teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1

auto-fix: strip 8 broken wiki links
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details

Browse source 
Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents 2026-03-25 01:01:33 +00:00
parent 25daafaaa1
commit 15ed3fc5d1
2 changed files with 8 additions and 8 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
domains/internet-finance/futarchy-excels-at-relative-selection-but-fails-at-absolute-prediction-because-ordinal-ranking-works-while-cardinal-estimation-requires-calibration.md
View file

@ -43,24 +43,24 @@ ORE's three-tier boost multiplier system (vanilla stake, critical pairs, extende
### Additional Evidence (extend) ### Additional Evidence (extend)
*Source: [[2026-03-05-futardio-launch-blockrock]] | Added: 2026-03-16* *Source: 2026-03-05-futardio-launch-blockrock | Added: 2026-03-16*
BlockRock explicitly argues futarchy works better for liquid asset allocation than illiquid VC: 'Futarchy governance works by letting markets price competing outcomes, but private VC deals are difficult to price with asymmetric information, long timelines, and binary outcomes. Liquid asset allocation for risk-adjusted returns gives futarchy the pricing efficiency it requires.' This identifies information asymmetry and timeline as the boundary conditions where futarchy pricing breaks down. BlockRock explicitly argues futarchy works better for liquid asset allocation than illiquid VC: 'Futarchy governance works by letting markets price competing outcomes, but private VC deals are difficult to price with asymmetric information, long timelines, and binary outcomes. Liquid asset allocation for risk-adjusted returns gives futarchy the pricing efficiency it requires.' This identifies information asymmetry and timeline as the boundary conditions where futarchy pricing breaks down.
--- ---
### Additional Evidence (extend) ### Additional Evidence (extend)
*Source: [[2026-03-21-blockworks-ranger-ico-outcome]] | Added: 2026-03-21* *Source: 2026-03-21-blockworks-ranger-ico-outcome | Added: 2026-03-21*
Ranger Finance case shows futarchy can succeed at ordinal selection (this project vs. others for fundraising) while failing at cardinal prediction (what will the token price be post-TGE given unlock schedules). The market selected Ranger successfully for ICO but didn't price in the 40% seed unlock creating 74-90% drawdown, suggesting the mechanism works for relative comparison but not for absolute outcome forecasting when structural features like vesting schedules matter. Ranger Finance case shows futarchy can succeed at ordinal selection (this project vs. others for fundraising) while failing at cardinal prediction (what will the token price be post-TGE given unlock schedules). The market selected Ranger successfully for ICO but didn't price in the 40% seed unlock creating 74-90% drawdown, suggesting the mechanism works for relative comparison but not for absolute outcome forecasting when structural features like vesting schedules matter.
### Additional Evidence (challenge) ### Additional Evidence (challenge)
*Source: [[2026-03-21-phemex-hurupay-ico-failure]] | Added: 2026-03-21* *Source: 2026-03-21-phemex-hurupay-ico-failure | Added: 2026-03-21*
Hurupay had $7.2M/month transaction volume and $500K+ monthly revenue but failed to raise $3M. The market rejection is interpretively ambiguous: either (A) correct valuation assessment (mechanism working) or (B) platform reputation contamination from prior Trove/Ranger failures (mechanism producing noise). Without controls, we cannot distinguish quality signal from sentiment contagion, revealing a fundamental limitation in interpreting futarchy selection outcomes. Hurupay had $7.2M/month transaction volume and $500K+ monthly revenue but failed to raise $3M. The market rejection is interpretively ambiguous: either (A) correct valuation assessment (mechanism working) or (B) platform reputation contamination from prior Trove/Ranger failures (mechanism producing noise). Without controls, we cannot distinguish quality signal from sentiment contagion, revealing a fundamental limitation in interpreting futarchy selection outcomes.
### Additional Evidence (extend) ### Additional Evidence (extend)
*Source: [[2026-03-24-gg-research-futarchy-vs-grants-council-optimism-experiment]] | Added: 2026-03-24* *Source: 2026-03-24-gg-research-futarchy-vs-grants-council-optimism-experiment | Added: 2026-03-24*
The Optimism comparison adds the EV vs. variance dimension: futarchy's relative selection advantage (+$32.5M aggregate TVL) held despite 8x absolute prediction overshoot. The selection quality (which projects to fund) was superior even when the prediction quality (how much TVL they would generate) was catastrophically wrong. This suggests the relative selection mechanism is robust to calibration failures. The Optimism comparison adds the EV vs. variance dimension: futarchy's relative selection advantage (+$32.5M aggregate TVL) held despite 8x absolute prediction overshoot. The selection quality (which projects to fund) was superior even when the prediction quality (how much TVL they would generate) was catastrophically wrong. This suggests the relative selection mechanism is robust to calibration failures.

8
inbox/queue/2026-03-23-ranger-finance-metadao-liquidation-5m-usdc.md
View file

@ -52,10 +52,10 @@ The "Unruggable ICO" protection mechanism operated as designed for the misrepres
**What I expected but didn't find:** Any detail about the conditional market volume on the Ranger LIQUIDATION proposal itself. The telegram source claims 97% support and $581K traded — if accurate, this would be the most decisive and highest-volume governance decision in MetaDAO history for a single-project matter. Need primary source verification. **What I expected but didn't find:** Any detail about the conditional market volume on the Ranger LIQUIDATION proposal itself. The telegram source claims 97% support and $581K traded — if accurate, this would be the most decisive and highest-volume governance decision in MetaDAO history for a single-project matter. Need primary source verification.
**KB connections:** **KB connections:**
- [[Futarchy solves trustless joint ownership not just better decision-making]] — direct evidence update. Two liquidations with capital returned is the strongest empirical support to date. - Futarchy solves trustless joint ownership not just better decision-making — direct evidence update. Two liquidations with capital returned is the strongest empirical support to date.
- [[MetaDAO empirical results show smaller participants gaining influence through futarchy]] — minority RNGR holders successfully forced a liquidation against a team with information advantage - MetaDAO empirical results show smaller participants gaining influence through futarchy — minority RNGR holders successfully forced a liquidation against a team with information advantage
- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] — if $581K traded, this was a contested decision (much higher than $58K average). Contested governance generates more market engagement — important scope qualifier. - [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] — if $581K traded, this was a contested decision (much higher than $58K average). Contested governance generates more market engagement — important scope qualifier.
- [[Futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]] — the FairScale implicit put option problem is separable from the liquidation governance question. Liquidation works; early-stage quality filtering doesn't. - Futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders — the FairScale implicit put option problem is separable from the liquidation governance question. Liquidation works; early-stage quality filtering doesn't.
**Extraction hints:** **Extraction hints:**
- Claim candidate: "MetaDAO's futarchy governance has successfully executed capital return through two separate liquidation decisions, establishing a two-case empirical pattern for the trustless joint ownership mechanism" - Claim candidate: "MetaDAO's futarchy governance has successfully executed capital return through two separate liquidation decisions, establishing a two-case empirical pattern for the trustless joint ownership mechanism"
@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ The "Unruggable ICO" protection mechanism operated as designed for the misrepres
- Watch: Does the governance market volume spike on contested decisions (vs. $58K average on uncontested)? Ranger liquidation may provide the data point. - Watch: Does the governance market volume spike on contested decisions (vs. $58K average on uncontested)? Ranger liquidation may provide the data point.
## Curator Notes ## Curator Notes
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Futarchy solves trustless joint ownership not just better decision-making]] PRIMARY CONNECTION: Futarchy solves trustless joint ownership not just better decision-making
WHY ARCHIVED: Second successful futarchy-governed capital return — key evidence for Belief #3 upgrade from "early directional" to "likely" WHY ARCHIVED: Second successful futarchy-governed capital return — key evidence for Belief #3 upgrade from "early directional" to "likely"
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the two-case pattern and the scope distinction (governance enforcement vs. pre-launch due diligence). The misrepresentation pre-launch and the successful liquidation post-discovery are different mechanism functions. EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the two-case pattern and the scope distinction (governance enforcement vs. pre-launch due diligence). The misrepresentation pre-launch and the successful liquidation post-discovery are different mechanism functions.