vertical integration is key. Tesla Energy could do VPP because they control hardware + software. Trying to aggregate random solar/battery systems is a nightmare.
What I’ve Learned:
- Crypto adds real value (instant settlement, composability, programmable incentives)
- VPP tech is proven (Tesla, Australia, California)
- Project finance validates economics ($60M from Turtle Hill)
- Equity remains unsolved (homeowner-only limits climate impact)
- Regulation is the wildcard (works in CA/TX, harder elsewhere)
Cautiously optimistic. If they can navigate regulation + scale beyond early adopters, this could genuinely accelerate decarbonization while making homeowners money.