diff --git a/inbox/archive/2026-03-09-soar-drp-standard-web-research.md b/inbox/archive/2026-03-09-soar-drp-standard-web-research.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..26b73c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/archive/2026-03-09-soar-drp-standard-web-research.md
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "SOAR DRP Standard — Debt-Linked Token Ownership Without Governance"
+author: SOAR / Taran Singh Brar
+url: https://www.soar.com
+date: 2026-03-09
+domain: internet-finance
+status: processed
+processed_by: rio
+processed_date: 2026-03-09
+claims_extracted: 0
+enrichments: 0
+curator_notes: |
+  SOAR represents the anti-governance pole of ownership tokens. Their DRP (Digital Revenue Participation) standard links token circulation percentage to company debt percentage — a senior debt agreement, not equity. No voting rights, no governance participation. The value proposition is transparency + exit rights instead of decision-making power.
+
+  This directly challenges the Teleo KB's implicit assumption that governance is essential to meaningful ownership. SOAR's thesis: investors don't want governance, they want protection and upside. Futarchy's value prop (better decisions) may matter less than MetaDAO's anti-rug value prop (credible exit).
+
+  Key data points:
+  - 17 companies using DRP standard as of Mar 2026
+  - $36M cumulative enterprise value across portfolio
+  - 5,400 launches since November 2025
+  - 5% initial circulation (conservative vs typical token launches)
+  - Senior debt structure = investor protection without governance overhead
+
+  Competitive positioning vs MetaDAO:
+  - MetaDAO: ownership + governance (futarchy). Optimizes for decision quality.
+  - SOAR: ownership + protection (debt structure). Optimizes for investor safety.
+  - Both on Solana. Different bets on what token holders actually want.
+extraction_hints: |
+  - DRP mechanism details: how debt % tracks circulation %, enforcement, default scenarios
+  - Investor protection comparison: DRP senior debt vs futarchy-governed liquidation
+  - Does stripping governance make tokens MORE or LESS securities-like under Howey?
+  - The 5,400 launches number needs context — are these meaningful or spam?
+  - Taran Singh Brar's thesis on why governance-free ownership is superior
+priority: high
+---
+
+# SOAR DRP Standard — Web Research Archive
+
+## Source Context
+
+Web research conducted 2026-03-09 on SOAR's DRP (Digital Revenue Participation) token standard. SOAR positions itself as an alternative to equity-like token models, offering debt-linked ownership without governance rights.
+
+## Key Findings
+
+### DRP Mechanism
+- Token circulation percentage is linked to company debt percentage via senior debt agreement
+- 5% initial circulation — conservative approach compared to typical token launches
+- Investors get economic upside and transparency without voting or governance participation
+- Exit rights are structural (debt agreement) not market-dependent
+
+### Scale
+- 17 companies in portfolio as of March 2026
+- $36M cumulative enterprise value
+- 5,400 launches since November 2025 launch
+- All on Solana
+
+### Thesis
+SOAR's implicit argument: governance is overhead, not value. Token holders want:
+1. Economic exposure to company performance
+2. Transparency about operations
+3. Credible exit mechanism
+4. NOT the responsibility of making decisions
+
+### Competitive Implications
+The existence of SOAR's governance-free model creates a natural experiment: does the market prefer ownership-with-governance (MetaDAO) or ownership-without-governance (SOAR)? Early data (5,400 launches vs MetaDAO's smaller ecosystem) suggests high demand for the simpler model — but quality vs quantity needs investigation.
+
+## Gaps
+- No detailed DRP whitepaper found in initial search
+- Default/enforcement scenarios unclear
+- Revenue sharing mechanics not fully documented
+- Need Twitter/X data for team accounts and community sentiment