From 8f8436549d84bcc82c0f99ef37415cce9a6f1c64 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Teleo Agents Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:57:59 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?source:=202026-03-27-telegram-m3taversal-hey-fu?= =?UTF-8?q?tairdbot-here-s-some-interesting-info-for-y.md=20=E2=86=92=20nu?= =?UTF-8?q?ll-result?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus --- ...dbot-here-s-some-interesting-info-for-y.md | 57 ------------------- 1 file changed, 57 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 inbox/queue/2026-03-27-telegram-m3taversal-hey-futairdbot-here-s-some-interesting-info-for-y.md diff --git a/inbox/queue/2026-03-27-telegram-m3taversal-hey-futairdbot-here-s-some-interesting-info-for-y.md b/inbox/queue/2026-03-27-telegram-m3taversal-hey-futairdbot-here-s-some-interesting-info-for-y.md deleted file mode 100644 index 403abb4fe..000000000 --- a/inbox/queue/2026-03-27-telegram-m3taversal-hey-futairdbot-here-s-some-interesting-info-for-y.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,57 +0,0 @@ ---- -type: source -source_type: telegram -title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — hey-futairdbot-here-s-some-interesting-info-for-y" -author: "@m3taversal" -url: "https://x.com/01resolved/status/2037550464188006477?s=46" -date: 2026-03-27 -domain: internet-finance -format: conversation -status: unprocessed -priority: high -intake_tier: directed -rationale: "Hey here’s some interesting info for you and" -proposed_by: "@m3taversal" -tags: [telegram, ownership-community] ---- - -## Conversation - -**@m3taversal:** -Hey @FutAIrdBot here’s some interesting info for you https://x.com/01resolved/status/2037550464188006477?s=46 and https://x.com/01resolved/status/2037550467316847015?s=46 - -**Rio (response):** -01Resolved is making two good points here that line up with what we've already been discussing. - -First piece confirms the Superclaw liquidation proposal details. SUPER trading below NAV, 11% monthly burn, limited traction. They frame it as "early stage governance risk," which is the right lens. A community-initiated liquidation proposal 23 days after ICO is a stress test for the whole futarchy launchpad model. If the mechanism handles it cleanly (market prices it correctly, execution follows through), it's actually a positive signal for the system even though it's a negative outcome for SUPER holders. - -Second piece is more interesting. 01Resolved is arguing that sensitive treasury proposals need project-specific guardrails and post-ICO timing windows. They point out that P2P.me's ICO already builds this in with community governance proposals only enabled 7-9 months after funding. That's a direct design response to exactly the Superclaw scenario. - -This is a real tension in futarchy design. The whole point is permissionless proposals, but a liquidation vote in the first month can kill a project before it has any chance to execute. The P2P.me approach of a cooling-off window is pragmatic but it's also a concession that pure permissionless governance has failure modes. You're essentially saying "the market is wise, except right after launch when it might be panicking." - -01Resolved apparently has a longer piece on permissionless proposal design for MetaDAO decision markets. That would be worth reading if you can find it. - -LEARNING: factual Superclaw ($SUPER) liquidation proposal appeared just 23 days after ICO. P2P.me ICO includes a 7-9 month post-funding window before community governance proposals are enabled, as a guardrail against early-stage treasury proposals. 01Resolved has written about permissionless proposal guardrails for MetaDAO decision markets. - -SOURCE: 01Resolved (@01resolved) analysis on Superclaw liquidation proposal and post-ICO governance guardrails. First tweet: "A new proposal to liquidate the @superclaworg treasury is now trading in a live decision market just 23 days after ICO. The authors state $SUPER is trading below NAV, traction has remained limited, and another month of operating spend is estimated to reduce NAV by roughly 11%. Under those conditions, the argument is that continued spending destroys recoverable value that could otherwise be returned to holders. If passed, the proposal would: Remove liquidity from the Futarchy AMM, Consolidate treasury assets..." Second tweet: "This is exactly the type of early stage governance risk we wrote about recently. Our view is that sensitive treasury proposals should be subject to project specific guardrails and post-ICO timing windows, rather than becoming immediately eligible. The @P2Pdotme ICO currently live on @MetaDAOProject appears to already reflect some of this thinking. In the ICO details, community governance proposals are only enabled 7-9 months after funding. Our 'Permissionless Proposals for MetaDAO Decision Markets' piece covers this in more detail." Attribution: shared by @m3taversal - -## Article Content (fetched) - -A new proposal to liquidate the @superclaworg treasury is now trading in a live decision market just 23 days after ICO. - -The authors state $SUPER is trading below NAV, traction has remained limited, and another month of operating spend is estimated to reduce NAV by roughly 11%. Under those conditions, the argument is that continued spending destroys recoverable value that could otherwise be returned to holders. - -If passed, the proposal would: - -▪️ Remove liquidity from the Futarchy AMM -▪️ Consolidate all treasury USDC -▪️ Open a prorata redemption for eligible holders -▪️ Return non-treasury assets (IP, infrastructure, etc.) to the appropriate entity and contributors - -The market is currently in the Pre-TWAP window, with traders and volume by economic direction favoring Fail at 58.82% and 61.76%, respectively. - -## Agent Notes -**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community. -**Rationale from contributor:** Hey here’s some interesting info for you and -**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning -**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.