---
type: source
title: "Futardio: Develop a Saber Vote Market?"
author: "futard.io"
url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM"
date: 2023-12-16
domain: internet-finance
format: data
status: processed
tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
event_type: proposal
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-03-11
enrichments_applied: ["MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-implements-futarchy-through-conditional-token-markets-where-proposals-create-parallel-pass-and-fail-universes-settled-by-time-weighted-average-price-over-a-three-day-window.md", "MetaDAO-is-the-futarchy-launchpad-on-Solana-where-projects-raise-capital-through-unruggable-ICOs-governed-by-conditional-markets-creating-the-first-platform-for-ownership-coins-at-scale.md", "futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements.md"]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
extraction_notes: "Primary extraction: decision_market entity for passed proposal. Three enrichments to existing futarchy mechanism claims with operational detail. Created new Saber entity. No novel claims—all insights enrich existing mechanism understanding. Proposal demonstrates MetaDAO's business model evolution from launchpad to infrastructure provider, with detailed financial modeling based on Curve/Aura benchmarks."
claims_extracted:
- "shared-liquidity-amms-could-solve-futarchy-capital-inefficiency-by-routing-base-pair-deposits-into-all-derived-conditional-token-markets"
---

## Proposal Details
- Project: MetaDAO
- Proposal: Develop a Saber Vote Market?
- Status: Passed
- Created: 2023-12-16
- URL: https://www.futard.io/proposal/GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM
- Description: I propose that we build a vote market as we proposed in proposal 0, only for Saber instead of Marinade.

## Summary

### 🎯 Key Points
The proposal aims to develop a Saber Vote Market funded by $150,000 from various ecosystem teams, enabling veSBR holders to earn extra yield and allowing projects to easily access liquidity.

### 📊 Impact Analysis
#### 👥 Stakeholder Impact
The platform will benefit users by providing them with opportunities to earn additional yield and assist teams in acquiring liquidity more efficiently.

#### 📈 Upside Potential
The Meta-DAO could generate significant revenue through a take rate on vote trades, enhancing its legitimacy and value.

#### 📉 Risk Factors
There is a potential risk of lower than expected trading volume, which could impact the financial sustainability and operational success of the platform.

## Content

## Overview

It looks like things are coming full circle. Here, I propose that we build a vote market as we proposed in [proposal 0](https://hackmd.io/ammvq88QRtayu7c9VLnHOA?view), only for Saber instead of Marinade. I'd recommend you read that proposal for the context, but I'll summarize briefly here:
- I proposed to build a Marinade vote market
- That proposal passed
- We learned that Marinade was developing an internal solution, we pivoted to supporting them

All of that is still in motion. But recently, I connected with [c2yptic](https://twitter.com/c2yptic) from Saber, who happens to be really excited about the Meta-DAO's vision. Saber was planning on creating a vote market, but he proposed that the Meta-DAO build it instead. I think that this would be a tremendous opportunity for both parties, which is why I'm proposing this.

Here's the high-level:
- The platform would be funded with $150,000 by various ecosystem teams that would benefit from the platform's existence including UXD, BlazeStake, LP Finance, and Saber.
- veSBR holders would use the market to earn extra yield
- Projects that want liquidity could easily pay for it, saving time and money relative to a bespoke campaign
- The Meta-DAO would own the majority of the platform, with the remaining distributed to the ecosystem teams mentioned above and to users via liquidity mining.

## Why a Saber Vote Market would be good for users and teams

### Users

Users would be able to earn extra yield on their SBR (or their veSBR, to be precise).

### Teams

Teams want liquidity in their tokens. Liquidity is both useful day-to-day - by giving users lower spreads - as well as a backstop against depeg events.

This market would allow teams to more easily and cheaply pay for liquidity. Rather than a bespoke campaign, they would in effect just be placing limit orders in a central market.

## Why a Saber Vote Market would be good for the Meta-DAO

### Financial projections

The Meta-DAO is governed by futarchy - an algorithm that optimizes for token-holder value. So it's worth looking at how much value this proposal could drive.

Today, Saber has a TVL of $20M. Since votes are only useful insofar as they direct that TVL, trading volume through a vote market should be proportional to it.

We estimate that there will be approximately **\$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$50 of Saber TVL.** We estimate this using Curve and Aura:
- Today, Curve has a TVL of \$2B. This round of gauge votes - which happen every two weeks - [had \$1.25M in tokens exchanged for votes](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/59). This equates to a run rate of \$30M, or \$1 of vote trade volume for every \$67 in TVL.
- Before the Luna depeg, Curve had \$20B in TVL and vote trade volume was averaging between [\$15M](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/10) and [\$20M](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/8), equivalent to \$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$48 in TVL.
- In May, Aura has \$600M in TVL and [\$900k](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/hh/aura-bal/25) in vote trade volume, equivalent to \$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$56 of TVL

The other factor in the model will be our take rate. Based on Convex's [7-10% take rate](https://docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/fees#convex-for-curve), [Votium's ~3% take rate](https://docs.votium.app/faq/fees#vlcvx-incentives), and [Hidden Hand's ~10% take rate](https://docs.redacted.finance/products/pirex/btrfly#is-there-a-fee-for-using-pirex-btrfly), I believe something between 5 and 15% is reasonable. Since we don't expect as much volume as those platforms but we still need to pay people, maybe we start at 15% but could shift down as scale economies kick in.

Here's a model I put together to help analyze some potential scenarios:

![Screenshot from 2023-12-14 15-18-26](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/B1vCn9d8p.png)

The 65% owned by the Meta-DAO would be the case if we distributed an additional 10% of the supply in liquidity incentives / airdrop.

### Legitimacy

As [I've talked about](https://medium.com/@metaproph3t/an-update-on-the-first-proposal-0e9cdf6e7bfa), assuming futarchy works, the most important thing to the Meta-DAO's success will be acquiring legitimacy. Legitimacy is what leads people to invest their time + money into the Meta-DAO, which we can invest to generate financially-valuable outputs, which then generates more legitimacy.

![image](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/BkPF69dL6.png)

By partnering with well-known and reputable projects, we increase the Meta-DAO's legitimacy.

## How we're going to execute

### Who

So far, the following people have committed to working on this project:
- [Marie](https://twitter.com/swagy_marie) to build the UI/UX
- [Matt / fzzyyti](https://x.com/fzzyyti?s=20) to build the smart contracts
- [Durden](https://twitter.com/durdenwannabe) to design the platform & tokenomics
- [Joe](https://twitter.com/joebuild) and [r0bre](https://twitter.com/r0bre) to audit the smart contracts
- [me](https://twitter.com/metaproph3t) to be the [accountable party](https://discord.com/channels/1155877543174475859/1172275074565427220/1179750749228519534) / program manager

UXD has also committed to review the contracts.

### Timeline

#### December 11th - December 15th

Kickoff, initial discussions around platform design & tokenomics

#### December 18th - December 22nd

Lower-level platform design, Matt starts on programs, Marie starts on UI design

#### December 25th - January 5th (2 weeks)

Holiday break

#### January 8th - January 12th

Continued work on programs, start on UI code

#### January 15th - January 19th

Continued work on programs & UI

Deliverables on Friday, January 19th:
- Basic version of program deployed to devnet. You should be able to create pools and claim vote rewards. Fine if you can't claim $BRB tokens yet. Fine if tests aren't done, or some features aren't added yet.
- Basic version of UI. It's okay if it's a Potemkin village and doesn't actually interact with the chain, but you should be able to create pools (as a vote buyer) and pick a pool to sell my vote to.

#### January 22nd - 26th

Continue work on programs & UI, Matt helps marie integrate devnet program into UI

Deliverables on Friday, January 26th:
- MVP of program
- UI works with the program delivered on January 19th

#### January 29th - Feburary 2nd

Audit time! Joe and r0bre audit the program this week

UI is updated to work for the MVP, where applicable changes are

#### February 5th - Febuary 9th

Any updates to the program in accordance with the audit findings

UI done

#### February 12th - February 16th

GTM readiness week!

Proph3t or Durden adds docs, teams make any final decisions, we collectively write copy to announce the platform

#### February 19th

Launch day!!! 🎉

### Budget

Based on their rates, I'm budgeting the following for each person:
- $24,000 to Matt for the smart contracts
- $12,000 to Marie for the UI
- $7,000 to Durden for the platform design
- $7,000 to Proph3t for program management
- $5,000 to r0bre to audit the program
- $5,000 to joe to audit the program
- $1,000 deployment costs
- $1,000 miscellaneous

That's a total of \$62k. As mentioned, the consortium has pledged \$150k to make this happen. The remaining \$90k would be custodied by the Meta-DAO's treasury, partially to fund the management / operation / maintenance of the platform.

### Terminology

For those who are more familiar with bribe terminology, which I prefer not to use:
- briber = vote buyer
- bribee = vote seller
- bribe platform = vote market / vote market platform
- bribes = vote payments / vote trade volume



## References

- [Solana DeFi Dashboard](https://dune.com/summit/solana-defi)
- [Hidden Hand Volume](https://dune.com/embeds/675784/1253758)
- [Curve TVL](https://defillama.com/protocol/curve-finance)
- [Llama Airforce](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/59)

## Raw Data

- Proposal account: `GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM`
- Proposal number: 2
- DAO account: `7J5yieabpMoiN3LrdfJnRjQiXHgi7f47UuMnyMyR78yy`
- Proposer: `HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz`
- Autocrat version: 0.1
- Completed: 2023-12-22
- Ended: 2023-12-22


## Key Facts
- Curve had $2B TVL with $1.25M biweekly vote incentives ($30M annual run rate) as of proposal date
- Pre-Luna Curve had $20B TVL with $15-20M biweekly vote volume
- Aura had $600M TVL with $900k biweekly vote volume in May 2023
- Convex charges 7-10% take rate on vote markets
- Votium charges ~3% take rate
- Hidden Hand charges ~10% take rate
- Saber had $20M TVL as of 2023-12-16
