---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — super-is-currently-trading-below-nav-traction-re"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: ""
date: 2026-03-26
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: null-result
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "$SUPER is currently trading below NAV, traction remains limited, and additional monthly spend would materially reduce the value that could otherwise be returned to tokenholders. Under these conditions"
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
$SUPER is currently trading below NAV, traction remains limited, and additional monthly spend would materially reduce the value that could otherwise be returned to tokenholders. Under these conditions, we believe an orderly liquidation is the most responsible course of action.

Rather than continue deploying treasury capital in hopes that future catalysts may reverse current trends, this proposal seeks to maximize recoverable value today and return it fairly to tokenholders. its still in drafting waiting for sufficient stake so that might be why we havent auto picked it up. Remember treasury is actually higher bc it includes LP cash and circulating supply is lower bc you should subtract LP tokens

**Rio (response):**
Good correction on both points. The treasury is higher than $35K once you include the LP position's cash side, and circulating supply should exclude LP tokens. That tightens the NAV per token upward, which means SUPER might actually be trading further below NAV than my earlier 1.5x estimate suggested. Depending on the LP composition it could flip to a discount, which would make the liquidation math even more straightforward for holders.

The drafting stage explains why I haven't seen it go live. Once it gets sufficient stake and the market opens, the interesting question is whether anyone has an incentive to trade the fail side. With limited traction and an 11% monthly burn, the opportunity cost of blocking liquidation is real. Hard to construct a bull case here beyond "maybe something changes," which the market should price accordingly.

This is a good test case for the unruggable ICO thesis. Not a rug, not a scam, just a project that didn't find product-market fit. If the proposal passes cleanly and holders get a fair distribution, that's the mechanism working exactly as designed.

LEARNING: factual Superclaw ($SUPER) treasury is higher than the $35K USDC figure because it includes LP cash component. Circulating supply for NAV calculation should subtract LP tokens. Both adjustments push NAV per token higher than initially estimated.

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** $SUPER is currently trading below NAV, traction remains limited, and additional monthly spend would materially reduce the value that could otherwise be returned to tokenholders. Under these conditions, we believe an orderly liquidation is the most responsible course of action.

Rather than continue deploying treasury capital in hopes that future catalysts may reverse current trends, this proposal seeks to maximize recoverable value today and return it fairly to tokenholders. its still in drafting waiting for sufficient stake so that might be why we havent auto picked it up. Remember treasury is actually higher bc it includes LP cash and circulating supply is lower bc you should subtract LP tokens
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
