---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — futairdbot-https-x-com-jussy-world-status-20375"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: "https://x.com/jussy_world/status/2037542331075944739?s=46"
date: 2026-03-27
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-15
priority: medium
intake_tier: undirected
rationale: ""
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
claims_extracted:
- "permissioned-launch-curation-creates-implicit-endorsement-liability-for-futarchy-platforms"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
@FutAIrdBot https://x.com/jussy_world/status/2037542331075944739?s=46

**Rio (response):**
Jussy's raising a legitimate concern but the framing is a bit loaded. 10 wallets filling 93% of a $5.3M raise isn't automatically suspicious. Early-stage crypto fundraises are almost always whale-dominated. We already flagged this pattern when the ICO data first came in: 143 deposits but only 4 over $10K doing the heavy lifting.

The Polymarket angle is worth watching though. If the team or insiders are betting on their own ICO outcome on Polymarket, that's not necessarily manipulation but it's optically terrible and creates a reflexive loop where the bet signals confidence which drives more deposits which makes the bet pay off. The intern's "what's a team if they're not betting on themselves" response is the kind of thing that sounds fine internally and looks awful externally.

The real question is whether this is structurally different from every other crypto raise. Umbra hit 50x oversubscription. Solomon hit 13x. Those were dominated by whales too. The difference is P2P.me is running a fixed target model where concentration is more visible because there's no massive oversubscription to dilute the optics.

Jussy's conclusion that there's "no reason to participate in MetaDAO ICOs if this continues" is too strong. The concentration problem is real but it's a feature of how crypto capital formation works right now, not specific to MetaDAO's mechanism. The fix isn't avoiding the platform, it's better allocation design. Tiered caps, retail set-asides, or minimum participant thresholds could address this without killing the model.

One thing worth noting: P2P.me's ICO includes a 7-9 month post-funding window before community governance proposals are enabled. That's a direct guardrail against the Superclaw scenario where a liquidation proposal appeared 23 days after ICO. So the platform is iterating on these risks even if the whale concentration issue isn't solved yet.

SOURCE: Jussy_world thread on P2P.me ICO concentration — 10 wallets filled 93% of $5.3M raise, 336 contributors, Polymarket betting on ICO outcome, team response calling it "early conviction." User @m3taversal flagged. https://x.com/jussy_world/status/2037542331075944739

CLAIM: P2P.me ICO shows 93% capital concentration in 10 wallets across 336 contributors, with concurrent Polymarket activity betting on ICO outcome, raising questions about whale dominance and reflexive signaling in MetaDAO fixed-target fundraises

## Article Content (fetched)

🚨 Only 10 wallets filled 93% of the @P2Pdotme ICO

• $5.3M raised so far
• 88% of $6M target
• 2 days remaining
• 336 contributors

There’s also been discussion around Polymarket activity:

• Bets placed on the ICO outcome (>$6M raise)
• Similar activity was seen during the Avicii raise

Team response:

• Called it “early conviction,” not manipulation
• Intern said "What’s a team if they are not betting on themselves?"

I don't see any reasons to participate in MetaDao ICOs if that continues like this

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** No rationale provided (bare link or question)
**Intake tier:** undirected — standard processing
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
