diff --git a/entities/internet-finance/sanctum-build-wonder-mobile-app.md b/entities/internet-finance/sanctum-build-wonder-mobile-app.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e2fa2eb9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/entities/internet-finance/sanctum-build-wonder-mobile-app.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+type: entity
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Sanctum: Should Sanctum build a Sanctum Mobile App (Wonder)?"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: failed
+parent_entity: "[[sanctum]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Sanctum team"
+proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoota"
+proposal_date: 2025-03-28
+resolution_date: 2025-03-31
+category: "strategy"
+summary: "Proposal to build Wonder mobile app for crypto onboarding focused on yield, safety, and user experience"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-11
+---
+
+# Sanctum: Should Sanctum build a Sanctum Mobile App (Wonder)?
+
+## Summary
+Sanctum proposed building "Wonder," a mobile app designed to onboard mainstream users into crypto through yield-bearing assets, gasless transactions, and curated project participation. The proposal emphasized user safety (no seed phrases), people-first design (profiles over addresses), and potential monetization through AUM fees, swap fees, or subscriptions. The governance vote failed.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Failed
+- **Proposer:** Sanctum team
+- **Resolution:** 2025-03-31 (3 days after proposal)
+
+## Strategic Context
+The proposal represented a major strategic pivot from B2B liquid staking infrastructure to consumer mobile app. Sanctum cited competitive pressure (Phantom $3B valuation, Jupiter $1.7B market cap, MetaMask $320M swap fees) and opportunity cost of not capturing end-user value. The team acknowledged building consumer mobile apps is "notoriously hard" and would affect focus on core B2B staking business.
+
+## Significance
+This failed proposal reveals governance skepticism about consumer app pivots even from teams with strong technical credentials. Sanctum manages $1B+ in staked assets but the community rejected expansion into direct consumer distribution, suggesting preference for infrastructure focus over end-user capture.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[sanctum]] - strategic direction decision
+- [[futardio]] - governance platform
+- [[MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale]] - governance mechanism
diff --git a/inbox/archive/2025-03-28-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum-mobile-app-wonder.md b/inbox/archive/2025-03-28-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum-mobile-app-wonder.md
index 48c132b5..23c1a39e 100644
--- a/inbox/archive/2025-03-28-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum-mobile-app-wonder.md
+++ b/inbox/archive/2025-03-28-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum-mobile-app-wonder.md
@@ -6,9 +6,13 @@ url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoot
 date: 2025-03-28
 domain: internet-finance
 format: data
-status: unprocessed
+status: processed
 tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
 event_type: proposal
+processed_by: rio
+processed_date: 2026-03-11
+extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
+extraction_notes: "Proposal contains primarily strategic planning and product vision rather than novel mechanism insights. The failure itself is the significant data point - governance rejection of consumer pivot from infrastructure-focused team. No new claims warranted as the proposal is company-specific strategy discussion without generalizable insights about futarchy, mobile apps, or crypto onboarding that aren't already covered in existing KB claims."
 ---
 
 ## Proposal Details
@@ -107,3 +111,11 @@ The Sanctum core team reserves the right to change details of the prospective fe
 - Autocrat version: 0.3
 - Completed: 2025-03-31
 - Ended: 2025-03-31
+
+
+## Key Facts
+- Sanctum manages over $1B in staked funds (2025-03-28)
+- Phantom raised at $3B valuation (2025)
+- Jupiter trades at $1.7B market cap, $6.2B FDV (2025-03-28)
+- MetaMask generated $320M in swap fees
+- Consensys valued at $2.3B in secondary markets