rio: extract from 2024-07-01-futardio-proposal-fund-artemis-labs-data-and-analytics-dashboards.md
- Source: inbox/archive/2024-07-01-futardio-proposal-fund-artemis-labs-data-and-analytics-dashboards.md - Domain: internet-finance - Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 2) Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
e0a7d8ab07
commit
836de1f9f6
7 changed files with 96 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -23,6 +23,12 @@ This evidence has direct implications for governance design. It suggests that [[
|
|||
|
||||
Optimism's futarchy experiment achieved 5,898 total trades from 430 active forecasters (average 13.6 transactions per person) over 21 days, with 88.6% being first-time Optimism governance participants. This suggests futarchy CAN attract substantial engagement when implemented at scale with proper incentives, contradicting the limited-volume pattern observed in MetaDAO. Key differences: Optimism used play money (lower barrier to entry), had institutional backing (Uniswap Foundation co-sponsor), and involved grant selection (clearer stakes) rather than protocol governance decisions. The participation breadth (10 countries, 4 continents, 36 new users/day) suggests the limited-volume finding may be specific to MetaDAO's implementation or use case rather than a structural futarchy limitation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (confirm)
|
||||
*Source: [[2024-07-01-futardio-proposal-fund-artemis-labs-data-and-analytics-dashboards]] | Added: 2026-03-11 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
|
||||
|
||||
The Drift DAO proposal to fund Artemis Labs for $50k failed despite having clear, uncontested technical merit (comprehensive analytics dashboards with 15+ specific metrics, reasonable $50k pricing over 12 months, 6-month review gate, open-source commitment). The proposal was completed 2024-07-05 with status 'Failed', indicating insufficient market participation to pass. This reinforces the pattern where futarchy markets show limited liquidity when proposals lack clear controversy or strong opposing views, even when deliverables are well-defined and pricing is transparent.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -34,6 +34,12 @@ MycoRealms implementation reveals operational friction points: monthly $10,000 a
|
|||
|
||||
Optimism futarchy achieved 430 active forecasters and 88.6% first-time governance participants by using play money, demonstrating that removing capital requirements can dramatically lower participation barriers. However, this came at the cost of prediction accuracy (8x overshoot on magnitude estimates), revealing a new friction: the play-money vs real-money tradeoff. Play money enables permissionless participation but sacrifices calibration; real money provides calibration but creates regulatory and capital barriers. This suggests futarchy adoption faces a structural dilemma between accessibility and accuracy that liquidity requirements alone don't capture. The tradeoff is not merely about quantity of liquidity but the fundamental difference between incentive structures that attract participants vs incentive structures that produce accurate predictions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Additional Evidence (extend)
|
||||
*Source: [[2024-07-01-futardio-proposal-fund-artemis-labs-data-and-analytics-dashboards]] | Added: 2026-03-11 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
|
||||
|
||||
The Artemis Labs proposal demonstrates proposal complexity friction in practice: despite comprehensive structure (product screenshots, 15+ specific metrics across perp protocol/trader behavior/liquidity/deposits, detailed pricing justification with token price methodology, success criteria, bi-monthly update commitments, 6-month performance review gate), the proposal failed to achieve passage. The proposal included institutional client references (Grayscale, Vaneck, Franklin Templeton, Pantera Capital, Modular Capital) and open-source commitments to reduce evaluation uncertainty, yet still faced adoption barriers. This suggests that even well-structured proposals with clear deliverables and reduced information asymmetry face friction, implying the barrier is not primarily evaluation complexity but rather market participation/liquidity constraints or token holder engagement thresholds.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Relevant Notes:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
22
entities/internet-finance/artemis-labs.md
Normal file
22
entities/internet-finance/artemis-labs.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: entity
|
||||
entity_type: company
|
||||
name: Artemis Labs
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
status: active
|
||||
website: https://www.artemis.xyz
|
||||
tracked_by: rio
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Artemis Labs
|
||||
|
||||
Artemis Labs is a crypto data and analytics platform providing unified access to protocol metrics through terminal dashboards, Excel/Google Sheets plugins, and APIs. The company serves institutional investors (Grayscale, Franklin Templeton, VanEck), liquid token funds (Pantera Capital, Modular Capital, CoinFund), retail investors (20k+ Twitter followers, 20k+ newsletter subscribers), and developers. The team includes engineers from Venmo, Messari, Coinbase, and Facebook, plus finance talent from Holocene, Carlyle Group, BlackRock, and Whale Rock. Artemis became open source in early 2024 and positions itself as neutral third-party verification for protocol metrics.
|
||||
|
||||
## Timeline
|
||||
- **2024-07-01** — [[drift-fund-artemis-labs-dashboards]] proposed: $50k grant for 12-month Drift protocol analytics integration
|
||||
- **2024-07-05** — Drift DAO proposal failed through futarchy governance
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to KB
|
||||
- Demonstrates [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] through failed proposal despite comprehensive deliverables
|
||||
- Example of third-party data provider seeking protocol-specific funding through futarchy governance
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: entity
|
||||
entity_type: decision_market
|
||||
name: "Drift: Fund Artemis Labs Data and Analytics Dashboards"
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
status: failed
|
||||
parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
|
||||
platform: futardio
|
||||
proposer: HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz
|
||||
proposal_url: https://www.futard.io/proposal/G95shxDXSSTcgi2DTJ2h79JCefVNQPm8dFeDzx7qZ2ks
|
||||
proposal_date: 2024-07-01
|
||||
resolution_date: 2024-07-05
|
||||
category: grants
|
||||
summary: "Proposal to grant Artemis Labs $50k in DRIFT tokens over 12 months to build and maintain comprehensive protocol analytics dashboards"
|
||||
tracked_by: rio
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Drift: Fund Artemis Labs Data and Analytics Dashboards
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
Artemis Labs proposed a $50k grant (max 115k DRIFT tokens) over 12 months to integrate Drift protocol metrics into their analytics platform, providing institutional-grade dashboards covering perp protocol metrics, trader behavior, liquidity analysis, and deposit trends. The proposal included a 6-month performance review option and commitments to open-source dashboards, independent research, and bi-monthly updates. Despite comprehensive deliverables and institutional client access (Grayscale, Franklin Templeton, VanEck, Pantera), the proposal failed through futarchy governance.
|
||||
|
||||
## Market Data
|
||||
- **Outcome:** Failed
|
||||
- **Proposer:** HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz
|
||||
- **Platform:** Futardio (Autocrat v0.3)
|
||||
- **Duration:** 4 days (2024-07-01 to 2024-07-05)
|
||||
|
||||
## Deliverables Proposed
|
||||
- 15+ specific metrics across four categories: perp protocol (open interest, fees, revenue, funding rates), trader behavior (volume/trader, unique traders), liquidity (market-specific depth, price fill for 100k orders), deposits (average size, trends, lending rates)
|
||||
- Open-source dashboards with screenshot permissions
|
||||
- Independent research piece on Drift protocol
|
||||
- Bi-monthly progress updates
|
||||
- 6-hour data refresh cadence (vs 24-hour public S3 datalake)
|
||||
|
||||
## Significance
|
||||
This failed proposal demonstrates futarchy adoption friction even when proposals have clear deliverables, reasonable pricing, institutional distribution value, and structured accountability (6-month review option). The failure suggests that proposal complexity, token price psychology, or liquidity requirements create barriers independent of proposal merit. The comprehensive structure required (product screenshots, client references, success criteria, pricing justification) may itself deter participation or create evaluation overhead in futarchy markets.
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to KB
|
||||
- [[drift]] — governance decision on analytics infrastructure
|
||||
- [[artemis-labs]] — proposing entity
|
||||
- Confirms [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]]
|
||||
- Extends [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]]
|
||||
|
|
@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ Perpetuals DEX on Solana — one of the largest decentralized derivatives platfo
|
|||
- **2024-12-19** — AI Agents Grants program: 50K DRIFT for trading, yield, info, and social agents
|
||||
- **2025-02-13** — Drift Working Group funded via futarchy
|
||||
|
||||
- **2024-07-01** — [[drift-fund-artemis-labs-dashboards]] proposed: $50k grant for Artemis Labs analytics integration
|
||||
- **2024-07-05** — Artemis Labs proposal failed through futarchy governance
|
||||
## Competitive Position
|
||||
- **Futarchy validation**: Drift using MetaDAO's governance system is the strongest external validation signal — a major protocol choosing futarchy over traditional token voting for real treasury decisions.
|
||||
- **Future leverage threat**: Drift listing META perps would directly compete with OmniPair for leverage demand. This is OmniPair's identified "key vulnerability" — the moat is temporary.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ MetaDAO's token launch platform. Implements "unruggable ICOs" — permissionless
|
|||
- **2026-03** — Ranger Finance liquidation proposal — first futarchy-governed enforcement action
|
||||
|
||||
- **2026-03-07** — Areal DAO launch: $50K target, raised $11,654 (23.3%), REFUNDING status by 2026-03-08 — first documented failed futarchy-governed fundraise on platform
|
||||
- **2024-07-05** — [[drift-fund-artemis-labs-dashboards]] failed: first documented Drift DAO futarchy proposal on platform
|
||||
## Competitive Position
|
||||
- **Unique mechanism**: Only launch platform with futarchy-governed accountability and treasury return guarantees
|
||||
- **vs pump.fun**: pump.fun is memecoin launch (zero accountability, pure speculation). Futardio is ownership coin launch (futarchy governance, treasury enforcement). Different categories despite both being "launch platforms."
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -6,9 +6,14 @@ url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/G95shxDXSSTcgi2DTJ2h79JCefVNQPm8dFeDzx7qZ2k
|
|||
date: 2024-07-01
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: data
|
||||
status: unprocessed
|
||||
status: processed
|
||||
tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
|
||||
event_type: proposal
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-11
|
||||
enrichments_applied: ["MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions.md", "futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
extraction_notes: "Failed futarchy proposal with comprehensive deliverables. No novel claims about futarchy mechanisms, but provides confirming evidence for existing claims about limited trading volume in uncontested decisions and adoption friction. Created new entities for Artemis Labs (company) and the proposal itself (decision_market). The proposal demonstrates the high bar for credible futarchy proposals (detailed metrics, institutional references, accountability structures) which may itself create participation barriers."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposal Details
|
||||
|
|
@ -196,3 +201,12 @@ We ultimately think that we are providing a unique service and we want to build
|
|||
- Autocrat version: 0.3
|
||||
- Completed: 2024-07-05
|
||||
- Ended: 2024-07-05
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- Artemis Labs serves 20k+ Twitter followers and 20k+ newsletter subscribers (self-reported, 2024-07-01)
|
||||
- Artemis Labs team includes engineers from Venmo, Messari, Coinbase, Facebook and finance talent from Holocene, Carlyle Group, BlackRock, Whale Rock
|
||||
- Artemis Labs became open source in early 2024
|
||||
- Proposal requested $50k USD in DRIFT tokens with max cap of 115k tokens over 12 months
|
||||
- DRIFT token 7-day trailing average was ~$0.43 at proposal time (implied from 115k token cap)
|
||||
- Proposal included 6-month performance review option with DAO termination rights
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue