Auto: 3 files | 3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
This commit is contained in:
parent
4595339734
commit
54bf02d171
3 changed files with 70 additions and 4 deletions
64
entities/internet-finance/doppler.md
Normal file
64
entities/internet-finance/doppler.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: entity
|
||||
entity_type: company
|
||||
name: "Doppler"
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
website: https://doppler.lol
|
||||
status: active
|
||||
tracked_by: rio
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
last_updated: 2026-03-11
|
||||
category: "Token launch platform — Dutch auction dynamic bonding curves (Base/Solana)"
|
||||
stage: growth
|
||||
funding: "$9M seed led by Pantera Capital (Variant, Figment Capital, Coinbase Ventures)"
|
||||
key_metrics:
|
||||
daily_asset_creations: "40,000+"
|
||||
aggregate_value: "$1.5B+"
|
||||
cumulative_trading_volume: "$1B+"
|
||||
base_market_share: "90% of Base token launches"
|
||||
competitors: ["[[futardio]]", "pump.fun"]
|
||||
built_on: ["Base (primary)", "Ethereum", "Monad", "Solana (expanding)"]
|
||||
tags: ["token-launches", "dutch-auction", "bonding-curves", "uniswap-v4", "mev-protection"]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Doppler
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
Token launch platform using Dutch-auction dynamic bonding curves built on Uniswap v4 hooks. Dominates Base chain token launches (90% market share). Expanding to Solana with a native SVM rebuild. Competes with Futardio on a different axis: Doppler optimizes launch fairness (MEV protection via descending price), Futardio optimizes post-launch accountability (futarchy governance).
|
||||
|
||||
## Mechanism
|
||||
1. Pre-defined schedule sets token release over duration
|
||||
2. Bonding curve rebalances at each epoch via Uniswap v4 `beforeSwap` hook
|
||||
3. If sales lag, price drops via Dutch auction mechanics — structural MEV protection (snipers pay more, not less)
|
||||
4. Three "slug" liquidity positions maintained: below price (buyback), above price (purchases), buffer for next epoch
|
||||
5. After sale completes, liquidity auto-migrates into standard Uniswap v4 pool
|
||||
|
||||
## Current State
|
||||
- **Scale**: 40,000+ daily asset creations, $1.5B+ aggregate value, $1B+ cumulative volume
|
||||
- **Market share**: 90% of Base token launches
|
||||
- **Chains**: Base (primary), Ethereum mainnet, Monad, Solana (native rebuild announced)
|
||||
- **Integrations**: Zora, Base App, Paragraph, Bankr
|
||||
|
||||
## Competitive Position
|
||||
- **vs Futardio**: Different mechanisms solving different problems. Doppler = fair price discovery at launch. Futardio = post-launch accountability via futarchy. Potentially complementary — a project could use Doppler pricing AND Futardio governance. But Doppler's Solana expansion creates direct competition for new launches.
|
||||
- **vs pump.fun**: Same chain (expanding to Solana), but Dutch auction vs bonding curve. Doppler claims MEV protection as structural advantage.
|
||||
- **Moat**: Uniswap v4 hook architecture, distribution partnerships, 90% Base market share. Medium durability — mechanism is replicable but distribution is hard.
|
||||
|
||||
## Investment Thesis
|
||||
Doppler is the fair-launch infrastructure bet. If token launch pricing becomes a recognized problem (evidence: MetaDAO's 50x overbidding on early launches, pump.fun front-running), Doppler's Dutch auction mechanism captures the "fair price discovery" segment. The Solana expansion directly threatens Futardio's launch volume. Key question: does fair pricing or post-launch governance win more launches?
|
||||
|
||||
**Thesis status:** WATCHING — important competitor to track
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to KB
|
||||
- [[dutch-auction dynamic bonding curves solve the token launch pricing problem by combining descending price discovery with ascending supply curves eliminating the instantaneous arbitrage that has cost token deployers over 100 million dollars on Ethereum]] — Doppler implements this
|
||||
- [[token launches are hybrid-value auctions where common-value price discovery and private-value community alignment require different mechanisms because auction theory optimized for one degrades the other]] — Doppler addresses the price discovery side
|
||||
- [[optimal token launch architecture is layered not monolithic because separating quality governance from price discovery from liquidity bootstrapping from community rewards lets each layer use the mechanism best suited to its objective]] — Doppler is the price discovery layer
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Entities:
|
||||
- [[futardio]] — competitor (governance axis)
|
||||
- [[metadao]] — ecosystem competitor
|
||||
|
||||
Topics:
|
||||
- [[internet finance and decision markets]]
|
||||
|
|
@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ tags: ["launchpad", "ownership-coins", "futarchy", "unruggable-ico", "permission
|
|||
MetaDAO's token launch platform. Implements "unruggable ICOs" — permissionless launches where investors can force full treasury return through futarchy-governed liquidation if teams materially misrepresent. Replaced the original uncapped pro-rata mechanism that caused massive overbidding (Umbra: $155M committed for $3M raise = 50x; Solomon: $103M committed for $8M = 13x).
|
||||
|
||||
## Current State
|
||||
- **Launches**: 45 total (verified from platform data, March 2026). Many projects show "REFUNDING" status (failed to meet raise targets). Total commits: $17.8M across 1,010 funders.
|
||||
- **Launches**: 45 total (verified from platform data, March 2026). **Bimodal distribution**: only 2 projects raised meaningful capital — Futardio Cult ($11.4M, 22,806% oversubscribed) and Superclaw ($6M, 11,902% oversubscribed). The remaining ~40+ are in "REFUNDING" status with trivial amounts ($0-$12K each). Success rate: ~4.4%. Total commits: $17.8M across 1,010 funders.
|
||||
- **Mechanism**: Unruggable ICO. Projects raise capital, treasury is held onchain, futarchy proposals govern project direction. If community votes for liquidation, treasury returns to token holders.
|
||||
- **Quality signal**: The platform is permissionless — anyone can launch. Brand separation between Futardio platform and individual project quality is an active design challenge.
|
||||
- **Key test case**: Ranger Finance liquidation proposal (March 2026) — first major futarchy-governed enforcement action. Liquidation IS the enforcement mechanism — system working as designed.
|
||||
|
|
@ -52,7 +52,9 @@ MetaDAO's token launch platform. Implements "unruggable ICOs" — permissionless
|
|||
- **Structural weakness**: Permissionless launches mean quality varies wildly. Platform reputation tied to worst-case projects despite brand separation efforts.
|
||||
|
||||
## Investment Thesis
|
||||
Futardio is the test of whether futarchy can govern capital formation at scale. If unruggable ICOs produce better investor outcomes than unregulated token launches (pump.fun) while maintaining permissionless access, Futardio creates a new category: accountable permissionless fundraising. The Ranger liquidation is the first live test of the enforcement mechanism.
|
||||
Futardio is the test of whether futarchy can govern capital formation at scale. Current evidence is mixed: the accountability mechanism works (Ranger liquidation proves it), but the permissionless launch quality is poor (2/45 = 4.4% meaningful success rate). The curated MetaDAO launchpad (8 protocols, $25.6M raised) outperforms dramatically. Open question: does permissionless launch without curation produce the same power-law distribution as pump.fun, just at smaller scale? If so, the value proposition is post-launch governance, not launch quality.
|
||||
|
||||
**Competitor threat**: Doppler ($9M Pantera seed, 90% of Base launches, expanding to Solana) competes on launch fairness via Dutch auction pricing. Different axis than Futardio's governance — potentially complementary, but Doppler's Solana expansion directly competes for new launches.
|
||||
|
||||
**Thesis status:** ACTIVE
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Combined AMM + lending protocol on Solana — swapping and borrowing in the same
|
|||
- **~2025-Q4** — Audit period begins (~3 months of audits)
|
||||
- **~2026-02-15** — OmniPair launches (public beta / guarded launch)
|
||||
- **2026-02-15 to 2026-02-22** — ~4 contract upgrades in first week
|
||||
- **~2026-03-01** — Jupiter SDK ready, forked by Jupiter team. Integration expected imminently.
|
||||
- **~2026-03-01** — Jupiter SDK reportedly ready per Rakka (unconfirmed in public sources). Jupiter Lend launched independently Aug 2025, reached $1.65B TVL — OmniPair operates as independent protocol.
|
||||
- **~2026-03-15 (est)** — Leverage/looping feature expected (1-3 weeks from late Feb conversation). Implemented and audited in contracts, needs auxiliary peripheral program.
|
||||
- **Pending** — LP experience improvements, combined APY display (swap + interest), off-chain watchers for bad debt monitoring
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Combined AMM + lending protocol on Solana — swapping and borrowing in the same
|
|||
- Rakka argues mathematically: same AMM + aggregator integration + borrow rate surplus = must yield more than Raydium for equivalent pools
|
||||
- **Key vulnerability**: temporary moat. If MetaDAO reaches $1B valuation, Drift and other perp protocols will likely offer leverage on META and ecosystem tokens
|
||||
- **Chicken-and-egg**: need LPs for borrowers, need borrowers for LP yield. Rakka prioritizing LP side first.
|
||||
- **Jupiter integration is the single highest-impact catalyst** — expected to roughly triple volume and close most of the APY gap with Raydium
|
||||
- **Jupiter integration unconfirmed in public sources** — Rakka claimed SDK ready in conversation, but no public announcement found. If it happens, expected to roughly triple volume
|
||||
- **Valuation**: OMFG at ~1/40th of META market cap, described as "silly"/undervalued given OmniPair is the primary beneficiary of ecosystem volume growth
|
||||
|
||||
## Investment Thesis
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue