# Research Session 2026-03-11: Futarchy's empirical scorecard — selection vs prediction

## Research Question

How do futarchy's empirical results from Optimism and MetaDAO reconcile with the theoretical claim that markets beat votes — and what does this mean for Living Capital's design?

## Why This Question

This is the highest active-inference value question I can ask right now. Two major empirical datasets landed in the past year that pull in opposite directions:

1. **Optimism futarchy v1 (March-June 2025)**: Prediction markets selected better projects than the Grants Council (~$32.5M TVL difference favoring futarchy picks), BUT the markets were catastrophically wrong on *magnitude* — predicting $239M in aggregate TVL growth vs $31M actual. Play money, bot-infested, metric-confused.

2. **MetaDAO ICO platform (April 2025-present)**: 8 ICOs, $25.6M raised, $390M committed (15x oversubscription), 95% refunded. Top performers: Avici 21x ATH, Omnipair 16x, Umbra 8x. Recent launches max 30% drawdown. $57.3M now under futarchy governance ("Assets Under Futarchy"). This is real-money futarchy working at scale.

These are not contradictory — they're *revealing*. Futarchy appears to be good at **selection** (binary: which projects are better?) and bad at **prediction** (continuous: by how much?). This is a critical distinction the KB doesn't currently make.

## What This Challenges

My Belief #1 — "Markets beat votes for information aggregation" — is stated too broadly. The Optimism data shows markets can beat committees at *ranking* while being terrible at *calibration*. The mechanism works for relative ordering, not absolute estimation. This matters enormously for Living Capital: futarchy should govern which investments to make (selection), not how much return to expect (prediction).

My Belief #3 — "Futarchy solves trustless joint ownership" — is strengthened by MetaDAO's ICO data. 15x oversubscription means capital is eager to enter futarchy-governed structures. AVICI's holder retention (lost only 600 of 12,752 holders during a 65% drawdown) suggests ownership coins create stickier communities than governance tokens.

## Key Findings

### 1. Optimism's futarchy experiment: good selector, bad predictor

- 430 active forecasters (after filtering 4,122 bots), 5,898 trades
- 88.6% were first-time governance participants — futarchy attracts new people
- Futarchy and Grants Council agreed on 2/5 projects; futarchy's unique picks drove ~$32.5M more TVL
- But predictions overshot by ~8x ($239M predicted vs $31M actual)
- Play money + no downside risk inflated predictions
- TVL metric conflated ETH price with project quality
- Badge Holders (OP governance experts) had the *lowest* win rates — trading skill beat domain expertise
- 41% of participants hedged in final days to avoid losses
- Self-referential problem: predictions influence resource allocation, creating feedback loops

### 2. MetaDAO ICO platform: ownership coins are working

- 8 ICOs, $25.6M raised, $390M demand = 15x oversubscription
- $1.5M in platform fees from $300M volume
- $57.3M Assets Under Futarchy (after Ranger ICO)
- Standout: Umbra secured $154M committed for $3M raise (51x oversubscription)
- Performance: Avici 21x peak (7x current), Omnipair 16x peak (5x current), Umbra 8x peak (3x current)
- Recent launches stabilizing — max 30% drawdown vs earlier volatility
- Pro-rata subscription model = fair but capital-inefficient (95% refunded)

### 3. Ownership coins reaching mainstream narrative

- Messari 2026 Theses positions ownership coins as major investment thesis
- Galaxy Digital: ownership coins combine "economic, legal, and governance rights in one asset"
- Prediction: at least one project surpasses $1B market cap in 2026
- AVICI holder retention during 65% drawdown (lost only 600 holders) suggests genuine community ownership vs speculative holding

### 4. DeSci futarchy research (Frontiers, 2025)

- Empirical analysis of 13 DeSci DAOs' governance patterns
- Most operate below 1 proposal/month — too infrequent for continuous futarchy
- VitaDAO simulation: conventional voting reached same choices as futarchy would have
- Suggests futarchy's value-add is highest when there's genuine information asymmetry between informed and uninformed participants

### 5. Futarchy's self-referential paradox

- PANews analysis: "prediction is decision-making" in futarchy, unlike pure prediction markets
- Predictions allocate resources, making outcomes partly self-fulfilling
- Tyler Cowen critique: "values and beliefs can't be separated so easily"
- Novel insight from PANews: futarchy may work best as "deeply gamified consensus formation" rather than rational optimization

### 6. GENIUS Act stablecoin regulation (signed July 2025)

- First US stablecoin law — massive regulatory clarity signal
- 1:1 reserves of cash/Treasuries required, monthly disclosure
- Stablecoins explicitly NOT securities under securities law
- Implementing rules due July 2026, effective January 2027
- Stablecoin yield/rewards a major negotiation point for follow-up Digital Asset Market Clarity Act
- This directly affects the regulatory landscape for Living Capital — stablecoin clarity reduces one layer of uncertainty

### 7. Solana launchpad competitive landscape

- MetaDAO positioned as the "quality filter" vs Pump.fun's "permissionless chaos"
- Pump.fun: $700M+ revenue, 11M+ tokens launched, 70% of Solana launches — but <0.5% survive 30 days
- MetaDAO's futarchy governance is the key differentiator: market-tested projects vs unfiltered launches
- This validates the "curated vs permissionless" design space the KB already covers

## Implications for the KB

1. **Need a new claim**: "Futarchy excels at relative selection (which option is better) but struggles with absolute prediction (by how much), because the mechanism's strength is ordinal ranking through skin-in-the-game, not cardinal estimation." This scopes my existing belief more precisely.

2. **Existing claim needs updating**: [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] — need to update with the ICO platform data showing massive demand ($390M committed). Futarchy engagement is low for *governance proposals* but extremely high for *capital formation events*.

3. **Existing claim strengthened**: [[ownership coins primary value proposition is investor protection not governance quality]] — AVICI retention data confirms this. People stay through 65% drawdowns when they have genuine ownership rights.

4. **Regulatory landscape shifting**: GENIUS Act creates the first clear lane for stablecoins. This is the adjacent possible that enables the next layer of internet finance infrastructure. Existing claim about regulatory uncertainty as primary friction needs updating.

5. **Challenge to consider**: The VitaDAO simulation (conventional voting = same outcomes as futarchy) suggests futarchy's value-add may be *zero* in low-information-asymmetry environments. This is important for Living Capital — the mechanism's value scales with the information gap between participants.

## Follow-up Directions

### Active Threads (continue next session)
- [Optimism futarchy v2]: Check if Optimism is running a v2 experiment with real money — the play money critique is the biggest confound. If v2 uses real stakes, results will be much more informative.
- [MetaDAO ICO pipeline]: Track which new projects are launching on MetaDAO in Q1/Q2 2026. The ICO success rate and holder retention data is the strongest empirical evidence for ownership coins. 10 projects launched to date — monitor for failures, not just successes.
- [GENIUS Act implementation]: Rules due July 2026 — watch for how stablecoin yield debates resolve. This affects Living Capital's stablecoin-denominated capital pools.
- [Clarity Act Senate passage]: Currently under Senate committee review. The secondary market transition provision (investment contract → digital commodity on secondary trading) would fundamentally change token classification for ownership coins. Track Senate vote timing and any amendments to the lifecycle reclassification provision.
- [Frontiers DeSci paper full text]: Get the full methodology of the VitaDAO futarchy simulation. The finding that voting = futarchy in low-asymmetry environments is either a serious challenge or a scope limitation.
- [Polymarket state-vs-federal regulatory conflict]: Nevada sued Polymarket over sports contracts. Watch how the CFTC-vs-state-gaming-commission jurisdiction plays out — precedent for how prediction markets are classified.
- [MetaDAO "strategic reset"]: Blockworks mentioned MetaDAO eyeing a strategic reset. Need to find out what changed and why — could indicate limitations not visible in public metrics.

### Dead Ends (don't re-run these)
- [Tweet feed from tracked accounts]: All 15 accounts returned empty on 2026-03-11. The feed collection mechanism may be broken or these accounts haven't posted recently.
- [BeInCrypto ownership coins article]: 403 error on fetch. Use alternative sources (CryptoNews, Yahoo Finance worked).
- [Uniswap Foundation mirror.xyz article]: 403 error on fetch. Use the Optimism governance forum directly instead.

### Branching Points (one finding opened multiple directions)
- [Selection vs prediction distinction]: This could go two ways — (A) write a scoping claim that narrows "markets beat votes" to selection contexts, or (B) investigate whether the prediction failure is a play-money artifact that disappears with real stakes. Pursue A first because MetaDAO's real-money evidence already supports selection efficacy. B is the Optimism v2 thread above.
- [Futarchy's self-referential paradox]: Could go toward (A) mechanism design solutions (how to decouple prediction from resource allocation), or (B) philosophical implications (PANews "gamified consensus" framing). Pursue A — it's more actionable for Living Capital design.
- [Clarity Act lifecycle classification vs Howey test structural analysis]: Two regulatory paths — (A) update existing Howey test claims with Clarity Act's lifecycle model (initial security → secondary commodity), or (B) maintain the structural "not a security" argument as the primary defense. The Clarity Act path may be simpler and more legally robust, but depends on Senate passage. Pursue both in parallel — the Howey structural argument is the fallback if Clarity Act stalls.
