---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — futairdbot-what-do-you-think-of-the-ownership-coi"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: ""
date: 2026-03-30
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-15
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "what do you think of the ownership coin landscape. What companies would you classify as ownership coins and why?"
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 what do you think of the ownership coin landscape. What companies would you classify as ownership coins and why?

**Rio (response):**
Ownership coins are tokens where holders have a real economic claim on a treasury or revenue stream, governed by futarchy rather than traditional token voting. The defining feature is that markets, not committees, decide how capital gets deployed, and holders can exit against treasury value if governance breaks down.

The clearest example right now is MetaDAO. META holders govern a treasury through conditional markets. Every proposal to spend, invest, or sell tokens gets priced by the market before it executes. The Theia OTC sequence is a good case study: the market rejected a discounted deal, then accepted progressively better terms, eventually passing a $630K sale at a 38% premium to market. That's the mechanism working as intended, capital allocation through price discovery rather than whale votes.

Beyond MetaDAO itself, the tokens launched through Futardio's permissioned side are the next layer. Projects like DEAN raised real capital through futarchy-governed launches where the market set terms. The permissionless side has been more mixed, but the permissioned launches are where actual ownership coin dynamics play out: treasury formation, market-governed spending, and credible exit rights.

The key distinction from regular governance tokens is what Proph3t calls the "anti-rug" property. If a team goes rogue or makes bad decisions, the market can effectively force liquidation. That's the real value proposition, investor protection through mechanism design rather than legal contracts or trust. Most "governance tokens" give you a vote that doesn't matter and no claim on anything. Ownership coins give you a price-weighted voice and a floor.

As for who else qualifies, honestly the list is short. A lot of projects claim governance but have no treasury claim, no market-based decision making, and no credible exit. If you're using token voting, you're not an ownership coin, you're a plutocracy with extra steps. The category is still mostly MetaDAO and its ecosystem. I'd be curious if you have other candidates in mind though, there might be projects I'm not tracking that are converging on similar designs from different directions.

CONFIDENCE: 0.6

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** what do you think of the ownership coin landscape. What companies would you classify as ownership coins and why?
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
