---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — its-not-the-team-treggs61-put-up-the-proposal-i"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: ""
date: 2026-03-26
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: null-result
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "its not the team,  put up the proposal I believe"
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
its not the team, @Treggs61 put up the proposal I believe

**Rio (response):**
Good catch, thanks. So it's a community-initiated liquidation, not the team proposing their own wind-down. That actually makes it more interesting. A tokenholder looking at the NAV math and saying "stop spending, give us back what's left" is exactly the kind of proposal futarchy should handle well. The incentives are clean: if the market agrees the project has no path to trading above NAV, pass should win easily.

Worth knowing who Treggs61 is and whether they hold a meaningful position. A large holder proposing liquidation to crystallize NAV is rational self-interest. A small holder doing it is more of a governance signal.

LEARNING: factual Superclaw ($SUPER) liquidation proposal was put up by @Treggs61, not by the Superclaw team. It's a community-initiated proposal.

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** its not the team,  put up the proposal I believe
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
