rio: extract from 2024-06-22-futardio-proposal-thailanddao-event-promotion-to-boost-deans-list-dao-engageme.md
- Source: inbox/archive/2024-06-22-futardio-proposal-thailanddao-event-promotion-to-boost-deans-list-dao-engageme.md - Domain: internet-finance - Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 6) Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
ba4ac4a73e
commit
25575756f4
8 changed files with 226 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -53,6 +53,12 @@ Autocrat is MetaDAO's core governance program on Solana -- the on-chain implemen
|
|||
|
||||
**Limitations.** [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] -- when proposals are clearly good or clearly bad, few traders participate because the expected profit from trading in a consensus market is near zero. This is a structural feature, not a bug: contested decisions get more participation precisely because they're uncertain, which is when you most need information aggregation. But it does mean uncontested proposals can pass or fail with very thin markets, making the TWAP potentially noisy.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (extend)
|
||||
*Source: [[2024-06-22-futardio-proposal-thailanddao-event-promotion-to-boost-deans-list-dao-engageme]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
|
||||
|
||||
Dean's List DAO ThailandDAO proposal provides implementation details: Autocrat v0.3 used 3-day trading period with 3% TWAP increase as pass condition. Proposal account: DgXa6gy7nAFFWe8VDkiReQYhqe1JSYQCJWUBV8Mm6aM, DAO account: 9TKh2yav4WpSNkFV2cLybrWZETBWZBkQ6WB6qV9Nt9dJ. The proposal failed despite projecting 16x FDV increase from $15K spending, demonstrating that 3-day windows may be insufficient for small DAOs to mobilize liquidity and reach price discovery. This suggests the 3-day settlement period may need adjustment for DAOs below certain FDV thresholds.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ This evidence has direct implications for governance design. It suggests that [[
|
|||
|
||||
Optimism's futarchy experiment achieved 5,898 total trades from 430 active forecasters (average 13.6 transactions per person) over 21 days, with 88.6% being first-time Optimism governance participants. This suggests futarchy CAN attract substantial engagement when implemented at scale with proper incentives, contradicting the limited-volume pattern observed in MetaDAO. Key differences: Optimism used play money (lower barrier to entry), had institutional backing (Uniswap Foundation co-sponsor), and involved grant selection (clearer stakes) rather than protocol governance decisions. The participation breadth (10 countries, 4 continents, 36 new users/day) suggests the limited-volume finding may be specific to MetaDAO's implementation or use case rather than a structural futarchy limitation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (confirm)
|
||||
*Source: [[2024-06-22-futardio-proposal-thailanddao-event-promotion-to-boost-deans-list-dao-engageme]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
|
||||
|
||||
Dean's List DAO ThailandDAO proposal (Autocrat v0.3) failed to reach 3% TWAP increase pass condition despite projecting 16x FDV increase ($123K to $2M+) from $15K spending. The proposal required only minimal price movement ($3,698 absolute increase) but failed to attract sufficient trading volume during the 3-day window. This concrete failure case demonstrates that even proposals with seemingly overwhelming economic favorability fail to generate market participation in small DAOs, confirming the liquidity threshold problem for futarchy adoption.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
description: "DAOs can drive token locking and governance participation by offering exclusive real-world event access to top governance power holders, creating competitive leaderboard dynamics"
|
||||
confidence: speculative
|
||||
source: "Dean's List DAO ThailandDAO proposal, futard.io, 2024-06-22"
|
||||
created: 2024-06-22
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# DAO event incentive mechanisms using governance power leaderboards create token locking demand through exclusive real-world perks
|
||||
|
||||
DAOs can drive token locking and governance participation by offering exclusive real-world event access to top governance power holders, creating a mechanism where members compete for leaderboard positions by locking tokens for extended periods.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mechanism Design
|
||||
|
||||
The Dean's List DAO ThailandDAO proposal demonstrates this mechanism:
|
||||
- **Top 5 governance power holders**: Airplane fares and 12-day accommodation at ThailandDAO event (Sept 25 - Oct 25, Koh Samui, Thailand)
|
||||
- **Top 50 governance power holders**: IRL event invitations, partner airdrops, ongoing perks
|
||||
- **Governance power calculation**: Token deposits with optional locking for multipliers
|
||||
- **Real-time leaderboard**: Public ranking showing governance power standings
|
||||
- **Prize transferability**: Winners can pass prizes to other leaderboard members, enabling secondary markets for perks
|
||||
|
||||
## Incentive Layers
|
||||
|
||||
The mechanism creates several overlapping incentive structures:
|
||||
1. **Exclusive access**: Limited slots (top 5, top 50) create scarcity and competition
|
||||
2. **Real-world value**: Travel and accommodation have tangible monetary value (~$2K per person), distinct from abstract governance tokens
|
||||
3. **Social capital**: Event attendance provides networking and community status beyond financial returns
|
||||
4. **Lock-up multipliers**: Members can increase governance power by locking tokens for extended periods, creating time-weighted participation
|
||||
5. **Continuous engagement**: Leaderboard positions are dynamic, requiring sustained participation rather than one-time voting
|
||||
|
||||
## Economic Model
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal projected this mechanism would reduce circulating supply significantly as members locked tokens to climb the leaderboard, creating upward price pressure. The economic model assumed:
|
||||
- Token price increase from $0.01 to $0.15 (15x)
|
||||
- FDV increase from $123,263 to $2,000,000+
|
||||
- Supply reduction as primary driver of price appreciation
|
||||
|
||||
This approach draws inspiration from MonkeDAO and SuperTeam's community engagement models, attempting to transform governance participation from abstract voting into concrete experiential rewards.
|
||||
|
||||
## Practical Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal failed despite these incentives (completed 2024-06-25 on Autocrat v0.3), suggesting either:
|
||||
- The mechanism design was sound but the specific proposal lacked credibility or execution confidence
|
||||
- Real-world event perks are insufficient to drive significant token locking in practice
|
||||
- The DAO community was too small to generate competitive leaderboard dynamics
|
||||
- Futarchy market complexity prevented proper price discovery on the mechanism's value
|
||||
- The 15x price projection was not credible to market participants
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
- Dean's List DAO governance power leaderboard: https://app.realms.today/dao/Dean's%20List%20Network%20State
|
||||
- Top 5 reward: Airplane fares + 12-day accommodation (~$2K value per person)
|
||||
- Top 50 reward: IRL events, partner airdrops, ongoing perks
|
||||
- Event duration: Sept 25 - Oct 25, 2024 (Koh Samui, Thailand)
|
||||
- Projected token price increase: 15x ($0.01 to $0.15)
|
||||
- Projected FDV increase: $123,263 to $2,000,000+
|
||||
- Proposal outcome: Failed (2024-06-25)
|
||||
- Platform: Autocrat v0.3 on MetaDAO
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
The mechanism remains untested in practice due to proposal failure. This is a speculative claim about incentive design rather than a proven approach. The failure suggests real-world event perks may not be sufficient to drive token locking at scale, or that the specific implementation had flaws. The claim is based on a single proposal that did not execute, limiting confidence to speculative level.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
- [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md]]
|
||||
- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions.md]]
|
||||
- [[optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles.md]]
|
||||
|
||||
Topics:
|
||||
- [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
|
||||
- [[core/mechanisms/_map]]
|
||||
|
|
@ -34,6 +34,12 @@ MycoRealms implementation reveals operational friction points: monthly $10,000 a
|
|||
|
||||
Optimism futarchy achieved 430 active forecasters and 88.6% first-time governance participants by using play money, demonstrating that removing capital requirements can dramatically lower participation barriers. However, this came at the cost of prediction accuracy (8x overshoot on magnitude estimates), revealing a new friction: the play-money vs real-money tradeoff. Play money enables permissionless participation but sacrifices calibration; real money provides calibration but creates regulatory and capital barriers. This suggests futarchy adoption faces a structural dilemma between accessibility and accuracy that liquidity requirements alone don't capture. The tradeoff is not merely about quantity of liquidity but the fundamental difference between incentive structures that attract participants vs incentive structures that produce accurate predictions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (confirm)
|
||||
*Source: [[2024-06-22-futardio-proposal-thailanddao-event-promotion-to-boost-deans-list-dao-engageme]] | Added: 2026-03-12 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
|
||||
|
||||
Concrete failure case: Dean's List DAO proposal requesting $15K spending with 3% TWAP pass condition failed despite projecting $2M+ FDV increase (16x). The proposal required understanding: (1) conditional token markets and TWAP settlement mechanics, (2) token supply dynamics from governance power locking, (3) event ROI and community engagement modeling, (4) providing liquidity across pass/fail markets during 3-day window. The cognitive load and capital requirements exceeded what the small DAO community ($123K FDV) could mobilize, confirming that complexity and liquidity requirements create adoption barriers even when economics appear favorable.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
description: "Dean's List DAO proposal failed despite $15K budget and 16x projected FDV increase, demonstrating that futarchy adoption barriers from mechanism complexity and liquidity requirements override rational economic incentives"
|
||||
confidence: experimental
|
||||
source: "Dean's List DAO ThailandDAO proposal, futard.io, 2024-06-22"
|
||||
created: 2024-06-22
|
||||
enrichments: ["futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md", "MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions.md"]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Futarchy proposal failure despite favorable economics reveals adoption friction from complexity and liquidity requirements
|
||||
|
||||
The Dean's List DAO ThailandDAO event proposal demonstrates a critical futarchy adoption barrier: proposals can fail even when the economics appear overwhelmingly favorable, suggesting that mechanism complexity and liquidity requirements create participation friction that overrides rational economic incentives.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Asymmetric Economics
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal requested $15K in spending ($10K travel for top 5 governance power holders, $5K for events) while requiring only a 3% FDV increase ($3,698 absolute) as the pass condition. The proposal's own analysis projected FDV growth from $123,263 to over $2,000,000 (16x increase) based on token locking mechanics reducing circulating supply. This created an extreme risk/reward asymmetry: the required threshold represented just 0.18% of the projected outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Failure Matters
|
||||
|
||||
Despite this asymmetric risk/reward profile, the proposal failed after a 3-day trading period on Autocrat v0.3 (completed 2024-06-25). The failure occurred even though:
|
||||
- The budget was small relative to projected value creation
|
||||
- The pass condition (3% TWAP increase) was minimal compared to projections
|
||||
- The mechanism (token locking for governance power) had clear supply reduction dynamics
|
||||
- The event had concrete deliverables (travel, accommodation, venue)
|
||||
|
||||
This outcome confirms the hypothesis that futarchy adoption faces structural barriers beyond economics. The proposal required participants to:
|
||||
1. Understand conditional token markets and TWAP settlement mechanics
|
||||
2. Model token supply dynamics from governance power locking behavior
|
||||
3. Assess event ROI and community engagement effects
|
||||
4. Provide liquidity across pass/fail markets during a 3-day window
|
||||
5. Execute trades with sufficient capital to move the TWAP 3%
|
||||
|
||||
The cognitive and capital requirements exceeded what the small DAO community ($123K FDV) could mobilize, even when the proposal's own analysis showed favorable economics. This suggests futarchy faces a participation threshold problem where small DAOs lack the trader base to make markets function, creating a chicken-egg problem for adoption.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
- Dean's List DAO FDV: $123,263 (2024-06-22)
|
||||
- Proposal budget: $15K total ($10K travel, $5K events)
|
||||
- Required TWAP increase: 3% ($3,698 absolute)
|
||||
- Projected FDV: $2,000,000+ (16x increase)
|
||||
- Trading period: 3 days
|
||||
- Outcome: Failed (2024-06-25)
|
||||
- Platform: Autocrat v0.3 on MetaDAO
|
||||
- Proposal account: DgXa6gy7nAFFWe8VDkiReQYhqe1JSYQCJWUBV8Mm6aM
|
||||
- DAO account: 9TKh2yav4WpSNkFV2cLybrWZETBWZBkQ6WB6qV9Nt9dJ
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
This is a single case study from a small DAO ($123K FDV), which limits generalizability. The failure could reflect:
|
||||
- Skepticism about the FDV projection methodology (16x increase from token locking alone is aggressive)
|
||||
- Lack of liquidity in the specific market
|
||||
- Community disagreement with the event concept or execution risk
|
||||
- Technical friction in the Autocrat v0.3 interface
|
||||
- Timing issues or low awareness during the 3-day window
|
||||
|
||||
However, the proposal's failure despite seemingly overwhelming economic favorability (16x projected return vs 3% required threshold) suggests structural adoption barriers beyond this specific case. The evidence supports the claim that complexity and liquidity requirements create barriers, but does not prove they are the primary cause of this specific failure.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
- [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md]]
|
||||
- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions.md]]
|
||||
- [[domain-expertise-loses-to-trading-skill-in-futarchy-markets-because-prediction-accuracy-requires-calibration-not-just-knowledge.md]]
|
||||
- [[futarchy implementations must simplify theoretical mechanisms for production adoption because original designs include impractical elements that academics tolerate but users reject.md]]
|
||||
|
||||
Topics:
|
||||
- [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
|
||||
- [[core/mechanisms/_map]]
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: entity
|
||||
entity_type: decision_market
|
||||
name: "Dean's List: ThailandDAO Event Promotion to Boost Governance Engagement"
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
status: failed
|
||||
parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
|
||||
platform: "futardio"
|
||||
proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
|
||||
proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/DgXa6gy7nAFFWe8VDkiReQYhqe1JSYQCJWUBV8Mm6aM"
|
||||
proposal_date: 2024-06-22
|
||||
resolution_date: 2024-06-25
|
||||
category: "grants"
|
||||
summary: "Proposal to spend $15K on ThailandDAO event perks for top governance power holders, projecting 16x FDV increase through token locking mechanics"
|
||||
tracked_by: rio
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Dean's List: ThailandDAO Event Promotion to Boost Governance Engagement
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
Proposal to create a promotional event at ThailandDAO (Sept 25 - Oct 25, 2024, Koh Samui) offering exclusive perks to top Dean's List DAO governance power holders. Top 5 members would receive airplane fares and 12-day accommodation; top 50 would receive IRL event invitations and partner airdrops. Budget: $15K total ($10K travel, $5K events). The proposal projected this would drive token locking to increase governance power, reducing circulating supply and increasing FDV from $123,263 to over $2,000,000 (16x).
|
||||
|
||||
Pass condition: 3% TWAP increase over 3-day trading period. The proposal failed despite the minimal threshold relative to projected outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Market Data
|
||||
- **Outcome:** Failed
|
||||
- **Proposer:** HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz
|
||||
- **Proposal account:** DgXa6gy7nAFFWe8VDkiReQYhqe1JSYQCJWUBV8Mm6aM
|
||||
- **DAO account:** 9TKh2yav4WpSNkFV2cLybrWZETBWZBkQ6WB6qV9Nt9dJ
|
||||
- **Autocrat version:** 0.3
|
||||
- **Trading period:** 3 days (2024-06-22 to 2024-06-25)
|
||||
- **Pass condition:** 3% TWAP increase ($3,698 absolute)
|
||||
- **Current FDV:** $123,263
|
||||
- **Projected FDV:** $2,000,000+
|
||||
|
||||
## Significance
|
||||
This proposal demonstrates a critical futarchy adoption barrier: even when economics appear overwhelmingly favorable (16x projected return vs 3% required threshold), proposals can fail due to mechanism complexity and liquidity requirements. The failure suggests small DAOs lack the trader base to make futarchy markets function effectively, creating a participation threshold problem.
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal also tested a novel incentive mechanism: using real-world event access and governance power leaderboards to drive token locking. The mechanism drew inspiration from MonkeDAO and SuperTeam community engagement models but failed to generate sufficient market participation to reach the minimal pass threshold.
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to KB
|
||||
- [[deans-list]] - governance decision
|
||||
- [[futardio]] - platform
|
||||
- [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] - confirmed by this failure case
|
||||
- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] - additional evidence
|
||||
|
|
@ -47,3 +47,6 @@ Topics:
|
|||
## Timeline
|
||||
|
||||
- **2024-12-19** — [[deans-list-implement-3-week-vesting]] passed: 3-week linear vesting for DAO payments to reduce sell pressure from 80% immediate liquidation to 33% weekly rate, projected 15%-25% valuation increase
|
||||
|
||||
- **2024-06-22** — [[deans-list-thailanddao-event-promotion]] proposed: $15K event spending projecting 16x FDV increase through token locking mechanics
|
||||
- **2024-06-25** — [[deans-list-thailanddao-event-promotion]] failed: 3-day futarchy market failed to reach 3% TWAP threshold despite favorable economics
|
||||
|
|
@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/DgXa6gy7nAFFWe8VDkiReQYhqe1JSYQCJWUBV8Mm6aM
|
|||
date: 2024-06-22
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: data
|
||||
status: unprocessed
|
||||
status: processed
|
||||
tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
|
||||
event_type: proposal
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
|
|
@ -14,6 +14,12 @@ processed_date: 2024-06-22
|
|||
enrichments_applied: ["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", "MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
extraction_notes: "Extracted 2 claims about futarchy market failure modes and DAO incentive mechanisms. Both claims are experimental/speculative due to single-case evidence. Proposal failed despite seemingly favorable economics, which itself is evidence about futarchy adoption barriers. Enriched 3 existing claims with concrete implementation data and failure case confirmation."
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-11
|
||||
claims_extracted: ["futarchy-proposal-failure-despite-favorable-economics-reveals-adoption-friction-from-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements.md", "dao-event-incentive-mechanisms-using-governance-power-leaderboards-create-token-locking-demand-through-exclusive-real-world-perks.md"]
|
||||
enrichments_applied: ["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", "MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
extraction_notes: "Extracted 2 claims about futarchy market failure modes and DAO incentive mechanisms. Both claims are experimental/speculative due to single-case evidence. Proposal failed despite seemingly favorable economics (16x projected return vs 3% required threshold), which itself is evidence about futarchy adoption barriers. Created decision_market entity for the proposal. Enriched 3 existing claims with concrete implementation data and failure case confirmation."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposal Details
|
||||
|
|
@ -182,3 +188,14 @@ This proposal to create a promotional event at ThailandDAO, incentivizing govern
|
|||
- Proposal completed: 2024-06-25
|
||||
- Required TWAP increase: 3% ($3,698 absolute)
|
||||
- Trading period: 3 days
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- Dean's List DAO FDV: $123,263 (2024-06-22)
|
||||
- ThailandDAO event dates: Sept 25 - Oct 25, 2024 (Koh Samui, Thailand)
|
||||
- Proposal budget: $15K ($10K travel for top 5, $5K events for top 50)
|
||||
- Required TWAP increase: 3% ($3,698 absolute)
|
||||
- Trading period: 3 days
|
||||
- Autocrat version: 0.3
|
||||
- Proposal account: DgXa6gy7nAFFWe8VDkiReQYhqe1JSYQCJWUBV8Mm6aM
|
||||
- DAO account: 9TKh2yav4WpSNkFV2cLybrWZETBWZBkQ6WB6qV9Nt9dJ
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue