pipeline: clean 3 stale queue duplicates
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
7038e4c453
commit
133e0c59be
3 changed files with 0 additions and 334 deletions
|
|
@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
title: "CFTC ANPRM on Prediction Markets — 40+ questions, blockchain-native markets covered, futarchy governance markets absent, April 30 comment deadline"
|
||||
author: "Commodity Futures Trading Commission"
|
||||
url: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9194-26
|
||||
date: 2026-03-12
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
secondary_domains: []
|
||||
format: regulatory
|
||||
status: enrichment
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
tags: [cftc, regulation, prediction-markets, futarchy, governance, anprm, legal, dcm]
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-26
|
||||
enrichments_applied: ["prediction-market-regulatory-legitimacy-creates-both-opportunity-and-existential-risk-for-decision-markets.md", "Ooki DAO proved that DAOs without legal wrappers face general partnership liability making entity structure a prerequisite for any futarchy-governed vehicle.md", "the DAO Reports rejection of voting as active management is the central legal hurdle for futarchy because prediction market trading must prove fundamentally more meaningful than token voting.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Content
|
||||
|
||||
CFTC issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on March 12, 2026 (published in Federal Register March 16, 2026).
|
||||
|
||||
**Comment deadline: April 30, 2026** (45 days from Federal Register publication)
|
||||
|
||||
Chairman Michael Selig framed this as "promoting responsible innovation" while establishing CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets.
|
||||
|
||||
**The 40+ questions cover:**
|
||||
- Public interest considerations for event contracts
|
||||
- DCM (Designated Contract Market) Core Principles compliance
|
||||
- Market manipulation and insider trading susceptibility
|
||||
- Settlement methodology and data integrity
|
||||
- Information asymmetry between market participants
|
||||
- Blockchain-based prediction markets (specifically mentioned)
|
||||
- Position limits, margin trading rules
|
||||
|
||||
**What the ANPRM explicitly covers:**
|
||||
- Blockchain-based and decentralized prediction markets
|
||||
- Event contracts generally (elections, sports, weather, economic indicators)
|
||||
- Market structure for prediction market DCMs
|
||||
|
||||
**What the ANPRM does NOT cover (the governance gap):**
|
||||
- No questions about how to classify event contracts used for corporate governance decisions
|
||||
- No distinction between governance decision markets (resolve endogenous decisions) and event prediction markets (resolve exogenous events)
|
||||
- No mention of DAO treasury governance using conditional markets
|
||||
- No mention of futarchy, conviction voting, or any other on-chain governance mechanism
|
||||
- No framework for prediction markets that serve as substitute voting mechanisms
|
||||
|
||||
**Law firm analyses confirming the gap:**
|
||||
- Sidley Austin: prediction market overview, no futarchy mention
|
||||
- Norton Rose Fulbright: "CFTC Advances Regulatory Framework for Prediction Markets," no futarchy mention
|
||||
- Davis Wright Tremaine: "CFTC Advisory and ANPRM on Prediction Markets," no futarchy mention
|
||||
- Prokopiev Law: detailed question summary, no futarchy mention
|
||||
|
||||
**Institutional context:**
|
||||
- 5c(c) Capital (announced March 23, 2026): New VC fund backed by Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan + Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour, investing in prediction market companies. These founders have strong ANPRM comment incentive but their interests may not align with futarchy governance markets.
|
||||
- Truth Predict (Trump Media, March 2026): Trump's media company entering prediction markets — mainstream political adoption; potential political dimension to CFTC rulemaking.
|
||||
|
||||
**Regulatory risk without futarchy-specific comments:**
|
||||
Without comments distinguishing governance decision markets from entertainment/sports prediction, the rulemaking default is the least-favorable analogy: gaming classification. This is the primary regulatory threat identified in Sessions 2-3. The gaming law preemption gap in the CLARITY Act (identified Session 2) means futarchy governance markets need an affirmative regulatory home, not just the absence of a negative one.
|
||||
|
||||
**The key argument that NEEDS to be made (for any comment submission):**
|
||||
Governance decision markets differ from event prediction contracts in two structural ways:
|
||||
1. They resolve ENDOGENOUS decisions (the DAO decides what to do), not EXOGENOUS events (the world decides what happened)
|
||||
2. They coordinate JOINT OWNERSHIP decisions (the decision IS the outcome), not information markets (the outcome informs decisions made elsewhere)
|
||||
This structural difference supports different regulatory treatment — not securities, not gaming, but a category of collective decision-making infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
## Agent Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this matters:** The CFTC ANPRM is the most consequential near-term regulatory event for futarchy governance mechanisms. The comment window (April 30) is the only near-term opportunity to influence whether futarchy governance markets get classified under gaming law (worst case) or receive a distinct regulatory framework. No futarchy advocate has filed as of March 26.
|
||||
|
||||
**What surprised me:** The complete absence of futarchy from four major law firm analyses. These are sophisticated regulatory shops with prediction market clients. If they don't see futarchy as categorically different from Polymarket, the CFTC certainly won't distinguish it by default. The classification risk is larger than I previously assessed.
|
||||
|
||||
**What I expected but didn't find:** Any filing by MetaDAO, Futardio, or any futarchy-adjacent entity. The 36+ days since ANPRM publication have passed with zero futarchy-specific comment activity.
|
||||
|
||||
**KB connections:**
|
||||
- DAO Reports rejected voting as active management — prediction markets must prove mechanistically different (Belief #6 core tension)
|
||||
- Ooki DAO shows entity wrapping is non-negotiable — regulatory context for DAO structure
|
||||
- CFTC prediction market jurisdiction is expanding and state-federal tension is heading toward Supreme Court (from Session 2)
|
||||
- The CLARITY Act gap identified in Session 2: gaming law preemption not included
|
||||
|
||||
**Extraction hints:**
|
||||
1. **CFTC default classification risk claim:** "CFTC ANPRM contains no questions distinguishing futarchy governance markets from event prediction contracts — default rulemaking will apply gaming classification to DAO governance mechanisms absent futarchy-specific advocacy"
|
||||
2. **Governance market structural distinction:** "Futarchy governance decision markets differ from prediction event contracts in that they resolve endogenous organizational decisions rather than exogenous events — this structural difference should support distinct CFTC regulatory treatment"
|
||||
3. **Advocacy gap claim:** "No futarchy or DAO governance advocate has filed CFTC ANPRM comments as of April 30 deadline — institutional prediction market founders (5c(c) Capital, Truth Predict) have comment incentive but divergent interests from governance market operators"
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** This is the most important near-term regulatory development in Rio's domain. The April 30 deadline is a firm cutoff — post-deadline advocacy is possible but far less influential than comment period submissions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
|
||||
|
||||
PRIMARY CONNECTION: DAO Reports rejected voting as active management — prediction markets must prove mechanistically different (Belief #6 — this ANPRM is the real-world test of whether that proof gets made)
|
||||
|
||||
WHY ARCHIVED: The CFTC ANPRM is the primary regulatory threat to futarchy governance markets. The comment deadline creates urgency. Three extractable claims: (1) default classification risk, (2) structural distinction argument, (3) advocacy gap.
|
||||
|
||||
EXTRACTION HINT: Extract claim #1 (default classification risk) as highest priority — it's a time-sensitive factual claim that the KB should carry. Claim #2 (structural distinction) is more analytical and supports the regulatory positioning claims in the Living Capital domain. Claim #3 (advocacy gap) is tactical intelligence — relevant to Living Capital regulatory strategy.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- CFTC ANPRM published in Federal Register March 16, 2026
|
||||
- CFTC ANPRM comment deadline: April 30, 2026 (45 days from Federal Register publication)
|
||||
- CFTC ANPRM contains 40+ questions covering prediction markets
|
||||
- CFTC Chairman Michael Selig framed ANPRM as 'promoting responsible innovation'
|
||||
- Four major law firms analyzed ANPRM: Sidley Austin, Norton Rose Fulbright, Davis Wright Tremaine, Prokopiev Law
|
||||
- Zero futarchy advocates filed CFTC ANPRM comments as of March 26, 2026 (36 days post-publication)
|
||||
- 5c(c) Capital announced March 23, 2026
|
||||
- Truth Predict (Trump Media) entered prediction markets March 2026
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,134 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
title: "Pine Analytics: P2P.me ICO Analysis — 'Cautious' rating, 182x gross profit multiple, performance-gated team vesting breakdown"
|
||||
author: "Pine Analytics (Substack)"
|
||||
url: https://pineanalytics.substack.com/p/p2p-metadao-ico-analysis
|
||||
date: 2026-03-15
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
secondary_domains: []
|
||||
format: article
|
||||
status: enrichment
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
tags: [p2p-protocol, metadao, ico, tokenomics, ownership-alignment, vesting, valuation]
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-26
|
||||
enrichments_applied: ["metadao-ico-platform-demonstrates-15x-oversubscription-validating-futarchy-governed-capital-formation.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Content
|
||||
|
||||
Pine Analytics published a comprehensive ICO analysis of P2P Protocol (P2P.me) on March 15, 2026, rating the project "CAUTIOUS" (not AVOID, not STRONG BUY).
|
||||
|
||||
**Product summary:**
|
||||
- Non-custodial USDC-to-fiat on/off-ramp built on Base blockchain
|
||||
- Uses zk-KYC (zero-knowledge identity via Reclaim Protocol)
|
||||
- Live local payment rails: UPI (India), PIX (Brazil), QRIS (Indonesia), ARS (Argentina)
|
||||
- On-chain matching: users assigned to merchants based on staked USDC
|
||||
- Settlement, disputes, and fee routing all execute on-chain
|
||||
- Fraud rate: fewer than 1 in 1,000 transactions via Proof-of-Credibility system (ZK-TLS social verification + Reputation Points)
|
||||
|
||||
**Business metrics:**
|
||||
- $3.95M peak monthly volume (February 2026) / $4M per Futardio archive
|
||||
- $327.4K cumulative revenue (per Pine) / $578K annual run rate (per Futardio archive — implies recent acceleration)
|
||||
- $34K-$47K monthly revenue range (Pine) → consistent with $578K annualized
|
||||
- 27% average month-on-month growth over 16 months
|
||||
- $175K/month burn rate (25 staff)
|
||||
- Annual gross profit ~$82K (Pine) / "20% of revenue as gross profit to treasury from June 2026" (Futardio archive)
|
||||
- 23,000+ registered users; 78% concentrated in India
|
||||
|
||||
**Valuation:**
|
||||
- ICO price: $0.60/token
|
||||
- FDV: $15.5M
|
||||
- Pine assessment: **182x multiple on annual gross profit** — "buying optionality, not current business"
|
||||
|
||||
**Tokenomics (the mechanism design centerpiece):**
|
||||
- Total supply: 25.8M tokens
|
||||
- ICO sale: 10M tokens at $0.60 = $6M target
|
||||
- Liquidity allocation: 2.9M tokens at TGE (11% of supply)
|
||||
- Total liquid at TGE: 12.9M tokens = 50% of supply — highest float in MetaDAO ICO history
|
||||
|
||||
**Team vesting (performance-gated — the key design innovation):**
|
||||
- 7.74M tokens (30% of supply)
|
||||
- 12-month cliff
|
||||
- ZERO benefit below 2x ICO price ($1.20)
|
||||
- Five equal tranches at: 2x / 4x / 8x / 16x / 32x ICO price
|
||||
- Price measured via 3-month TWAP
|
||||
- Team receives nothing unless community value is created first
|
||||
|
||||
**Investor vesting:**
|
||||
- 5.16M tokens (20% of supply)
|
||||
- Fully locked 12 months
|
||||
- Five equal unlocks at months 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 (fully unlocked month 24)
|
||||
- No performance gate — only time-based
|
||||
|
||||
**Prior investors revealed (from Futardio archive):**
|
||||
- Reclaim Protocol: 3.45% supply, $80K at seed (March 2023)
|
||||
- Alliance DAO: 4.66% supply, $350K (March 2024)
|
||||
- Multicoin Capital: 9.33% supply, $1.4M (January 2025, $15M FDV)
|
||||
- Coinbase Ventures: 2.56% supply, $500K (February 2025, $19.5M FDV)
|
||||
- Total institutional pre-investment: ~$2.23M
|
||||
|
||||
**Bull case:**
|
||||
1. B2B SDK (June 2026): third-party wallets/fintechs can embed P2P Protocol rails
|
||||
2. Circles of Trust: community operators stake $P2P to become Circle Admins, onboard merchants in new countries, earn revenue share
|
||||
3. 100% USDC refund guarantee for bank freezes — addresses real India pain point
|
||||
4. Operating profitability target by mid-2027
|
||||
|
||||
**Bear case (Pine):**
|
||||
- Stretched valuation (182x gross profit)
|
||||
- User acquisition stagnated for 6+ months (23K users, 78% India concentration)
|
||||
- Expansion plans risk diluting focus
|
||||
- 50% float at TGE creates structural headwind (Delphi Digital: 30-40% passive/flipper behavior expected)
|
||||
|
||||
**Pine verdict:** CAUTIOUS. The business is real and the mechanism design is sophisticated, but the valuation doesn't leave room for error.
|
||||
|
||||
## Agent Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this matters:** Pine Analytics' analysis provides the most comprehensive independent valuation of a MetaDAO ICO project to date. The 182x gross profit multiple framing is the clearest articulation of the "speculative optionality" pricing problem — you're not buying current business, you're buying the right to participate in what it might become. This is consistent with the KB's broader claim about crypto projects pricing future optionality.
|
||||
|
||||
**What surprised me:** The performance-gated team vesting structure is genuinely novel. I have seen graduated vesting, cliff-and-linear, and upfront unlocks in prior MetaDAO ICOs, but never performance-gated vesting with explicit price targets (2x/4x/8x/16x/32x via TWAP). This is a mechanism design contribution worth extracting as a claim.
|
||||
|
||||
**What I expected but didn't find:** Any evidence that the performance gate design is being copied by other MetaDAO ICO projects. If this is the most aligned design in the ecosystem, I'd expect it to propagate. No evidence it has — suggesting either the design is too new to propagate or the mechanism design community hasn't flagged it.
|
||||
|
||||
**KB connections:**
|
||||
- MetaDAO's real-money futarchy ICO platform shows strong participation signals — P2P.me as the latest data point
|
||||
- ownership alignment turns network effects generative (Belief #2) — performance-gated vesting is the purest implementation of this belief; P2P.me tests it
|
||||
- Delphi Digital study predicts 30-40 percent passive token holders in new projects — intersects with 50% float, creates specific testable headwind
|
||||
- Prior ICO comparisons: AVICI (4.7% holder loss during 65% drawdown), Umbra (graduated but not performance-gated)
|
||||
|
||||
**Extraction hints:**
|
||||
1. **Performance-gated team vesting claim (CC1 from Session 11):** Extract as a mechanism design claim — "P2P.me team vesting eliminates early insider selling by making all team benefit conditional on community value creation (2x ICO price minimum before any tranche unlocks)"
|
||||
2. **182x gross profit multiple claim:** "MetaDAO ICO valuations price speculative optionality, not current business fundamentals — P2P.me at 182x annual gross profit is buying the right to participate in emerging market stablecoin infrastructure buildout"
|
||||
3. The Circles of Trust model is a novel community-aligned liquidity model worth a separate claim — stakers earn revenue share for onboarding local merchants, creating skin-in-the-game distributed growth
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** Pine Analytics is an independent crypto research firm publishing ICO analyses for the MetaDAO ecosystem. This appears to be their fourth or fifth MetaDAO ICO analysis. They previously analyzed AVICI and at least one other. Their "CAUTIOUS" rating should be weighted against their track record — Session 3 noted limited validation of their prediction accuracy.
|
||||
|
||||
## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
|
||||
|
||||
PRIMARY CONNECTION: performance-gated team vesting is the most aligned team incentive structure in futarchy-governed ICO history (CC1 from Session 11 — not yet in KB)
|
||||
|
||||
WHY ARCHIVED: Provides the detailed mechanism design data for the performance-gated vesting claim AND the valuation framework (182x gross profit) for understanding what MetaDAO ICO pricing really represents. These are two distinct extractable claims.
|
||||
|
||||
EXTRACTION HINT: Extract BOTH claims. (1) Mechanism design claim: performance-gated vesting structure — title, specific price targets, TWAP methodology. (2) Valuation framing claim: 182x gross profit multiple as "optionality pricing not fundamental valuation." The second claim has implications for how to evaluate all MetaDAO ICOs, not just P2P.me.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- P2P Protocol peak monthly volume: $3.95M (February 2026)
|
||||
- P2P Protocol cumulative revenue: $327.4K
|
||||
- P2P Protocol annual run rate: $578K
|
||||
- P2P Protocol monthly revenue range: $34K-$47K
|
||||
- P2P Protocol burn rate: $175K/month with 25 staff
|
||||
- P2P Protocol registered users: 23,000+ (78% India)
|
||||
- P2P Protocol fraud rate: <1 in 1,000 transactions
|
||||
- P2P Protocol ICO: 10M tokens at $0.60 = $6M target
|
||||
- P2P Protocol FDV: $15.5M
|
||||
- P2P Protocol total supply: 25.8M tokens
|
||||
- P2P Protocol liquid at TGE: 12.9M tokens (50% of supply)
|
||||
- P2P Protocol team allocation: 7.74M tokens (30% supply)
|
||||
- P2P Protocol investor allocation: 5.16M tokens (20% supply)
|
||||
- P2P Protocol institutional pre-investment: $2.23M total
|
||||
- Reclaim Protocol investment: $80K for 3.45% (March 2023)
|
||||
- Alliance DAO investment: $350K for 4.66% (March 2024)
|
||||
- Multicoin Capital investment: $1.4M for 9.33% at $15M FDV (January 2025)
|
||||
- Coinbase Ventures investment: $500K for 2.56% at $19.5M FDV (February 2025)
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,95 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
title: "Polymarket: P2P Protocol Public Sale commitment prediction market — probability cascade to 99.8% on ICO launch day"
|
||||
author: "Polymarket"
|
||||
url: https://polymarket.com/event/total-commitments-for-the-p2p-protocol-public-sale-on-metadao
|
||||
date: 2026-03-26
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
secondary_domains: []
|
||||
format: data
|
||||
status: enrichment
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
tags: [polymarket, p2p-protocol, prediction-markets, futarchy, metadao, social-proof, manipulation]
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-26
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Content
|
||||
|
||||
Polymarket prediction market: "Total commitments for the P2P Protocol public sale on MetaDAO"
|
||||
- Market opened: March 14, 2026
|
||||
- Market closes: July 1, 2026
|
||||
- 25 outcome tiers
|
||||
- Total trading volume: $1.7M
|
||||
|
||||
Current probabilities as of March 26, 2026 (ICO launch day):
|
||||
|
||||
| Outcome | Probability |
|
||||
|---------|------------|
|
||||
| >$1M | 100% |
|
||||
| >$2M | 100% |
|
||||
| >$3M | 100% |
|
||||
| >$4M | 100% |
|
||||
| >$6M | ~99.8% |
|
||||
| >$8M | 97% |
|
||||
| >$10M | 93% |
|
||||
| >$12M | 88% |
|
||||
| >$14M | 77% |
|
||||
| >$16M | 75% |
|
||||
| >$18M–$20M | 67% |
|
||||
| >$25M | 47% |
|
||||
| >$30M | 43% |
|
||||
| >$50M | 25% |
|
||||
| >$100M | 9% |
|
||||
|
||||
Previous observed probability for >$6M: 77% (as of ~March 14 when archived in Session 11 research)
|
||||
|
||||
Implied median prediction: ~$20-25M total commitments.
|
||||
|
||||
**Context — Polymarket controversy (from prior research):**
|
||||
Session 11 (March 25) documented: traders in the Polymarket comment section alleged that the P2P team "openly participated" in the commitment prediction market. Polymarket rules prohibit market participants from influencing outcomes they're trading on. The allegation is unconfirmed, but structurally novel: team buying ">$6M" tranche to signal community confidence creates circular social proof (team buys → price increases → generates social proof → attracts real commitments → validates original purchase). Unlike governance market self-dealing, no arbitrage correction mechanism exists because the team is the most informed actor.
|
||||
|
||||
**Actual ICO commitments as of March 26 (Futardio archive):** $6,852 committed of $6,000,000 target. ICO closes March 30. 4 days remaining.
|
||||
|
||||
## Agent Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this matters:** The gap between $6,852 actual commitments and 99.8% Polymarket confidence for >$6M on ICO launch day is the most direct available test of the circular social proof mechanism hypothesized in Session 11. Either commitments surge in the final 4 days (mechanism worked correctly), or the market was inflated (manipulation thesis gains evidence).
|
||||
|
||||
**What surprised me:** The probability shift from 77% to 99.8% on launch day itself. This implies either (a) massive new information arrived justifying the shift, or (b) the market is tracking actual commitment flow in near-real-time as traders observe MetaDAO ICO commitments and trade accordingly. The $1.7M trading volume on a single ICO prediction market is substantial — this is a highly liquid market for a relatively small ICO.
|
||||
|
||||
**What I expected but didn't find:** Evidence that the team's alleged Polymarket participation has been confirmed or denied by Polymarket. The platform hasn't issued a public statement. The market continues operating normally despite the controversy.
|
||||
|
||||
**KB connections:**
|
||||
- prediction markets show superior accuracy over polls and expert forecasts (Belief #1 evidence — is this market showing superior accuracy or being manipulated?)
|
||||
- FairScale's manipulation attempt by team demonstrates futarchy's self-correcting mechanism (contrast case — FairScale governance market had an arbitrage correction; Polymarket social proof doesn't)
|
||||
- Session 11 CC2: Prediction market participation by issuers in own ICO commitment markets creates circular social proof with no arbitrage correction
|
||||
|
||||
**Extraction hints:**
|
||||
1. The circular social proof mechanism (CC2 from Session 11) — the mechanism claim is novel and KB-ready
|
||||
2. Evidence for/against: if ICO raises >$6M by March 30, Polymarket was directionally correct (doesn't prove manipulation was absent); if ICO fails, Polymarket was wrong despite 99.8% confidence (strong evidence of manipulation)
|
||||
3. The $1.7M trading volume on this prediction market is itself a data point about prediction market liquidity for ICO social proof purposes
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** Polymarket is the largest prediction market platform by volume. The P2P.me ICO is a MetaDAO futarchy-governed public sale on Solana. The prediction market and the ICO are separate mechanisms, but in this case the prediction market output (commitment probability) may be feeding back into ICO commitment decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
|
||||
|
||||
PRIMARY CONNECTION: Session 11 CC2 — "Prediction market participation by project issuers in their own ICO commitment markets creates circular social proof with no arbitrage correction"
|
||||
|
||||
WHY ARCHIVED: The probability shift from 77% to 99.8% on launch day combined with only $6,852 actual commitments creates a testable tension. This is the most direct current evidence for or against the circular social proof mechanism. ALSO: the raw probability cascade data is the primary input for any claim about Polymarket's accuracy on futarchy ICO markets.
|
||||
|
||||
EXTRACTION HINT: Wait for ICO close (March 30) and Polymarket resolution (July 1) before extracting the final claim. The mechanism claim can be extracted now; the empirical confirmation/disconfirmation must wait. Flag as "extract after resolution" for the highest-confidence version.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- Polymarket P2P Protocol ICO commitment prediction market opened March 14, 2026
|
||||
- Market has 25 outcome tiers ranging from >$1M to >$100M
|
||||
- Total trading volume on the market: $1.7M as of March 26, 2026
|
||||
- Market closes July 1, 2026
|
||||
- As of March 26 (ICO launch day): >$6M probability was 99.8%, >$8M was 97%, >$10M was 93%
|
||||
- Actual ICO commitments as of March 26: $6,852 of $6M target
|
||||
- ICO closes March 30, 2026 (4 days after launch)
|
||||
- Previous probability for >$6M was 77% as of approximately March 14
|
||||
- Implied median prediction: $20-25M total commitments
|
||||
- Polymarket rules prohibit market participants from influencing outcomes they're trading on
|
||||
- Traders in Polymarket comment section alleged P2P team 'openly participated' in the market (unconfirmed)
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue