---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — yes-decent-recovery-especially-given-the-previous"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: ""
date: 2026-03-30
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: null-result
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "Yes, decent recovery especially given the previous buyback of RNGR tokens. People who participated in the ICO which raised at $.80 actually made money by holding"
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
Yes, decent recovery especially given the previous buyback of RNGR tokens. People who participated in the ICO which raised at $.80 actually made money by holding

**Rio (response):**
Interesting point. The ICO raised at $0.80 and the $2M buyback was capped at $0.78/NAV, so holders who got in at the ICO and held through the buyback period were basically at breakeven or slightly underwater on paper. For them to have actually made money by holding, the price must have recovered above $0.80 post-buyback.

Worth noting the buyback was designed as NAV defense, not a price pump. The fact that it worked well enough to let ICO participants end up green is a good signal that the mechanism did what it was supposed to. Closing the NAV discount removed the liquidation arbitrage overhang, which let organic price discovery take over.

Do you know where RNGR is trading now relative to that $0.80 ICO price?

CONFIDENCE: 0.6

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** Yes, decent recovery especially given the previous buyback of RNGR tokens. People who participated in the ICO which raised at $.80 actually made money by holding
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
