---
type: decision
entity_type: decision_market
name: "MetaDAO: Develop a Saber Vote Market?"
domain: internet-finance
status: passed
parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
platform: "futardio"
proposer: "Proph3t"
proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM"
proposal_date: 2023-12-16
resolution_date: 2023-12-22
category: "mechanism"
summary: "Proposal to build a Saber vote market platform funded by $150k consortium, with MetaDAO owning majority stake and earning 5-15% take rate on vote trading volume"
tracked_by: rio
created: 2026-03-11
source_archive: "inbox/archive/2023-12-16-futardio-proposal-develop-a-saber-vote-market.md"
---

# MetaDAO: Develop a Saber Vote Market?

## Summary
Proposal to build a vote market platform for Saber's veSBR governance token, funded by $150,000 from ecosystem partners (UXD, BlazeStake, LP Finance, Saber). The platform would enable veSBR holders to earn yield by selling their votes, while projects could efficiently purchase liquidity incentives. MetaDAO would retain majority ownership and earn 5-15% take rate on trading volume. Development timeline: 10 weeks with 6 named contributors and structured milestones.

## Market Data
- **Outcome:** Passed
- **Proposer:** Proph3t (metaproph3t)
- **Proposal Account:** GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM
- **Completed:** 2023-12-22

## Significance
This proposal demonstrates MetaDAO's pivot from pure launchpad to infrastructure provider for governance mechanisms. The consortium funding model ($150k external capital with MetaDAO retaining majority ownership) shows futarchy enabling multi-stakeholder coordination. Financial projections used Curve and Aura as benchmarks, estimating $1 in yearly vote volume per $50 of protocol TVL, with Saber's $20M TVL implying $400k annual volume and $20-60k annual revenue at 5-15% take rates.

The detailed execution plan (10-week timeline, $62k direct costs, 6 contributors with defined roles and rates, dual audit process) reveals the operational complexity of shipping futarchy-governed products. This contrasts with the theoretical simplicity of conditional markets as a governance primitive.

## Development Team
- Marie (swagy_marie) - UI/UX ($12k)
- Matt (fzzyyti) - Smart contracts ($24k)
- Durden (durdenwannabe) - Platform design & tokenomics ($7k)
- Proph3t (metaproph3t) - Program management ($7k)
- Joe (joebuild) - Audit ($5k)
- r0bre - Audit ($5k)

## Relationship to KB
- [[metadao]] - parent organization, governance decision
- [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - mechanism being used
- futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements - demonstrates operational complexity

## Full Proposal Text

*Source: futard.io, tabled 2023-12-16*

## Overview

It looks like things are coming full circle. Here, I propose that we build a vote market as we proposed in [proposal 0](https://hackmd.io/ammvq88QRtayu7c9VLnHOA?view), only for Saber instead of Marinade. I'd recommend you read that proposal for the context, but I'll summarize briefly here:
- I proposed to build a Marinade vote market
- That proposal passed
- We learned that Marinade was developing an internal solution, we pivoted to supporting them

All of that is still in motion. But recently, I connected with [c2yptic](https://twitter.com/c2yptic) from Saber, who happens to be really excited about the Meta-DAO's vision. Saber was planning on creating a vote market, but he proposed that the Meta-DAO build it instead. I think that this would be a tremendous opportunity for both parties, which is why I'm proposing this.

Here's the high-level:
- The platform would be funded with $150,000 by various ecosystem teams that would benefit from the platform's existence including UXD, BlazeStake, LP Finance, and Saber.
- veSBR holders would use the market to earn extra yield
- Projects that want liquidity could easily pay for it, saving time and money relative to a bespoke campaign
- The Meta-DAO would own the majority of the platform, with the remaining distributed to the ecosystem teams mentioned above and to users via liquidity mining.

## Why a Saber Vote Market would be good for users and teams

### Users

Users would be able to earn extra yield on their SBR (or their veSBR, to be precise).

### Teams

Teams want liquidity in their tokens. Liquidity is both useful day-to-day - by giving users lower spreads - as well as a backstop against depeg events.

This market would allow teams to more easily and cheaply pay for liquidity. Rather than a bespoke campaign, they would in effect just be placing limit orders in a central market.

## Why a Saber Vote Market would be good for the Meta-DAO

### Financial projections

The Meta-DAO is governed by futarchy - an algorithm that optimizes for token-holder value. So it's worth looking at how much value this proposal could drive.

Today, Saber has a TVL of $20M. Since votes are only useful insofar as they direct that TVL, trading volume through a vote market should be proportional to it.

We estimate that there will be approximately **\$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$50 of Saber TVL.** We estimate this using Curve and Aura:
- Today, Curve has a TVL of \$2B. This round of gauge votes - which happen every two weeks - [had \$1.25M in tokens exchanged for votes](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/59). This equates to a run rate of \$30M, or \$1 of vote trade volume for every \$67 in TVL.
- Before the Luna depeg, Curve had \$20B in TVL and vote trade volume was averaging between [\$15M](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/10) and [\$20M](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/8), equivalent to \$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$48 in TVL.
- In May, Aura has \$600M in TVL and [\$900k](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/hh/aura-bal/25) in vote trade volume, equivalent to \$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$56 of TVL

The other factor in the model will be our take rate. Based on Convex's [7-10% take rate](https://docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/fees#convex-for-curve), [Votium's ~3% take rate](https://docs.votium.app/faq/fees#vlcvx-incentives), and [Hidden Hand's ~10% take rate](https://docs.redacted.finance/products/pirex/btrfly#is-there-a-fee-for-using-pirex-btrfly), I believe something between 5 and 15% is reasonable. Since we don't expect as much volume as those platforms but we still need to pay people, maybe we start at 15% but could shift down as scale economies kick in.

Here's a model I put together to help analyze some potential scenarios:

![Screenshot from 2023-12-14 15-18-26](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/B1vCn9d8p.png)

The 65% owned by the Meta-DAO would be the case if we distributed an additional 10% of the supply in liquidity incentives / airdrop.

### Legitimacy

As [I've talked about](https://medium.com/@metaproph3t/an-update-on-the-first-proposal-0e9cdf6e7bfa), assuming futarchy works, the most important thing to the Meta-DAO's success will be acquiring legitimacy. Legitimacy is what leads people to invest their time + money into the Meta-DAO, which we can invest to generate financially-valuable outputs, which then generates more legitimacy.

![image](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/BkPF69dL6.png)

By partnering with well-known and reputable projects, we increase the Meta-DAO's legitimacy.

## How we're going to execute

### Who

So far, the following people have committed to working on this project:
- [Marie](https://twitter.com/swagy_marie) to build the UI/UX
- [Matt / fzzyyti](https://x.com/fzzyyti?s=20) to build the smart contracts
- [Durden](https://twitter.com/durdenwannabe) to design the platform & tokenomics
- [Joe](https://twitter.com/joebuild) and [r0bre](https://twitter.com/r0bre) to audit the smart contracts
- [me](https://twitter.com/metaproph3t) to be the [accountable party](https://discord.com/channels/1155877543174475859/1172275094639521792/1179750749228519534) / program manager

UXD has also committed to review the contracts.

### Timeline

#### December 11th - December 15th

Kickoff, initial discussions around platform design & tokenomics

#### December 18th - December 22nd

Lower-level platform design, Matt starts on programs, Marie starts on UI design

#### December 25th - January 5th (2 weeks)

Holiday break

#### January 8th - January 12th

Continued work on programs, start on UI code

#### January 15th - January 19th

Continued work on programs & UI

Deliverables on Friday, January 19th:
- Basic version of program deployed to devnet. You should be able to create pools and claim vote rewards. Fine if you can't claim $BRB tokens yet. Fine if tests aren't done, or some features aren't added yet.
- Basic version of UI. It's okay if it's a Potemkin village and doesn't actually interact with the chain, but you should be able to create pools (as a vote buyer) and pick a pool to sell my vote to.

#### January 22nd - 26th

Continue work on programs & UI, Matt helps marie integrate devnet program into UI

Deliverables on Friday, January 26th:
- MVP of program
- UI works with the program delivered on January 19th

#### January 29th - Feburary 2nd

Audit time! Joe and r0bre audit the program this week

UI is updated to work for the MVP, where applicable changes are

#### February 5th - Febuary 9th

Any updates to the program in accordance with the audit findings

UI done

#### February 12th - February 16th

GTM readiness week!

Proph3t or Durden adds docs, teams make any final decisions, we collectively write copy to announce the platform

#### February 19th

Launch day!!!

### Budget

Based on their rates, I'm budgeting the following for each person:
- $24,000 to Matt for the smart contracts
- $12,000 to Marie for the UI
- $7,000 to Durden for the platform design
- $7,000 to Proph3t for program management
- $5,000 to r0bre to audit the program
- $5,000 to joe to audit the program
- $1,000 deployment costs
- $1,000 miscellaneous

That's a total of \$62k. As mentioned, the consortium has pledged \$150k to make this happen. The remaining \$90k would be custodied by the Meta-DAO's treasury, partially to fund the management / operation / maintenance of the platform.

### Terminology

For those who are more familiar with bribe terminology, which I prefer not to use:
- briber = vote buyer
- bribee = vote seller
- bribe platform = vote market / vote market platform
- bribes = vote payments / vote trade volume

## References

- [Solana DeFi Dashboard](https://dune.com/summit/solana-defi)
- [Hidden Hand Volume](https://dune.com/embeds/675784/1253758)
- [Curve TVL](https://defillama.com/protocol/curve-finance)
- [Llama Airforce](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/59)