rio: extract from 2025-08-20-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-offer-investors-early-unlocks-of-their-cloud.md
- Source: inbox/archive/2025-08-20-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-offer-investors-early-unlocks-of-their-cloud.md - Domain: internet-finance - Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 4) Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
ba4ac4a73e
commit
16210bfb67
2 changed files with 56 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: entity
|
||||
entity_type: decision_market
|
||||
name: "Sanctum: Should Sanctum offer investors early unlocks of their CLOUD?"
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
status: failed
|
||||
parent_entity: "[[sanctum]]"
|
||||
platform: "futardio"
|
||||
proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX"
|
||||
proposal_account: "C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX"
|
||||
proposal_date: 2025-08-20
|
||||
resolution_date: 2025-08-23
|
||||
category: "treasury"
|
||||
summary: "Proposal to allow investors immediate unlock of vested CLOUD by forfeiting 35% to Team Reserve"
|
||||
tracked_by: rio
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Sanctum: Should Sanctum offer investors early unlocks of their CLOUD?
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
This proposal would have empowered the Sanctum Team to offer investors immediate unlocks of their vesting CLOUD tokens in exchange for forfeiting 35% of their holdings to the Team Reserve. With 9% of token supply unlocking monthly over 24 months from investors, the mechanism could have increased the Team Reserve by up to 27 million CLOUD while reducing token overhang. The team committed not to redistribute forfeited tokens for at least 24 months.
|
||||
|
||||
## Market Data
|
||||
- **Outcome:** Failed
|
||||
- **Platform:** Futardio (MetaDAO Autocrat v0.3)
|
||||
- **Proposal Account:** C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX
|
||||
- **Created:** 2025-08-20
|
||||
- **Completed:** 2025-08-23
|
||||
- **Discussion:** https://research.sanctum.so/t/cloud-005-should-sanctum-offer-investors-early-unlocks-of-their-cloud-under-deliberation/1793
|
||||
|
||||
## Significance
|
||||
This proposal represents an alternative to hedgeable time-based vesting: forfeit-for-liquidity creates direct economic cost for early unlock rather than relying on lockup periods that sophisticated investors can neutralize through derivatives. The 35% forfeit rate creates a revealed preference test—investors who accept it value liquidity more than the forfeited tokens, while those who decline signal confidence in long-term value. The failure suggests either the forfeit rate was insufficient to compensate for reduced alignment, or investors preferred maintaining their vesting schedules (possibly because they had already hedged their exposure).
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal also demonstrates futarchy governance applied to treasury and tokenomics decisions, where the market evaluates complex tradeoffs (reduced overhang vs immediate selling pressure vs team reserve growth) rather than simple binary choices.
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to KB
|
||||
- [[sanctum]] - parent entity, treasury governance decision
|
||||
- [[time-based-token-vesting-is-hedgeable-making-standard-lockups-meaningless-as-alignment-mechanisms-because-investors-can-short-sell-to-neutralize-lockup-exposure-while-appearing-locked]] - this proposal tests an alternative mechanism
|
||||
- [[futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements]] - demonstrates proposal complexity friction
|
||||
- [[MetaDAOs-futarchy-implementation-shows-limited-trading-volume-in-uncontested-decisions]] - another data point on futarchy market activity
|
||||
|
|
@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6C
|
|||
date: 2025-08-20
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: data
|
||||
status: unprocessed
|
||||
status: processed
|
||||
tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
|
||||
event_type: proposal
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
|
|
@ -14,6 +14,11 @@ processed_date: 2025-08-20
|
|||
enrichments_applied: ["time-based-token-vesting-is-hedgeable-making-standard-lockups-meaningless-as-alignment-mechanisms-because-investors-can-short-sell-to-neutralize-lockup-exposure-while-appearing-locked.md", "MetaDAOs-futarchy-implementation-shows-limited-trading-volume-in-uncontested-decisions.md", "futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
extraction_notes: "No new claims extracted. Source provides concrete example of vesting modification mechanism (forfeit-for-liquidity vs hedging) and additional futarchy implementation data point. All insights enrich existing claims about token vesting, futarchy adoption friction, and MetaDAO usage patterns. The failed proposal itself is a factual event, not an arguable claim."
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-11
|
||||
enrichments_applied: ["time-based-token-vesting-is-hedgeable-making-standard-lockups-meaningless-as-alignment-mechanisms-because-investors-can-short-sell-to-neutralize-lockup-exposure-while-appearing-locked.md", "MetaDAOs-futarchy-implementation-shows-limited-trading-volume-in-uncontested-decisions.md", "futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
extraction_notes: "No new claims extracted. Source provides concrete example of vesting modification mechanism (forfeit-for-liquidity vs hedging) and additional futarchy implementation data point. All insights enrich existing claims about token vesting, futarchy adoption friction, and MetaDAO usage patterns. Created decision_market entity for the proposal itself as it represents a significant governance decision with novel mechanism design implications. The failed proposal is a factual event, but the mechanism it tested (forfeit-for-liquidity as alternative to hedgeable vesting) provides evidence for existing claims about token alignment mechanisms."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposal Details
|
||||
|
|
@ -68,3 +73,12 @@ Read the full proposal here https://research.sanctum.so/t/cloud-005-should-sanct
|
|||
- Potential increase of up to 27 million CLOUD to Team Reserve if all investors opted in
|
||||
- Team committed not to redistribute forfeited tokens for 24 months
|
||||
- Proposal used MetaDAO Autocrat v0.3
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- Sanctum proposal C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX failed (2025-08-23)
|
||||
- 9% of CLOUD token supply was unlocking monthly over 24 months from investors
|
||||
- Proposal would have allowed 35% forfeit for immediate unlock of vested CLOUD
|
||||
- Potential increase of up to 27 million CLOUD to Team Reserve if all investors opted in
|
||||
- Team committed not to redistribute forfeited tokens for 24 months
|
||||
- Proposal used MetaDAO Autocrat v0.3
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue