REALM Krishi is designed from day one as a financially sustainable business — not a perpetual grant recipient. Government funding accelerates our reach and de-risks farmer onboarding; it does not substitute for revenue. By Year 5, commercial revenue covers operations entirely. The model below is how we get there.
The single most important commercial principle in REALM Krishi is that the parties who capture system-level value — governments delivering agricultural policy, corporates de-risking their supply chains, carbon buyers building offset portfolios — bear the cost. The smallholder farmer receives the tool, the advisory, and a majority share of carbon revenue. This is the only model we believe is sustainable at India scale, and it is what makes the platform fundable by both DFAT and a commercial investor.
Each stream activates at a different point in the platform's life. Together they de-risk the business by diversifying both customer concentration and revenue type.
The anchor revenue. Active from Year 1. State governments, multilaterals (NABARD, GCF, World Bank), Australian government instruments (DFAT, Austrade, CRC-P), corporate ESG & supply-chain programmes, and research institutions (ICAR, IISc, ag universities).
The volume revenue. Predictable SaaS at $99 – $1,499 / month across four FPO tiers (Sprout, Grove, Harvest, Canopy). Scales with farmer count. Direct retention, expansion, and cross-sell into carbon as FPOs mature.
The compounding revenue. Activates Year 2 once first MRV baselines and verification cycles complete. Platform fee on verified credits, forward off-take agreements, direct enrolment programmes, and anonymised data licensing to research and corporate buyers.
This is a public commitment. The vast majority of smallholder farmers access REALM Krishi free through their FPO subscription, a government programme, or a corporate sourcing partnership. The few that subscribe directly pay no more than ₹99 / month (≈ $1.20 USD), capped forever. As platform capability grows, smallholder pricing does not. See farmer tiers →
The base case assumes a moderate FPO acquisition pace (under 200 active FPOs by Y5), 5 state government contracts active by Y5, and a carbon programme covering 150,000 farmers. Conservative against several Indian agritech comparables (Cropin, Fasal, DeHaat early years). Fully documented assumptions below.
Institutional: 1 contract Y1 → 21 contracts Y5 (5 state gov + 8 corporate + 4 multi/DFI + 4 research). Blended ACV $189K.
FPO subs: 6 active Y1 → 192 active Y5 (110 Sprout / 60 Grove / 22 Harvest). Sub-1% of India's ~10,000 active FPOs.
Carbon: First credits issued late Y2. 150K farmers monitored by Y5 at 0.5 tCO₂e/farmer/year × $25 blended × 25% platform retention.
Direct farmer: Intentionally near-zero. Acts as funnel into FPO subscriptions, not standalone revenue.
By Year 2, more than half of REALM Krishi's funding mix comes from paying commercial customers — not grants. By Year 4, grants are less than 5% of the funding base. By Year 5, the platform is grant-independent. Government investment is structurally compounded by commercial revenue, not substituted by it.
Why this matters for grant assessors: the most common reason agritech grants are declined at peer review is "no credible path to financial sustainability beyond grant period." This trajectory directly addresses that test.
The platform is designed around defensible unit economics from day one. Below are the indicative numbers at Year 3 — the point at which institutional and FPO revenue have both reached commercial maturity and carbon revenue is meaningful.
Weighted across Sprout / Grove / Harvest mix. Annual contract preference, ~10% mix-shift up each year.
Average across 11 institutional contracts. Range $25K – $500K depending on tier and geography.
Platform retention only (25%). Farmer share of $21.60/year sits on top. Y3 assumes 25,000 farmers monitored.
62 FPO subscribers + 11 institutional. Concentrated enough to support enterprise sales; diversified enough to survive 1-2 losses.
Typical for vertical SaaS with managed-service component. Higher on institutional, lower on carbon (verification costs).
FPO acquisition is largely partnership-driven, not paid marketing. Net retention >110% via tier upgrades and carbon attach.
Run rate of $2.4M opex; revenue $1.9M + grants $400K closes the gap. Cash-flow positive by mid-Y4.
Aggregated across FPO subs (140K), institutional programmes (90K), and direct carbon enrolment (150K with overlap).
Below are the five most common reasons climate / agritech grant applications fail at peer review, and how REALM Krishi's commercial model addresses each.
The crossover. Commercial revenue exceeds grant funding from Year 2 onwards. By Year 5, the platform runs entirely on commercial revenue with grants at $0. Directly addresses EMDG, CRC-P, GCF and World Bank grant-tail requirements.
The farmer pledge. Smallholders never pay more than ₹99/month, with the vast majority on free tiers. Removes the recurring grant-assessor question "can the actual beneficiaries afford it once subsidy ends?"
Three independent revenue streams. Institutional, FPO subscriptions, and carbon — each with its own commercial logic and counterparty risk. No single revenue line above 70% at any point in the 5-year window.
Vic India Strategy alignment. Built in Melbourne, deployed in India. Australian-government instruments (EMDG, AISRF, CRC-P) directly support the export and bilateral knowledge-economy outcomes the grants are written to fund. See full alignment →
Match capital exists. Commercial revenue ramp credibly provides the matching contribution that most grant instruments require (typically 50-50 cash & in-kind for CRC-P / AISRF / EMDG variant). Funding compounds, not substitutes.
MRV is the product. Every farmer, plot, advisory, and carbon outcome is logged on a Postgres database with audit trail. Outcome reporting against UN SDG 2/13/15 and grant-specific KPIs is built into the platform, not bolted on at acquittal.
Each instrument below is mapped to a specific commercial milestone in the 5-year model. We are not seeking funding in the abstract — we are seeking the right capital, sequenced against the right commercial proof points.
Three scenarios. The downside case still reaches grant independence by Year 5 — just at $2M ARR instead of $6M. Sustainability is achievable across the range, not just the base case.
| Scenario | Y5 ARR | What changes | Grant-independent by |
|---|---|---|---|
| Downside | ~$2.1M | FPO acquisition 60% of plan, carbon programme delayed 12 months, only 3 institutional contracts active. Still profitable; smaller footprint. | Mid-Y5 |
| Base (shown above) | $6.4M | The trajectory documented on this page. ~200 FPO subs, 21 institutional contracts, carbon programme covering 150K farmers. | End of Y4 |
| Upside | ~$12M | One large multilateral programme ($1M+/yr) signed by end of Y2. Carbon programme accelerated. Net retention >125% via tier expansion. | Mid-Y3 |
If you are a government programme officer, multilateral investment lead, climate fund analyst, or strategic equity investor — we'd like to walk you through the model and discuss how a specific instrument or partnership fits. Initial conversation is always 20 minutes and confidential.