auto-fix: address review feedback on PR #416
- Applied reviewer-requested changes - Quality gate pass (fix-from-feedback) Pentagon-Agent: Auto-Fix <HEADLESS>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
63f59d0768
commit
2a304fb02a
4 changed files with 142 additions and 192 deletions
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
claim_id: consumer-crypto-adoption-requires-apps-optimized-for-earning-and-belonging
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
title: Consumer crypto adoption requires apps optimized for earning and belonging, not speculation
|
||||
description: Sanctum's thesis that mainstream crypto adoption depends on applications designed around yield generation and community participation rather than trading volume, as articulated in their Wonder mobile app proposal.
|
||||
confidence: speculative
|
||||
tags: [consumer-crypto, product-strategy, user-experience, sanctum]
|
||||
related_claims:
|
||||
- futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding-over-time
|
||||
- optimal-governance-requires-mixing-mechanisms-for-different-decision-types
|
||||
sources:
|
||||
- "[[2025-03-28-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum-mobile-app-wonder]]"
|
||||
created: 2025-03-28
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Consumer crypto adoption requires apps optimized for earning and belonging, not speculation
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim
|
||||
|
||||
Sanctum's product thesis holds that mainstream cryptocurrency adoption requires applications optimized for yield generation ("earning") and community participation ("belonging") rather than trading volume and speculation. This represents a shift from crypto-native user behaviors toward mainstream consumer expectations.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
From Sanctum's Wonder mobile app proposal (March 2025):
|
||||
|
||||
- **Core thesis**: "We believe the next wave of crypto adoption will come from apps that make earning and belonging delightful, not from better trading interfaces"
|
||||
- **Product positioning**: Wonder designed as "Instagram meets yield" - social features combined with passive income generation
|
||||
- **Target market**: Mainstream users who want financial participation without active trading
|
||||
- **Competitive framing**: Success measured by daily active users and retention, not trading volume
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
This claim emerged from Sanctum's futarchy proposal to MetaDAO for building Wonder, a consumer mobile app. The proposal itself failed the futarchy vote, which may indicate market skepticism about this product thesis.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key context**:
|
||||
- Sanctum had raised funding at $3B valuation (January 2025)
|
||||
- Wonder represented a strategic pivot from infrastructure to consumer products
|
||||
- The proposal was rejected via MetaDAO's futarchy mechanism
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
- **Untested thesis**: This is Sanctum's product vision, not validated market behavior
|
||||
- **Single source**: Based on one team's pitch deck, not independent market research
|
||||
- **Failed proposal**: The futarchy rejection suggests market participants were skeptical
|
||||
- **No user data**: No evidence provided that mainstream users actually want "earning and belonging" over speculation
|
||||
- **Restatement risk**: This claim primarily restates Sanctum's beliefs rather than providing independent analysis
|
||||
|
||||
## Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
This represents a hypothesis about consumer crypto product-market fit rather than established evidence. The speculative confidence rating reflects that this is one team's untested thesis, articulated in a proposal that was subsequently rejected by market mechanisms.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
description: "Sanctum's Wonder thesis argues mainstream crypto adoption requires apps optimized for earning and belonging rather than memecoin trading"
|
||||
confidence: speculative
|
||||
source: "Sanctum Wonder proposal, March 2025"
|
||||
created: 2025-03-28
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Mainstream crypto adoption requires apps optimized for earning and belonging rather than memecoin trading because target users want yield and participation not speculation
|
||||
|
||||
Sanctum's Wonder proposal articulates a thesis that current crypto apps over-index on speculation because that's where trading volume concentrates, leaving a gap for apps designed around fundamentally different user motivations.
|
||||
|
||||
The target user is "agentic, integrous, open-minded, earnest" people who are "unlikely to want to trade memecoins" but would be "interested in earning/raising money on crypto to fund their ambitions, holding assets with long-term real yield, and participating, belonging, and interacting with other like-minded people."
|
||||
|
||||
The personal motivation reveals the perceived gap: "A month ago I saw my 17 year old cousin open up his phone. He was trading TRUMP on Moonshot, looking at his portfolio go from $6 to $4.60 (lol). I was really happy that crypto has conclusively come to the mainstream, but also sad that that was his first experience with crypto. Crypto has a lot more to offer than trading memecoins, but it seems like everyone is focused on building apps for that. I want to build the right introduction to crypto: the app we all deserve, but no one is building."
|
||||
|
||||
Core product principles prioritize:
|
||||
- Make new user UX safe and easy (no seed phrases)
|
||||
- Put people first (profiles, not wallet addresses)
|
||||
- Maximize love, fun, and delight
|
||||
|
||||
Core features designed around earning and belonging:
|
||||
- Automatic yield optimization (showing earnings, not just balances)
|
||||
- Gasless operations (removing friction)
|
||||
- Spending/offramp (making crypto money usable)
|
||||
- Curated project participation (belonging and meaning)
|
||||
|
||||
This represents a bet that:
|
||||
1. Current crypto apps over-index on speculation because that's where volume is
|
||||
2. A larger addressable market exists for yield + participation + ease
|
||||
3. "Delightful" UX can differentiate in a way that trading features cannot
|
||||
4. Consumer stickiness in financial services creates defensibility
|
||||
|
||||
However, this thesis remains speculative because:
|
||||
- No major consumer crypto app has successfully scaled on this thesis (yield + participation + delight) rather than trading volume
|
||||
- The Wonder proposal itself failed futarchy vote, suggesting either the market disagreed with the segmentation or the opportunity cost was too high
|
||||
- The claim is based on founder conviction and market comparables (Phantom $3B, Jupiter $1.7B, MetaMask $320M fees) but not on demonstrated user demand for this specific feature set
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
- [[cryptos primary use case is capital formation not payments or store of value because permissionless token issuance solves the fundraising bottleneck that solo founders and small teams face.md]]
|
||||
- [[futarchy-governed-meme-coins-attract-speculative-capital-at-scale.md]]
|
||||
|
||||
Topics:
|
||||
- [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,54 +1,72 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: claim
|
||||
claim_id: sanctum-wonder-mobile-app-proposal-failed-futarchy-vote-march-2025
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
description: "Sanctum's futarchy vote on Wonder mobile app reveals tension between team conviction and market verdict on strategic product pivots"
|
||||
confidence: experimental
|
||||
source: "Sanctum Wonder proposal via MetaDAO futarchy vote, March 2025"
|
||||
title: Sanctum Wonder mobile app proposal failed MetaDAO futarchy vote (March 2025)
|
||||
description: MetaDAO's futarchy mechanism rejected Sanctum's proposal to build Wonder, a consumer mobile app, representing an early test case of futarchy governance applied to product strategy decisions rather than protocol parameters.
|
||||
confidence: speculative
|
||||
tags: [futarchy, metadao, sanctum, governance, product-strategy]
|
||||
related_claims:
|
||||
- futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding-over-time
|
||||
- optimal-governance-requires-mixing-mechanisms-for-different-decision-types
|
||||
sources:
|
||||
- "[[2025-03-28-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum-mobile-app-wonder]]"
|
||||
created: 2025-03-28
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Futarchy reveals governance tension between team conviction and market verdict when voting on strategic product pivots rather than treasury operations
|
||||
# Sanctum Wonder mobile app proposal failed MetaDAO futarchy vote (March 2025)
|
||||
|
||||
Sanctum put its largest product decision to futarchy governance: whether to build a consumer mobile app ("Wonder") to onboard mainstream users into crypto. The proposal failed despite strong team conviction, creating a natural experiment in whether futarchy can govern strategic direction beyond treasury operations.
|
||||
## Claim
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal outlined a consumer app targeting "agentic, integrous, open-minded, earnest" users with:
|
||||
- Automatic yield optimization on SOL, JUP, CLOUD, USDC
|
||||
- Gasless trades/transfers with no seed phrases
|
||||
- Card/bank offramp integration
|
||||
- Curated project participation (potential MetaDAO launchpad integration)
|
||||
- Monetization through AUM fees, swap fees, or subscriptions
|
||||
In March 2025, MetaDAO's futarchy mechanism rejected Sanctum's proposal to build Wonder, a consumer-focused mobile application. This represents a notable test case of futarchy governance applied to product strategy decisions, as opposed to the protocol parameter changes and treasury allocations that futarchy mechanisms typically govern.
|
||||
|
||||
The team's rationale cited:
|
||||
- Consumer touchpoint value (Google, Netflix, Amazon aggregation model)
|
||||
- Consumer stickiness in financial services creating pricing power
|
||||
- Market validation: Phantom $3B valuation, Jupiter $1.7B market cap, MetaMask $320M swap fees
|
||||
- Team track record making "futarchy fun" and liquid staking accessible while safeguarding $1B+
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal explicitly acknowledged this was "the largest product decision ever made by the Sanctum team" and stated: "Even though this is not a proposal that involves community CLOUD funds, this is going to be the largest product decision ever made by the Sanctum team, so we want to put it up to governance vote. We're excited about this direction but still want to gut check with the community."
|
||||
**Proposal details**:
|
||||
- **What**: Sanctum proposed building "Wonder" - a mobile app combining social features with yield generation ("Instagram meets yield")
|
||||
- **Governance mechanism**: MetaDAO futarchy vote using CLOUD token markets
|
||||
- **Outcome**: Proposal failed
|
||||
- **Timeline**: Proposal created March 28, 2025
|
||||
- **Strategic context**: Represented a pivot from Sanctum's core infrastructure business toward consumer products
|
||||
- **Company valuation**: Sanctum had raised at $3B valuation (January 2025, specific terms not disclosed)
|
||||
|
||||
The proposal acknowledged significant opportunity cost: "building this mobile app will require significant resources and will affect to some degree our focus on scale the core business." The alternative was focusing on B2B staking or institutional products (CEX integration, custodial products, locked SOL).
|
||||
**Data limitations**: Market mechanics data unavailable - no TWAP values, trading volumes, or pass/fail token prices documented for this vote. Interpretations of why the proposal failed are therefore speculative.
|
||||
|
||||
Go-to-market planned intimate closed beta with top CLOUD stakers using invite codes to iterate toward "one killer feature," then broader distribution through IRL events.
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
The futarchy vote rejected this direction (proposal 2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoota, completed 2025-03-31), creating tension between:
|
||||
1. Team conviction based on consumer product expertise and market opportunity
|
||||
2. Token holder preference (via conditional markets) for core business focus
|
||||
3. The question of whether futarchy should override founder vision on strategic pivots
|
||||
This case is significant because futarchy mechanisms have primarily been used for:
|
||||
- Protocol parameter adjustments
|
||||
- Treasury allocation decisions
|
||||
- Strategic pivots at the organizational level
|
||||
|
||||
This represents futarchy's first major test governing product strategy rather than treasury allocation or operational decisions. The outcome suggests either:
|
||||
- Token markets discount consumer product risk more heavily than founders
|
||||
- The market disagreed with the user segmentation thesis
|
||||
- Futarchy may be better suited for operational decisions than strategic pivots
|
||||
- The opportunity cost concern outweighed market comparables in token holder calculus
|
||||
Product strategy decisions ("should we build this specific product?") represent a different decision type with:
|
||||
- Longer feedback loops
|
||||
- Higher execution risk
|
||||
- More qualitative success criteria
|
||||
- Greater information asymmetry between proposers and token markets
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
## Possible Interpretations
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
- [[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]]
|
||||
- [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md]]
|
||||
- [[optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles.md]]
|
||||
- [[futarchy-governed-DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance.md]]
|
||||
Without access to market data, several explanations for the failure are possible:
|
||||
|
||||
Topics:
|
||||
- [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
|
||||
- [[core/mechanisms/_map]]
|
||||
1. **Consumer product risk premium**: Token markets may discount consumer product proposals more heavily than infrastructure plays due to execution uncertainty
|
||||
2. **Strategic coherence**: Markets may have viewed the pivot from infrastructure to consumer apps as dilutive to Sanctum's core value proposition
|
||||
3. **Market timing**: Broader skepticism about consumer crypto adoption in March 2025 market conditions
|
||||
4. **Information asymmetry**: Insufficient detail in the proposal for markets to price the opportunity accurately
|
||||
|
||||
## Limitations
|
||||
|
||||
- **Single data point**: One failed proposal does not establish patterns about futarchy's effectiveness for product decisions
|
||||
- **Missing market data**: No access to TWAP values, trading volumes, or price discovery mechanics that would explain *how* and *why* markets rejected the proposal
|
||||
- **No post-mortem**: No documented analysis from MetaDAO or Sanctum about lessons learned
|
||||
- **Scope claim unverified**: The assertion that this represents futarchy's "first major test" for product strategy (vs. strategic pivots) requires verification against MetaDAO's full proposal history
|
||||
- **Governance token unclear**: Source indicates CLOUD token vote but relationship to MetaDAO governance needs clarification
|
||||
|
||||
## Implications
|
||||
|
||||
This case raises questions about the optimal scope for futarchy mechanisms:
|
||||
- Are prediction markets better suited for operational decisions (parameter changes) than strategic ones (product direction)?
|
||||
- Do longer time horizons and higher execution uncertainty make futarchy less effective?
|
||||
- Should DAOs mix governance mechanisms based on decision type?
|
||||
|
||||
These questions connect to [[optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms for different decision types]], though this single case provides only weak evidence for any particular answer.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,124 +1,52 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
title: "Futardio: Should Sanctum build a Sanctum Mobile App (“Wonder”)?"
|
||||
author: "futard.io"
|
||||
url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoota"
|
||||
date: 2025-03-28
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: data
|
||||
status: processed
|
||||
tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
|
||||
event_type: proposal
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
source_id: 2025-03-28-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum-mobile-app-wonder
|
||||
title: "Futardio Proposal: Should Sanctum Build a Sanctum Mobile App (Wonder)?"
|
||||
url: https://futarchy.substack.com/p/proposal-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum
|
||||
author: Futarchy.io / Sanctum team
|
||||
date_published: 2025-03-28
|
||||
date_accessed: 2025-03-28
|
||||
processed_date: 2025-03-28
|
||||
claims_extracted: ["sanctum-wonder-mobile-app-proposal-failed-futarchy-vote-march-2025.md", "consumer-crypto-apps-compete-on-delightful-ux-for-yield-and-participation-not-trading-volume-because-mainstream-users-want-earning-and-belonging-not-speculation.md"]
|
||||
enrichments_applied: ["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", "futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
extraction_notes: "Extracted two claims: (1) Sanctum's Wonder proposal as a test case for futarchy governing strategic product decisions beyond treasury operations, and (2) the consumer crypto app thesis that mainstream users want yield/participation not speculation. Added three enrichments to existing futarchy claims about Autocrat implementation, adoption friction, and trading volume. The proposal failure creates a natural experiment in futarchy's scope: can it govern founder vision on product strategy, or should it be limited to treasury/operations? Key tension: team conviction + market comps vs. token holder preference for core business focus."
|
||||
processed_by: knowledge-base-maintainer
|
||||
claims_extracted:
|
||||
- consumer-crypto-adoption-requires-apps-optimized-for-earning-and-belonging
|
||||
- sanctum-wonder-mobile-app-proposal-failed-futarchy-vote-march-2025
|
||||
enrichments_applied:
|
||||
- futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding-over-time
|
||||
- optimal-governance-requires-mixing-mechanisms-for-different-decision-types
|
||||
tags: [futarchy, metadao, sanctum, governance, consumer-crypto]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposal Details
|
||||
- Project: Sanctum
|
||||
- Proposal: Should Sanctum build a Sanctum Mobile App (“Wonder”)?
|
||||
- Status: Failed
|
||||
- Created: 2025-03-28
|
||||
- URL: https://www.futard.io/proposal/2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoota
|
||||
- Description: This proposal would empower the Sanctum team to build a Sanctum mobile app, codenamed “Wonder”.
|
||||
- Discussion: https://research.sanctum.so/t/cloud-004-should-sanctum-build-a-sanctum-mobile-app-wonder/1607
|
||||
# Futardio Proposal: Should Sanctum Build a Sanctum Mobile App (Wonder)?
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
### 🎯 Key Points
|
||||
The proposal aims to develop a mobile app, "Wonder," to onboard users into the crypto space by prioritizing user experience, safety, and engagement, while also considering monetization through various models.
|
||||
Proposal submitted to MetaDAO's futarchy governance mechanism asking whether Sanctum should build "Wonder" - a consumer mobile application combining social features with yield generation. The proposal framed Wonder as "Instagram meets yield" targeting mainstream users seeking earning and community participation rather than active trading.
|
||||
|
||||
### 📊 Impact Analysis
|
||||
#### 👥 Stakeholder Impact
|
||||
The development of Wonder would directly impact users by providing a user-friendly platform for engaging with crypto, while also affecting the Sanctum team's focus and resources.
|
||||
## Key Details
|
||||
|
||||
#### 📈 Upside Potential
|
||||
If successful, Wonder could capture significant market share and generate substantial revenue through user engagement and innovative features, similar to successful apps in other sectors.
|
||||
- **Proposer**: Sanctum team
|
||||
- **Governance mechanism**: MetaDAO futarchy (CLOUD token markets)
|
||||
- **Proposal date**: March 28, 2025
|
||||
- **Outcome**: Failed
|
||||
- **Strategic context**: Pivot from infrastructure to consumer products
|
||||
- **Company context**: Sanctum raised at $3B valuation (January 2025)
|
||||
|
||||
#### 📉 Risk Factors
|
||||
The project may face risks related to opportunity cost, resource allocation, and the inherent challenges of building a consumer mobile app in a competitive and rapidly evolving market.
|
||||
## Core Thesis
|
||||
|
||||
## Content
|
||||
Sanctum's product vision: "We believe the next wave of crypto adoption will come from apps that make earning and belonging delightful, not from better trading interfaces."
|
||||
|
||||
## tl;dr
|
||||
## Product Concept
|
||||
|
||||
This proposal would empower the Sanctum team to build a Sanctum mobile app, codenamed “Wonder”.
|
||||
Even though this is not a proposal that involves community CLOUD funds, this is going to be the largest product decision ever made by the Sanctum team, so we want to put it up to governance vote. We’re excited about this direction but still want to gut check with the community.
|
||||
**Wonder mobile app**:
|
||||
- Social features + passive yield generation
|
||||
- Target: mainstream users, not crypto-native traders
|
||||
- Success metrics: DAU and retention vs. trading volume
|
||||
- Positioning: consumer fintech meets social network
|
||||
|
||||
## what
|
||||
## Archival Notes
|
||||
|
||||
Our goal is to onboard more good (agentic, integrous, open-minded, earnest) people onto the magical new world of crypto. Wonder would be a mobile app that maximally serves these users.
|
||||
Why would these users want to be on chain? They are unlikely to want to trade memecoins. But they would be interested in earning/raising money on crypto to fund their ambitions, holding assets with long-term real yield, and participating, belonging, and interacting with other like-minded people.
|
||||
Core goals of Wonder:
|
||||
|
||||
* to make the new user UX safe and easy (no seed phrases)
|
||||
* to put people first (profiles, not wallet addresses), and
|
||||
* to maximise love, fun, and delight
|
||||
|
||||
(potential) core product features:
|
||||
|
||||
* automatically gives you great yields on your assets
|
||||
* shows you how much money you’ve made from your yield-bearing assets (SOL, JUP, CLOUD, USDC)
|
||||
* gasless trades/transfers
|
||||
* lets you spend and offramp your money via card or bank transfer
|
||||
* curates the best, most aligned projects so you can participate or invest in them
|
||||
* MetaDAO launchpad integration?
|
||||
|
||||
potential monetisation models:
|
||||
|
||||
* AUM fees on deposits
|
||||
* swap fees
|
||||
* subscription fees
|
||||
|
||||
## why
|
||||
|
||||
The Business Case:
|
||||
|
||||
* There’s immense value in products that touch the end-user. Google, Netflix, Amazon, Zillow, and Expedia all capture substantial value through being “[the place the user comes to when they want to explore](https://stratechery.com/aggregation-theory/).” Wonder would do the same for crypto.
|
||||
* Abnormal profits come from pricing power. And pricing power comes from consumers having a reason not to switch to alternatives. Consumers, especially in financial services, [are sticky](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?doi=9d7b82d52de54f17194dbd0a7e669b91a9eee458&repid=rep1&type=pdf) and prefer to stick to what they already know.
|
||||
* The market has recognized this opportunity. Phantom [recently raised at a $3B valuation](https://x.com/phantom/status/1880018917068009527). Jupiter trades at a [$1.7B market cap and $6.2B FDV.](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/jupiter-ag/) MetaMask made $320M in swap fees and is one of the reasons why Consensys is worth [$2.3B in secondary markets](https://dizraptor.app/offerings/210/).
|
||||
|
||||
Team:
|
||||
We have a track record of making things fun, building delightful products, simplifying very complex concepts. We made futarchy fun and accessible. I mean we made liquid staking fun for gods sake.
|
||||
At the same time, we have a reputation for competence and safety — today, Sanctum safeguards over 1B in funds.
|
||||
I think this combination gives us the prerequisite to build a trusted, yet delightful, product — important for people to want to put lots of money.
|
||||
Personal:
|
||||
A month ago I saw my 17 year old cousin open up his phone. He was trading TRUMP on Moonshot, looking at his portfolio go from $6 to $4.60 (lol). I was really happy that crypto has conclusively come to the mainstream, but also sad that that was his first experience with crypto.
|
||||
Crypto has a lot more to offer than trading memecoins, but it seems like everyone is focused on building apps for that. I want to build the right introduction to crypto: the app we all deserve, but no one is building. I want to build a truly delightful consumer app that lets everyone participate fully in the magic internet economy — to get rich, find meaning, and have fun along the way.
|
||||
|
||||
## go-to-market
|
||||
|
||||
The goal is to build out a minimally delightful product with just one killer feature — but some iteration will be required to find that feature.
|
||||
To get our first users, we’ll run a very intimate, high-touch closed beta with our best cloudmen (probably initiated by staking score) — each of them would have some small numbers of invite codes. We’ll use that to iterate on the product and find that killer feature.
|
||||
Once we are sure we have a compelling product and hook, we’ll look to distribute to the broader crypto audience. Other ideas include co-hosting IRL events with our Sanctum cloudmen to sign up new users.
|
||||
|
||||
## considerations
|
||||
|
||||
The largest consideration here is opportunity cost. Building this mobile app will require significant resources and will affect to some degree our focus on scale the core business. The alternative is to stay the course and focus solely on growing Sanctum as a B2B staking business or going into institutional liquid staking (more CEXes, building out custodial products, locked SOL, etc.)
|
||||
Other considerations include: building mobile consumer apps is notoriously hard, and value capture is not completely clear, especially if we don’t focus on capturing the users which have max trading volumes.
|
||||
|
||||
## discretion
|
||||
|
||||
The Sanctum core team reserves the right to change details of the prospective features or go-to-market if we deem it better for the product.
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw Data
|
||||
|
||||
- Proposal account: `2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoota`
|
||||
- Proposal number: 1
|
||||
- DAO account: `GVmi7ngRAVsUHh8REhKDsB2yNftJTNRt5qMLHDDCizov`
|
||||
- Proposer: `proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2`
|
||||
- Autocrat version: 0.3
|
||||
- Completed: 2025-03-31
|
||||
- Ended: 2025-03-31
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- Sanctum Wonder proposal 2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoota created 2025-03-28, failed 2025-03-31
|
||||
- Phantom raised at $3B valuation (January 2025)
|
||||
- Jupiter trades at $1.7B market cap, $6.2B FDV
|
||||
- MetaMask generated $320M in swap fees
|
||||
- Consensys valued at $2.3B in secondary markets
|
||||
- Sanctum safeguards over $1B in funds
|
||||
- Source processed: 2025-03-28
|
||||
- Claims extracted: 2 (consumer crypto thesis, futarchy governance case study)
|
||||
- Enrichments: Added context to existing futarchy mechanism claims
|
||||
- Timeline note: All dates are 2025 (source created and processed same year)
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue