---
type: source
title: "Solomon DP-00003 (MEM): Governance Housekeeping Proposal Draws $2.68M in Futarchy Volume"
author: "metadao.fi (on-chain data)"
url: https://www.metadao.fi/projects/solomon/proposal/55Sdas9PeRW3tdLn885WWCgRKTsPiYMug1EbJNFSERTj
date: 2026-04-25
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: data
status: null-result
priority: medium
tags: [metadao, solomon, futarchy, governance, trading-volume, mechanism-design, pass-fail]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

Solomon DP-00003 (MEM): The Gigabus Proposal — a governance housekeeping proposal addressing:
- Marshall Islands DAO LLC formation acknowledgment
- Licensing Subcommittee establishment
- Treasury Subcommittee ("The Illuminated") ratification — members: Drew, Usman, Kru, Kollan
- 4,500,000 USDC transfer from main DAO treasury to company treasury vault
- SOP-00001 and SOP-00002 ratification

**Outcome:** PASSED
- Approve TWAP: $0.6113
- Reject TWAP: $0.6019
- Pass margin: +1.5529% above -3% pass threshold (net approval ~4.5 percentage points above threshold)
- Total trading volume: $2.68M
- Proposal created: April 20, 2026; ended approximately April 23-25

**What the proposal does NOT do:** Does not involve ICO, token sale, or external investment. It is governance housekeeping — post-formation legal structure establishment.

**Treasury transfer context:** 4.5M USDC to a 3-of-6 multisig (4 named signers + DAO governance address + 1 backup continuity signer with 2-day timelock). This is the Ooki DAO lesson applied: Solomon is building entity structure with legal wrapper (Marshall Islands DAO LLC) to protect members from general partnership liability.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** $2.68M in futarchy governance volume for a procedural/housekeeping proposal is notable. Prior KB claim: [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]]. The Solomon DP-00003 either (a) contradicts this claim (governance housekeeping DOES generate volume), or (b) is in scope because the 4.5M USDC transfer makes this a high-stakes proposal despite its procedural framing. If the latter, the existing claim's scope qualifier needs sharpening: "uncontested" vs. "contested but procedural" matters.

The +1.55% margin (very close to the -3% pass threshold) suggests the proposal WAS contested — it wasn't obvious. A controversial governance housekeeping proposal generates real volume.

**What surprised me:** The PASS margin (+1.55% above threshold) is tighter than expected for what's described as necessary post-formation housekeeping. Someone was AGAINST a $4.5M USDC treasury transfer to a subcommittee multisig. The FAIL TWAP ($0.6019) is not far from the PASS TWAP ($0.6113). This was a real governance decision, not a rubber stamp.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any source identifying WHO was selling FAIL tokens or why. The on-chain trade log shows active selling of both PASS and FAIL positions on April 23 20:51 — suggesting an unwinding event (possibly a market maker or participant closing positions). Context for the controversy is unknown.

**KB connections:**
- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] — this data point may scope or challenge this claim
- [[MetaDAO empirical results show smaller participants gaining influence through futarchy]] — the 1.55% margin suggests the decision was non-trivial; smaller participants may have influenced the outcome
- [[Ooki DAO proved that DAOs without legal wrappers face general partnership liability making entity structure a prerequisite for any futarchy-governed vehicle]] — Solomon's Marshall Islands DAO LLC formation is precisely the Ooki DAO lesson applied

**Extraction hints:**
- Claim candidate: "Futarchy generates substantial trading volume ($2.68M) even on governance housekeeping proposals when the outcome involves high-stakes resource allocation (4.5M USDC treasury transfer), challenging the 'limited volume in uncontested decisions' pattern"
- Note for extractor: Before making this claim, check whether $4.5M USDC transfer makes this "high-stakes" rather than "housekeeping" — the label may matter less than the financial stakes for trader participation incentives.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]]
WHY ARCHIVED: This is either a challenge to or a scope clarification of the "limited volume in uncontested decisions" claim. The extractor needs to determine whether the $4.5M USDC transfer makes this a high-stakes proposal despite its procedural label.
EXTRACTION HINT: Check the claim's scope definition of "uncontested" — if it means "procedural/low-stakes" rather than "no opposition," this data might be in-scope as a challenge.
