diff --git a/inbox/archive/2026-03-03-ranger-finance-liquidation-proposal.md b/inbox/archive/2026-03-03-ranger-finance-liquidation-proposal.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..89db0d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/archive/2026-03-03-ranger-finance-liquidation-proposal.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+type: evidence
+source: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/ranger/proposal/DPATwR2HLcGZCBZCTffzagV4r7dp5FF2C9aJmiuCDUpS"
+author: "Group of RNGR tokenholders"
+date: 2026-03-03
+archived_by: rio
+tags: [ranger, liquidation, futarchy, misrepresentation, unruggable-ICO, decision-market]
+---
+
+# Ranger Finance Liquidation Proposal — Full Text
+
+## Market Data (as of Mar 5 2026)
+
+- Total Volume: $581.04K
+- Pass Likelihood: 97%
+- Pass Price: $0.7440 (+0.32%) | Spot: $0.7416 | Fail Price: $0.6759 (-8.86%)
+- Approve TWAP: $0.7278 | Reject TWAP: $0.6651
+- Passing at +9.4348% (threshold: +3%)
+
+## Summary
+
+This proposal nullifies a prior 90-day restriction on buybacks/liquidations and proposes full liquidation of Ranger Finance. Authored by a group of RNGR tokenholders alleging material misrepresentations.
+
+## Allegations
+
+At ICO time, Ranger was marketed as:
+- A business with meaningful product-market fit
+- A business with sustainable revenue generation and significant actual revenue
+- A business primarily needing capital to scale
+
+Tokenholders allege this was misleading:
+- Co-founder FA2 stated "we are close to doing $5 billion in volume this year" and showed "$2m revenue" on slides
+- On-chain analysis shows 2025 volume was ~$2B (not $5B) and revenue was ~$500K (not $2M)
+- Volume and revenue per day were down over 90% between ICO announcement (Nov 2025) and the presentation (Dec 2025)
+- Co-founder Coby later claimed numbers were "projected" based on expectations for a "traditional ICO route"
+- Multiple team members (Maker, Luke, FA2) communicated the $2M figure without correction
+- Activity across perps and spot "declined to close to 0 following the ICO announcement" — indicating users were farmers, not organic
+
+## Proposed Liquidation Plan
+
+**Part 1: Return treasury funds to tokenholders**
+- No further team spending from future allowances (existing $500K released allowances can be used)
+- Snapshot of vested token balances 1 week after voting period
+- Remove protocol-owned liquidity, add USDC to treasury
+- Calculate book value per token
+- Open redemption for tokenholders at book value
+- Expected book value: $0.75 - $0.82 per token
+- Expected eligible tokens: 5.8-6.4M (excluding unvested, locked, protocol-owned)
+- Treasury USDC: ~$3.5M + $1.2-1.6M from LP removal
+- After 18 months, MetaDAO team discretion on unclaimed USDC
+
+**Part 2: Return all other assets to Glint House PTE. LTD**
+- IP, trademarks, domain names, source code, infrastructure return to original company
+- Majority developed/acquired prior to ICO with seed investments
+
+## Rio's assessment
+
+- Watershed moment for the futarchy thesis: the "unruggable ICO" mechanism unrugging in production
+- 97% pass likelihood with $581K volume = strong consensus with real capital, not thin market
+- The mechanism is protecting investors FROM team extraction — inverse of the majority-theft protection
+- Proposal nullifies its own prior 90-day restriction = futarchy can self-correct when evidence changes
+- Clean separation: USDC to tokenholders, IP to original company — executable liquidation mechanism
+- The specific misrepresentation evidence (screenshots, on-chain data, team quotes) is the kind of verifiable claim that makes futarchy governance credible
+- New claim: futarchy-governed liquidation as enforcement for unruggable ICOs
+- Enriches: decision markets, trustless joint ownership, MetaDAO platform analysis