diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/drift-working-group-demonstrates-futarchy-governed-community-operations-funding.md b/domains/internet-finance/drift-working-group-demonstrates-futarchy-governed-community-operations-funding.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 4fef75db9..000000000
--- a/domains/internet-finance/drift-working-group-demonstrates-futarchy-governed-community-operations-funding.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,35 +0,0 @@
----
-type: claim
-domain: internet-finance
-description: "Futarchy governance extends from capital allocation to operational community initiatives, requiring hybrid execution models that combine market mechanisms with traditional multisig controls"
-confidence: experimental
-source: "Drift Working Group proposal on futard.io, passed 2025-02-16"
-created: 2025-02-24
----
-
-# Futarchy governance extends to operational community initiatives but requires hybrid execution combining market mechanisms with multisig controls
-
-The Drift Working Group proposal demonstrates that futarchy mechanisms can govern operational spending decisions beyond discrete capital allocation. The proposal passed through MetaDAO's Autocrat futarchy program on 2025-02-16 to fund a 3-month community operations trial with 50,000 DRIFT, allocated across content creation (5,000 DRIFT monthly for lead, 2,600 DRIFT for four team members) and community initiatives (3,800 DRIFT monthly), with success measured through engagement metrics (X impressions, Discord participation) rather than financial returns.
-
-However, the execution layer reveals a critical constraint: despite passing through futarchy governance, the proposal implements fund management through a 2/3 multisig wallet comprising the working group lead and two Drift team members. This hybrid structure indicates that futarchy's market mechanisms alone cannot provide the operational security and fund custody controls required for ongoing operational expenses. The proposal explicitly frames this as "experimental," acknowledging uncertainty about whether futarchy can effectively govern qualitative success metrics (engagement, content quality) that don't translate cleanly into the binary pass/fail framework that conditional markets require.
-
-The budget structure includes a return mechanism for unused funds, but the proposal does not specify how the conditional markets would evaluate success or failure against the stated engagement metrics, or what triggers would cause the markets to settle on the "fail" outcome during the 3-month trial period.
-
-## Evidence
-- Drift Working Group proposal (futard.io, 6TkkCy26HCqxWGt1QgfhFHc6ASikRjk74Gkk4Wfyd7wR) requested 50,000 DRIFT for 3-month trial, passed 2025-02-16 through MetaDAO Autocrat
-- Budget: 15,400 DRIFT monthly (5,000 lead, 2,600 team members, 3,800 initiatives), with unused funds returned to DAO
-- Success metrics: engagement levels (X impressions, Discord participation), not quantifiable financial outcomes
-- Execution: 2/3 multisig (working group lead + 2 Drift team members) manages fund deployment
-- Proposal labeled "experimental initiative" with plans to "growth based on the program's success"
-- No specification of how conditional markets evaluate qualitative success metrics or settlement triggers
-
-## Challenges
-
-The proposal demonstrates a gap between futarchy's theoretical application and operational reality: conditional markets excel at binary outcomes (proposal passes/fails) but struggle with qualitative, ongoing performance metrics. The multisig execution structure introduces traditional governance elements that may dilute futarchy's market-based decision mechanism. The proposal does not clarify whether the 3-month trial period itself is the settlement window for the conditional markets, or whether markets remain open and can re-evaluate the decision based on emerging performance data.
-
----
-
-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]]
-- [[futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance]]
-- [[optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles]]