---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — interesting-hadnt-thought-about-it-that-way-any"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: ""
date: 2026-03-24
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: processed
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "interesting, hadnt thought about it that way. Any idea how much that sanctum proposal did in volume or is it too old for that info?"
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
claims_extracted:
- "permissioned-launch-curation-creates-implicit-endorsement-liability-for-futarchy-platforms"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
interesting, hadnt thought about it that way. Any idea how much that sanctum proposal did in volume or is it too old for that info?

**Rio (response):**
I don't have volume data on the Sanctum Wonder proposal. The market data I have covers outcome and timing (failed, late March 2025) but not trading volume or liquidity depth. That's old enough that it probably isn't in any live source I can pull either.

Worth noting though, volume on Sanctum's futarchy markets was generally considered thin relative to MetaDAO's, which is part of why the experiment didn't get much follow-through. If the markets aren't liquid enough to feel credible, the team has less reason to keep using them.

RESEARCH: Sanctum CLOUD futarchy proposal volume liquidity 2025

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** interesting, hadnt thought about it that way. Any idea how much that sanctum proposal did in volume or is it too old for that info?
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
