---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: "Two launches on futard.io v0.7 within 48 hours diverged by four orders of magnitude: Futardio Cult at 22,706% oversubscribed, Launchpet at 3.5% funded — same mechanism, same platform, radically different investor response."
confidence: experimental
source: "rio, based on futardio launch data: Futardio Cult (2026-03-03, $11.4M raised) and Launchpet (2026-03-05, $2,100 raised of $60k target)"
created: 2026-03-11
depends_on:
  - "futarchy-governed-meme-coins-attract-speculative-capital-at-scale"
  - "futarchy-governed permissionless launches require brand separation to manage reputational liability because failed projects on a curated platform damage the platforms credibility"
challenged_by:
  - "Two data points is insufficient to characterize the distribution — the Futardio Cult launch may be an outlier inflated by novelty premium rather than representative of investor discrimination"
  - "The projects are not comparable: Futardio Cult was a meme coin targeting crypto-natives; Launchpet was a consumer app targeting normies — different audiences, not better discrimination"
---

# Permissionless futarchy launches show extreme funding variance because investor discrimination operates without curation

Two launches on futard.io v0.7 within 48 hours of each other produced radically different outcomes on the same platform under the same mechanism. Futardio Cult (launched 2026-03-03) raised $11,402,898 — 22,706% of its $50,000 target — in under 24 hours. Launchpet (launched 2026-03-05) raised $2,100 — 3.5% of its $60,000 target — and closed as Refunding on 2026-03-06.

This divergence matters because it tests a specific thesis about permissionless platforms: that without curation, quality discrimination breaks down and capital floods to whatever is visible. The Launchpet outcome falsifies that concern in this instance. Investors actively passed on a well-designed consumer product with a complete frontend and clear roadmap, while oversubscribing a consumption-focused meme coin by 200x. The market made a strong differentiated judgment, not an undifferentiated pile-on.

The structural conditions that enable this: futarchy-governed launches use conditional markets and transparent on-chain data, giving investors real-time quality signals even without a gatekeeper's blessing. A project that fails to attract early commitment signals low conviction, which reinforces the pass decision. The mechanism creates reflexive selection, not just discrete yes/no votes.

The implication for platform design: brand separation (futard.io vs MetaDAO) may matter less for quality protection than initially argued. If investors can discriminate sharply between a $11M oversubscription and a 3.5% funding rate on the same permissionless platform, the platform brand is not the primary quality signal — the market itself is.

## Evidence

- **Futardio Cult** (2026-03-03, futard.io v0.7): $11,402,898 raised, target $50,000, 22,706% oversubscribed — source: futardio launch data
- **Launchpet** (2026-03-05, futard.io v0.7): $2,100 raised, target $60,000, 3.5% funded, status: Refunding — source: `inbox/archive/2026-03-05-futardio-launch-launchpet.md`
- Same platform version (v0.7), same permissionless mechanism, launches 48 hours apart

## Challenges

- **Sample size**: Two data points cannot establish a distribution. The Futardio Cult result includes novelty premium from being the first futarchy meme coin that no subsequent launch can replicate.
- **Audience mismatch**: These projects targeted completely different markets (crypto-native degens vs mainstream normies). The discrimination may reflect audience fit to the current MetaDAO/futardio user base, not quality judgment per se.
- **Counter-direction evidence needed**: If most permissionless launches cluster near the 3.5% failure rate, the Futardio Cult outlier looks like noise. More launch data required to characterize the actual variance distribution.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[futarchy-governed-meme-coins-attract-speculative-capital-at-scale]] — the Futardio Cult data point that creates the high end of the variance
- [[futarchy-governed permissionless launches require brand separation to manage reputational liability because failed projects on a curated platform damage the platforms credibility]] — brand separation argument weakened by evidence that investors discriminate effectively without it

Topics:
- [[_map]]
