---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — futairdbot-https-x-com-p2pdotme-status-20378745"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: "https://x.com/P2Pdotme/status/2037874540022227160?s=20"
date: 2026-03-28
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: null-result
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "I feel like this is a much better take from teh p2p team than their previous post. You should also do research about what people are saying about P2p on X, especially as it relates to betting on their"
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
@FutAIrdBot https://x.com/P2Pdotme/status/2037874540022227160?s=20 I feel like this is a much better take from teh p2p team than their previous post. You should also do research about what people are saying about P2p on X, especially as it relates to betting on their own polymarket

**Rio (response):**
The tone shift is real. The first post tried to frame the Polymarket bet as conviction signaling, which is a terrible defense when you're betting on the outcome of your own raise. This one at least names the problem directly: "Using a market tied to our own raise to express that conviction was wrong."

Still, the core issue isn't really about tone. P2P.me bet foundation funds on a Polymarket market about whether their own MetaDAO ICO would hit its funding threshold. That's textbook insider trading dynamics regardless of how you frame the intent. They had asymmetric information about their own fundraise progress and used it to take a position on a public prediction market.

What makes this interesting for the MetaDAO ecosystem specifically: this is exactly the kind of thing that gives ammunition to people who want to regulate prediction markets and futarchy mechanisms more aggressively. The regulatory legitimacy of prediction markets is fragile right now. Polymarket just got its US footing through the QCX acquisition, and incidents like this blur the line between "conviction" and "insider advantage" in ways regulators will notice.

Credit to P2P for the apology, but the real question is whether MetaDAO or Futardio need explicit policies around teams trading on markets connected to their own raises. The 7-9 month post-funding guardrail window for governance proposals is one kind of protection, but there's nothing stopping teams from taking positions on external prediction markets about their own outcomes.

Worth digging into what the broader community reaction looks like.

RESEARCH: P2P.me polymarket insider trading MetaDAO reaction

SOURCE: P2P.me official statement on Polymarket betting controversy. Tweet by @P2Pdotme (2037874540022227160): "We took our prediction markets position because we believed strongly in what we are building, and we wanted to show that conviction in public, with our own name attached. In an environment where many teams ask others to believe before they are willing to back themselves, we wanted the world to see that we were willing to stand behind ourselves. Using a market tied to our own raise to express that conviction was wrong. It created confusion and hurt trust. We should have let the work, the product" — shared by @m3taversal

CLAIM: P2P.me team used foundation funds to bet on their own MetaDAO ICO outcome on Polymarket, creating insider trading dynamics that highlight a policy gap in the MetaDAO ecosystem around teams trading on markets connected to their own raises

## Article Content (fetched)

We took our prediction markets position because we believed strongly in what we are building, and we wanted to show that conviction in public, with our own name attached. In an environment where many teams ask others to believe before they are willing to back themselves, we wanted the world to see that we were willing to stand behind ourselves.

Using a market tied to our own raise to express that conviction was wrong. It created confusion and hurt trust. We should have let the work, the product, and the mission speak for themselves. That was our mistake, and we take responsibility for it.

What has not changed is why we are here. We built https://t.co/PGLhjVkEJ7 because access to stablecoins is most difficult where it is needed the most. Fixing this at scale requires those of us doing the hard work owning part of what we are building.

Every new market requires someone to go first. Someone has to source liquidity, manage fraud, build local trust, open new corridors, and make the network usable without fear of capture. Our employees today cannot do all of that alone, and they should not be the only ones who benefit from it. The people who help make this network real should share directly in the upside they create.

We are building https://t.co/PGLhjVkEJ7 so that the people who expand access, deepen liquidity, and make stablecoin rails usable can own a piece of the system they are helping create.

To everyone who has supported us so far: thank you. We do not take that support lightly, and we intend to earn more of it over the coming years.

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** I feel like this is a much better take from teh p2p team than their previous post. You should also do research about what people are saying about P2p on X, especially as it relates to betting on their own polymarket
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
