pipeline: clean 4 stale queue duplicates
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
4ccdbeab72
commit
cfaf93a942
4 changed files with 0 additions and 193 deletions
|
|
@ -1,42 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
source_type: x-tweet
|
||||
title: "@jabranthelawyer — shared via Telegram by @m3taversal"
|
||||
author: "@jabranthelawyer"
|
||||
url: "https://x.com/jabranthelawyer/status/2038413063381246199?s=20"
|
||||
date: 2026-03-30
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: social-media
|
||||
status: processed
|
||||
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
|
||||
contribution_type: source-submission
|
||||
tags: ['telegram-shared', 'x-tweet', 'governance']
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-30
|
||||
claims_extracted: ["fundraising-platform-active-involvement-creates-due-diligence-liability-through-conduct-based-regulatory-interpretation.md"]
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# @jabranthelawyer — Tweet/Thread
|
||||
|
||||
Shared by @m3taversal via Telegram.
|
||||
Source URL: https://x.com/jabranthelawyer/status/2038413063381246199?s=20
|
||||
|
||||
## Content
|
||||
|
||||
Few thoughts if I was MetaDAO's lawyer:
|
||||
|
||||
1. P2P did something objectively wrong. Whether illegal TBC but possible
|
||||
|
||||
2. Regulators look at conduct and by exercising control, it creates bad precedent in two ways here:
|
||||
|
||||
A) They've moved from simply a "fundraising platform" to one actively involved in raise
|
||||
|
||||
B) By stating that founders past experience + is basis to continue raise, they've created a due diligence obligation on themselves
|
||||
|
||||
- Best to check the indemnities founders provide to ensure they're covered because all of this has just increased MetaDAO's risk profile unnecessarily imo
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- A lawyer reviewing MetaDAO's handling of the P2P situation stated 'P2P did something objectively wrong. Whether illegal TBC but possible'
|
||||
- The lawyer recommended MetaDAO check indemnities from founders to ensure coverage for increased risk exposure
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,79 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
source_type: x-tweet
|
||||
title: "@metaproph3t — shared via Telegram by @m3taversal"
|
||||
author: "@metaproph3t"
|
||||
url: "https://x.com/metaproph3t/status/2038369060598223268"
|
||||
date: 2026-03-30
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: social-media
|
||||
status: enrichment
|
||||
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
|
||||
contribution_type: source-submission
|
||||
tags: ['telegram-shared', 'x-tweet', 'ownership-coins', 'defi', 'governance', 'market-analysis', 'crypto-infra']
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-30
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# @metaproph3t — Tweet/Thread
|
||||
|
||||
Shared by @m3taversal via Telegram.
|
||||
Source URL: https://x.com/metaproph3t/status/2038369060598223268
|
||||
|
||||
## Content
|
||||
|
||||
Two weeks ago, the founder of P2P placed a bet on Polymarket that P2P would reach $6M of commits in its ICO.
|
||||
Over the last 48 hours, many people have tweeted about this. Here are some of these tweets:
|
||||
I wanted to take the time to talk about how we’re thinking about this and what we’re doing.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1: Had we known about this, we would have pushed that they not participate in these markets
|
||||
|
||||
Ever since they started, these prediction markets have been a source of consternation for us. We’ve asked Polymarket to remove them, to no avail.
|
||||
And to state the obvious: I don’t support founders, team members, investors, or anyone else with privileged information trading in these markets.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2: At the same time, it's unclear that this is grounds for cancelling the raise
|
||||
|
||||
At the same time, MetaDAO is a fundraising platform, not the world police.
|
||||
At first, when I saw this come out what concerned me was that the bets were made with company, rather than personal, funds. But given that Sheldon really did name the Polymarket profile “P2P Team,” and given the other interactions I’ve had with him, it really does seem like this was a guerilla marketing stunt gone too far.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3: The people putting in size here are sophisticated and so far none of them have told us that they no longer want to participate
|
||||
|
||||
80%+ of the money in the raise to-date has come from funds. Funds that all ran their own due diligence process on P2P and the MetaDAO structure.
|
||||
So far, not a single one of them has asked us that we cancel the raise or requested their money back.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4: The business appears to be real and the founder exited a previous business
|
||||
|
||||
According to Dune, P2P is doing $4m in monthly volume, growing 27% MoM over the last 16 months, and generating $550,000 in yearly run rate revenue.
|
||||
Further, there’s reason to believe that Sheldon may know how to build businesses: he’s built one. He got a food delivery business to $2M in run rate before exiting it to a large Indian food delivery app.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5: The huge benefit of this structure is it allows us to explore environments like this
|
||||
|
||||
There are plenty of businesses that have done things that were seen as unpopular and/or shady but then won. To name a few: Pump Fun, Binance, Tron, and Tether.
|
||||
Part of the benefit of our structure is that it allows us to explore environments like this. If everyone who owns $P2P loses trust in the team 3 months in, they could decide to liquidate the treasury. They’d get back whatever they put into the raise minus their proportional share of what’s been spent, which equates to an 8.9% drawdown from ICO assuming they spend their full spending limit.
|
||||
|
||||
## 6: Given all of that, we don’t see reason to cancel the raise
|
||||
|
||||
Investors still want to participate in P2P. The P2P team still wants to raise money to accelerate the business’ growth. And we still want to underwrite the deal given our knowledge of the team, business, and the protections embedded in our structure. Given these facts, I don’t see much value in intervening other than to appeal to the mob.
|
||||
|
||||
## 7: We’ve decided to allow refunds for those who want out
|
||||
|
||||
We ourselves remain bullish on this deal, but we want MetaDAO to signal investor protection, and we want the P2P team to start their journey with a cohort of believers and not trapped future sellers.
|
||||
Based on this, we've decided to do two things: allow investors to request refunds before the sale is over, and extend the sale for 2 more days. The latter will give more time for investors to digest this information.
|
||||
The request refund page is live: https://www.metadao.fi/projects/p2p-protocol/fundraise/refund.
|
||||
Going forward, we plan to cancel any raise where we see the founder or team trading the raise’s prediction markets.
|
||||
|
||||
## 8: The only way out is through
|
||||
|
||||
Once it became clear that Sheldon was contrite, my first message to him was "welcome to the arena."
|
||||
I am confident that this was a one-time mistake - he's learned from this mishap and is rethinking P2P's strategy for communications going forward. And even if I'm wrong, there's always our tokenholder protections.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- P2P Protocol doing $4M monthly volume as of March 2026
|
||||
- P2P Protocol growing 27% MoM over 16 months
|
||||
- P2P Protocol generating $550K yearly run rate revenue
|
||||
- 80%+ of P2P Protocol ICO capital came from institutional funds
|
||||
- P2P Protocol founder previously exited food delivery business at $2M run rate
|
||||
- MetaDAO ownership coin structure allows 8.9% drawdown from ICO if liquidated after spending full limit
|
||||
- No institutional investors requested refunds or cancellation after P2P controversy emerged
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
source_type: telegram-contribution
|
||||
title: "Source from @m3taversal — Proph3t's full post on P2P founder Polymarket conflict of interest and MetaDAO's"
|
||||
author: "@m3taversal"
|
||||
date: 2026-03-30
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: contribution
|
||||
status: enrichment
|
||||
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
|
||||
contribution_type: source-submission
|
||||
tags: ['telegram-contribution', 'inline-source', 'ownership-coins', 'governance']
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-30
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Source: Proph3t's full post on P2P founder Polymarket conflict of interest and MetaDAO's response. From @met
|
||||
|
||||
Contributed by @m3taversal in Telegram chat.
|
||||
Flagged by Rio as relevant source material.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verbatim User Message
|
||||
|
||||
we should always be up front about that. Here is is: https://x.com/metaproph3t/status/2038369060598223268
|
||||
|
||||
## Rio's Context
|
||||
|
||||
Proph3t's full post on P2P founder Polymarket conflict of interest and MetaDAO's response. From @metaproph3t on X (2025-07-13): "To address the obvious... Two weeks ago, the founder of P2P placed a bet on Polymarket that P2P would reach $6M of commits in its ICO. Over the last 48 hours, many people have tweeted about this. Here are some of these tweets: I wanted to take the time to talk about how we're thinking about this and what we're doing. 1: Had we known about this, we would have pushed that they not participate in these markets. Ever since they started, these prediction markets have been a source of consternation for us. We've asked Poly..." URL: https://x.com/metaproph3t/status/2038369060598223268
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- P2P founder placed a bet on Polymarket approximately two weeks before 2025-07-13 that P2P would reach $6M of commits in its ICO
|
||||
- The bet became public knowledge over a 48-hour period before Proph3t's statement
|
||||
- MetaDAO leadership was not aware of the bet before it was placed
|
||||
- MetaDAO has had ongoing concerns about prediction markets on their own ICO outcomes
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
source_type: telegram-contribution
|
||||
title: "Source from @m3taversal — Proph3t statement on P2P Polymarket betting controversy — MetaDAO co-founder add"
|
||||
author: "@m3taversal"
|
||||
date: 2026-03-30
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: contribution
|
||||
status: null-result
|
||||
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
|
||||
contribution_type: source-submission
|
||||
tags: ['telegram-contribution', 'inline-source', 'ownership-coins', 'governance']
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
processed_date: 2026-03-30
|
||||
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||
extraction_notes: "LLM returned 0 claims, 0 rejected by validator"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Source: Proph3t statement on P2P Polymarket betting controversy — MetaDAO co-founder addresses P2P founder b
|
||||
|
||||
Contributed by @m3taversal in Telegram chat.
|
||||
Flagged by Rio as relevant source material.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verbatim User Message
|
||||
|
||||
@FutAIrdBot what do you think of these posts? https://x.com/jabranthelawyer/status/2038413063381246199?s=20 and the underlying one from metaDAO? https://x.com/metaproph3t/status/2038369060598223268 Imo this approach makes sense from metaDAO but I want you think deeply and analyze
|
||||
|
||||
## Rio's Context
|
||||
|
||||
Proph3t statement on P2P Polymarket betting controversy — MetaDAO co-founder addresses P2P founder betting on own ICO outcome on Polymarket, states they would have pushed against it if known earlier, describes intervention approach. https://x.com/metaproph3t/status/2038369060598223268 — attributed to @m3taversal
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- P2P founder bet on their own ICO outcome on Polymarket in March 2026
|
||||
- MetaDAO co-founder Proph3t stated they would have pushed against this if known earlier
|
||||
- The incident required public statement and intervention from MetaDAO leadership
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue