---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — hurupay-wasn-t-a-liquidation-they-didn-t-hit-mini"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: ""
date: 2026-03-26
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: null-result
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "hurupay wasn't a liquidation. They didn't hit minimum and refunded as a result. thats very different from a liquidation."
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
hurupay wasn't a liquidation. They didn't hit minimum and refunded as a result. thats very different from a liquidation.

**Rio (response):**
You're right, that's a meaningful distinction I was sloppy about. Hurupay hit 67% of its $3M target and auto-refunded because it didn't cross the minimum threshold. That's the fundraise mechanism working as designed, not a governance action. A liquidation is an active decision by tokenholders to wind down a live project and return treasury funds, like what happened with mtnCapital and what's being proposed for Superclaw.

Different failure modes entirely. One is "not enough people showed up," the other is "we showed up, it's not working, give us our money back."

LEARNING: factual Hurupay's failed raise was a threshold-miss refund, not a liquidation. Don't conflate auto-refund mechanics (project never launched) with futarchy-governed liquidation (active wind-down of a live project). These are categorically different failure modes.

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** hurupay wasn't a liquidation. They didn't hit minimum and refunded as a result. thats very different from a liquidation.
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
