PowerBank Corporation and Orbit AI are preparing to launch a new project that aims to bring AI computing, communication systems, and blockchain verification into space. The companies plan to build the “Orbital Cloud“, a network of satellites. They can send data, run AI programs, and verify digital transactions while circling the Earth. Their first satellite, DeStarlink Genesis-1, is expected to launch in December 2025.
The project combines renewable energy, satellite networks, and advanced computing. It also reflects PowerBank’s move from traditional solar projects into digital infrastructure.
Dr. Richard Lu, CEO of PowerBank, said:
“The next frontier of human innovation isn’t just in space exploration — it’s in building the infrastructure of tomorrow above the Earth. The combined markets for orbital satellites, in-orbit data centers, blockchain verification, and solar-powered digital infrastructure are projected to exceed $700 billion over the next decade. By integrating solar energy with orbital computing, PowerBank is helping create a globally sovereign, AI-enabled digital layer in space — a system that can help power finance, communications, and critical infrastructure.”
Orbit AI will supply satellite technology and computing systems. PowerBank will provide solar energy and thermal control solutions that will allow the satellites to operate in space.
A New Type of Digital Infrastructure in Space
The Orbital Cloud brings together two main systems developed by Orbit AI. The first is DeStarlink, a decentralized network of satellites. Like current global internet constellations, it avoids relying on one operator or nation. The second is DeStarAI, a group of orbital AI data centers that use high-performance hardware to process data in low Earth orbit.
Orbit AI plans to combine these systems into one connected layer. This layer will allow satellites to store data, run AI models, and send information globally. It also verifies blockchain transactions.
The satellites work in space, so they don’t face typical limits found on Earth. They avoid issues like cooling needs, power shortages, and local regulations.
PowerBank plans to support this system by supplying solar arrays and cooling control technologies. These systems aim to power the satellites and help them manage the extreme temperatures in space. The company sees this as part of its move into digital assets and data centers, where solar energy helps meet the growing demand for AI and cloud computing.
How the Orbital Cloud Works
The Orbital Cloud works by placing computing hardware, communication tools, and blockchain systems together on satellites. These satellites move in low Earth orbit, which allows them to send data with low delay and maintain constant coverage.
The system uses solar panels to power the AI computers on board. Space offers steady sunlight, which allows continuous energy generation. Because there is no atmosphere in orbit, the satellites can also release heat more easily, which helps the computers stay cool. This reduces the need for complex cooling buildings or large data center facilities on Earth.
Genesis-1, the first test satellite, will include an Ethereum wallet and a blockchain node. This means it can verify transactions from orbit. It will also carry an initial AI payload that can run basic inference tasks. As more satellites launch, they will connect and form a larger network.
As the system expands, Orbit AI will let users send data, run AI programs, or request blockchain verification via the Orbital Cloud. PowerBank and Orbit AI expect this system to support industries such as finance, communication, defense, and digital identity systems.
Why Orbital Computing Is Becoming a Multi-Billion-Dollar Market
Several fast-growing sectors support the idea behind the Orbital Cloud. The companies point to forecasts showing strong growth in satellite technology, space-based data services, AI computing, and renewable energy infrastructure. Together, these sectors may form a market worth more than US$700 billion over the next decade.
Industry research highlights several key trends:
-
Orbital infrastructure is expected to grow from US$13.5 billion in 2024 to US$21.3 billion by 2029.
-
The global satellite market may reach US$615 billion by 2032.
-
In-orbit data centers may expand from US$1.77 billion in 2029 to US$39.1 billion by 2035.
-
Satellite data services may grow from about US$12 billion in 2024 to more than US$55 billion by 2034.
These markets grow due to rising demand for AI processing. Digital sovereignty also needs to drive them. Plus, the use of blockchain systems is on the rise. More countries and companies want secure, independent digital networks, but terrestrial infrastructure can’t keep up. So, space-based systems could become more important.
Moreover, orbital data centers avoid land, water, and grid constraints while accessing uninterrupted solar energy and natural radiative cooling. Companies like Axiom Space, Starcloud, Google, and ADA Space are also into this. These trends reinforce the commercial potential behind PowerBank and Orbit AI’s orbital ambitions.
PowerBank’s leadership sees this shift as an opportunity to combine solar infrastructure with the next wave of digital systems. Orbit AI’s leadership describes the Orbital Cloud as a way to build an autonomous digital layer that does not depend on Earth-based networks. Both companies view the partnership as a step toward long-term commercial growth in space technology.
The Hardware Stack Powering the Orbital Cloud
The project plans to use hardware and technologies from several global leaders. Orbit AI and PowerBank intend to work with companies that provide GPUs, satellite materials, launch systems, and blockchain tools. These parts work together to create the computing, communication, and verification functions of the Orbital Cloud.
The planned major contributors are:
-
NVIDIA for AI hardware.
-
Ethereum Foundation for blockchain frameworks.
-
Galaxy Space for satellite components.
-
Galactic Energy for launch technologies.
-
SparkX Satellite for building the Genesis-1 satellite.
-
AscendX Aerospace for materials for future satellite structures.
NVIDIA was chosen for its expertise in AI hardware, as shown by its record-breaking earnings on November 19, 2025: $57 billion in quarterly revenue, driven by demand for its accelerators and new Blackwell GPUs. This technology surge confirms NVIDIA’s central role in powering next-generation AI networks both on Earth and in space – supporting projects like the Orbital Cloud as industries rapidly pivot to scalable, climate-resilient infrastructure.
These partners support different stages of the project. Some focus on computing power while others provide communications gear. Some contribute launch vehicles or satellite parts. This approach allows PowerBank and Orbit AI to blend proven technologies in their orbital system. They don’t have to build every part from scratch.
Because of this, the project uses high-performance hardware and well-tested satellite structures. This reduces risk during early launches and also allows companies to focus on scaling the system after the first satellites work well.
Funding Roadmap and Key Launch Targets
PowerBank plans to begin its involvement with an initial US$50,000 investment in Orbit AI. The company also aims to invest up to US$10 million. In return, it can get an equity stake of 2% to 20%, depending on the final terms and how well the Genesis-1 launch performs.
Both companies have outlined a development timeline that runs from 2025 to 2030. The key steps are:
-
Launch Genesis-1 in late 2025.
-
Deploy more satellites in 2026.
-
Build a complete constellation by 2027 and 2028.
From 2028 to 2030, the companies plan to introduce autonomous network operations, where satellites can coordinate, compute, and verify on their own without heavy ground control.
If these milestones succeed, the Orbital Cloud could be one of the first large-scale orbital computing systems. It could also influence how countries, companies, and developers design digital services in the future.
The post PowerBank and Orbit AI to Launch the First Orbital Cloud for Space-Based Digital Network appeared first on Carbon Credits.
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
What replaced the cheap REDD credit on the boardroom slide deck, and why procurement is leading the rewrite.
Three years ago, a corporate slide showing a portfolio of cheap REDD+ credits could carry a board meeting. The number was big, the price was low, and the press release wrote itself. Today, that same slide gets sent back with questions. The questions are uncomfortable, the answers are unclear, and your general counsel is suddenly in the room.
Conventional carbon offsets are not dead. The voluntary carbon market retired 202 million tonnes in 2025, and the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 confirmed that interest from corporate buyers remains substantial. What changed is the credibility threshold. The integrity floor has risen, the disclosure scrutiny has tightened, and the buyer profile has shifted. This article tracks what changed, what sophisticated buyers now ask before signing, and what serious corporates are putting on the board slide instead.
What boards used to buy, and why it stopped working
The 2020 to 2022 model was simple: buy a large tranche of avoidance credits at low single-digit prices, retire them against the company footprint, announce the carbon-neutral claim, and move on. Most of those credits came from REDD+ projects, renewable energy installations in countries where the renewable energy was already economic, or methane projects with thin documentation.
Several things broke that model. Academic research published in 2023, including a widely cited Science paper, found that the majority of REDD+ credits issued under the most common methodologies did not represent additional reductions when tested against rigorous counterfactuals. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative published its Claims Code of Practice, which sets requirements for what companies can credibly claim from credit use. The European Union finalised its Green Claims Directive, restricting how companies can describe products as climate-neutral. France’s Décret 2022-539 already restricts carbon neutrality advertising. California’s AB 1305 imposes disclosure requirements on any company making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims while doing business in the state.
The collective effect: the cheap credit no longer buys the announcement, and the announcement now carries litigation risk.
The integrity reset: ICVCM, VCMI, and what changed
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market published the Core Carbon Principles in 2023 and began assessing methodologies against them in 2024. The first methodologies received the CCP label later that year. The point of the label is to give corporate buyers a defensible quality screen they can cite in disclosure.
The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative complements this on the demand side. Its Claims Code of Practice defines what a buyer can say (Silver, Gold, or Platinum claims, with associated requirements) based on the quality of credits used and the underlying decarbonisation strategy. Together, CCP and VCMI build a quality stack: CCP on the supply, VCMI on the claim, with the science-based target sitting underneath both.
The reset is not a ban on offsets. It is a ratchet. Credits that meet the new bar continue to clear; credits that do not, do not. The Morgan Stanley survey found that 61% of current buyers like the CCP label concept but that supply of labelled credits remains limited. That supply constraint is now visible in pricing.
What sophisticated buyers ask before they sign
The questions on the procurement scorecard have changed. A 2022 buyer might have asked about price, vintage, and project type. A 2026 buyer asks five different questions before any of those.
- What does the counterfactual look like, and who validated it.
- What is the permanence regime, and what is the buffer pool exposure.
- What is the leakage risk, and how is it mitigated.
- What rating has the project received from the independent ratings agencies (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx Global), and what was the rationale.
- What is the documentation discipline that survives an audit four years from now when the procurement team that signed the contract has moved on.
If the vendor cannot answer those five questions on a first call, the conversation ends. Conversely, if the vendor can answer them with documented specificity, the conversation often expands beyond a single transaction toward a multi-year engagement.
Where this leaves your near-term commitments
You probably have near-term commitments that pre-date the integrity reset. Public targets to be carbon neutral by 2025 or 2030. Product-level claims that ran in last year’s marketing. Disclosed reduction trajectories that assumed continued access to cheap credits.
You have three workable paths. The first is to re-baseline your strategy, replacing the most exposed credits with higher-quality alternatives and adjusting the public language to match what you can defend. The second is to shift the underlying spend from offsetting outside your value chain to investing inside your value chain, where reductions count against Scope 3 directly and the audit trail is cleaner. The third is to keep the strategy and absorb the risk, which is increasingly the most expensive option once you price in litigation, restatement, and reputational exposure.
Most serious buyers are choosing the second path. It moves the carbon spend from a compliance cost to a procurement and resilience investment, and it removes the central failure point of the legacy model: the disconnect between where the emissions occurred and where the reductions sat. Nature-based supply chain investments, structured under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard and aligned to the SBTi FLAG Guidance, are the asset class that fits this brief. They generate inventory-grade reductions, they produce audit-grade documentation, and they survive the new claim restrictions because the carbon math sits inside the value chain that the disclosure already covers.
If you are reassessing a carbon strategy under the new integrity bar, or rebuilding a board narrative that has to survive a more skeptical audience, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help. The Dual-Value Model gives you a defensible alternative to legacy offset purchases, with the documentation and operational integration that survives the procurement scorecard and the audit. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测