extract: 2026-03-24-telegram-m3taversal-interesting-hadnt-thought-about-it-that-way-any
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
This commit is contained in:
parent
1dbe0b4f6f
commit
818c15f794
3 changed files with 24 additions and 2 deletions
|
|
@ -42,6 +42,12 @@ Rio identifies that MetaDAO conditional token markets with leveraged positions f
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Tetlock (Columbia, 2008) found that liquidity directly affects prediction market efficiency, with thin order books allowing a single trader's opinion to dominate pricing. The LMSR automated market maker was invented by Robin Hanson specifically because thin markets fail—this is an admission baked into the mechanism design itself.
|
Tetlock (Columbia, 2008) found that liquidity directly affects prediction market efficiency, with thin order books allowing a single trader's opinion to dominate pricing. The LMSR automated market maker was invented by Robin Hanson specifically because thin markets fail—this is an admission baked into the mechanism design itself.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Additional Evidence (confirm)
|
||||||
|
*Source: [[2026-03-24-telegram-m3taversal-interesting-hadnt-thought-about-it-that-way-any]] | Added: 2026-03-24*
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Sanctum Wonder proposal markets had insufficient volume/liquidity to be considered credible by the team, leading to abandonment of futarchy experimentation. Low liquidity undermined the mechanism's credibility as a decision-making tool.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Relevant Notes:
|
Relevant Notes:
|
||||||
- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]]
|
- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]]
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -70,3 +70,9 @@ This case raises questions about the optimal scope for futarchy mechanisms:
|
||||||
- Should DAOs mix governance mechanisms based on decision type?
|
- 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.
|
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.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Additional Evidence (extend)
|
||||||
|
*Source: [[2026-03-24-telegram-m3taversal-interesting-hadnt-thought-about-it-that-way-any]] | Added: 2026-03-24*
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Sanctum's futarchy markets were generally considered thin relative to MetaDAO's, which is part of why the experiment didn't get much follow-through. If the markets aren't liquid enough to feel credible, the team has less reason to keep using them.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -7,12 +7,16 @@ url: ""
|
||||||
date: 2026-03-24
|
date: 2026-03-24
|
||||||
domain: internet-finance
|
domain: internet-finance
|
||||||
format: conversation
|
format: conversation
|
||||||
status: unprocessed
|
status: enrichment
|
||||||
priority: high
|
priority: high
|
||||||
intake_tier: directed
|
intake_tier: directed
|
||||||
rationale: "interesting, hadnt thought about it that way. Any idea how much that sanctum proposal did in volume or is it too old for that info?"
|
rationale: "interesting, hadnt thought about it that way. Any idea how much that sanctum proposal did in volume or is it too old for that info?"
|
||||||
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
|
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
|
||||||
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
|
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
|
||||||
|
processed_by: rio
|
||||||
|
processed_date: 2026-03-24
|
||||||
|
enrichments_applied: ["sanctum-wonder-mobile-app-proposal-failed-futarchy-vote-march-2025.md", "futarchy-clob-liquidity-fragmentation-creates-wide-spreads-because-pricing-counterfactual-governance-outcomes-has-inherent-uncertainty.md"]
|
||||||
|
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||||
---
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Conversation
|
## Conversation
|
||||||
|
|
@ -32,3 +36,9 @@ RESEARCH: Sanctum CLOUD futarchy proposal volume liquidity 2025
|
||||||
**Rationale from contributor:** interesting, hadnt thought about it that way. Any idea how much that sanctum proposal did in volume or is it too old for that info?
|
**Rationale from contributor:** interesting, hadnt thought about it that way. Any idea how much that sanctum proposal did in volume or is it too old for that info?
|
||||||
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
|
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
|
||||||
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
|
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Key Facts
|
||||||
|
- Volume data on Sanctum Wonder proposal is not available in accessible sources as of March 2026
|
||||||
|
- Sanctum Wonder proposal failed in late March 2025
|
||||||
|
- Sanctum's futarchy markets had lower liquidity than MetaDAO's markets
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue