rio: extract from 2025-08-20-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-offer-investors-early-unlocks-of-their-cloud.md
- Source: inbox/archive/2025-08-20-futardio-proposal-should-sanctum-offer-investors-early-unlocks-of-their-cloud.md - Domain: internet-finance - Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 4) Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>
This commit is contained in:
parent
ba4ac4a73e
commit
d5f35536eb
2 changed files with 57 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
type: entity
|
||||||
|
entity_type: decision_market
|
||||||
|
name: "Sanctum: Should Sanctum offer investors early unlocks of their CLOUD?"
|
||||||
|
domain: internet-finance
|
||||||
|
status: failed
|
||||||
|
parent_entity: "[[sanctum]]"
|
||||||
|
platform: "futardio"
|
||||||
|
proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
|
||||||
|
proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX"
|
||||||
|
proposal_account: "C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX"
|
||||||
|
proposal_date: 2025-08-20
|
||||||
|
resolution_date: 2025-08-23
|
||||||
|
category: "treasury"
|
||||||
|
summary: "Proposal to allow investors immediate unlock of vested CLOUD by forfeiting 35% to Team Reserve"
|
||||||
|
autocrat_version: "0.3"
|
||||||
|
tracked_by: rio
|
||||||
|
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# Sanctum: Should Sanctum offer investors early unlocks of their CLOUD?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Summary
|
||||||
|
This proposal would have empowered the Sanctum Team to offer investors immediate unlocks of their vesting CLOUD tokens in exchange for forfeiting 35% of their holdings to the Team Reserve (which would remain locked for 24 months). With 9% of token supply unlocking monthly over 24 months from investors, the mechanism could have increased the Team Reserve by up to 27 million CLOUD while reducing token overhang.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Market Data
|
||||||
|
- **Outcome:** Failed
|
||||||
|
- **Proposer:** proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2
|
||||||
|
- **Platform:** Futardio (Autocrat v0.3)
|
||||||
|
- **Created:** 2025-08-20
|
||||||
|
- **Resolved:** 2025-08-23
|
||||||
|
- **Discussion:** https://research.sanctum.so/t/cloud-005-should-sanctum-offer-investors-early-unlocks-of-their-cloud-under-deliberation/1793
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Significance
|
||||||
|
This proposal demonstrates an alternative to standard time-based vesting: forfeit-for-liquidity mechanisms that create economic cost rather than relying on hedgeable time locks. The 35% forfeit structure attempts to align investors through economic sacrifice rather than temporal restriction. The failure suggests either the economic terms were unattractive to investors or the mechanism complexity deterred participation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The proposal is notable for attempting to address token overhang and investor liquidity simultaneously while strengthening team reserves, but the market rejected this specific implementation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Relationship to KB
|
||||||
|
- [[sanctum]] - governance decision
|
||||||
|
- [[time-based-token-vesting-is-hedgeable-making-standard-lockups-meaningless-as-alignment-mechanisms-because-investors-can-short-sell-to-neutralize-lockup-exposure-while-appearing-locked]] - alternative vesting mechanism
|
||||||
|
- [[futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements]] - complexity friction example
|
||||||
|
|
@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6C
|
||||||
date: 2025-08-20
|
date: 2025-08-20
|
||||||
domain: internet-finance
|
domain: internet-finance
|
||||||
format: data
|
format: data
|
||||||
status: unprocessed
|
status: processed
|
||||||
tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
|
tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
|
||||||
event_type: proposal
|
event_type: proposal
|
||||||
processed_by: rio
|
processed_by: rio
|
||||||
|
|
@ -14,6 +14,11 @@ processed_date: 2025-08-20
|
||||||
enrichments_applied: ["time-based-token-vesting-is-hedgeable-making-standard-lockups-meaningless-as-alignment-mechanisms-because-investors-can-short-sell-to-neutralize-lockup-exposure-while-appearing-locked.md", "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"]
|
enrichments_applied: ["time-based-token-vesting-is-hedgeable-making-standard-lockups-meaningless-as-alignment-mechanisms-because-investors-can-short-sell-to-neutralize-lockup-exposure-while-appearing-locked.md", "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_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
||||||
extraction_notes: "No new claims extracted. Source provides concrete example of vesting modification mechanism (forfeit-for-liquidity vs hedging) and additional futarchy implementation data point. All insights enrich existing claims about token vesting, futarchy adoption friction, and MetaDAO usage patterns. The failed proposal itself is a factual event, not an arguable claim."
|
extraction_notes: "No new claims extracted. Source provides concrete example of vesting modification mechanism (forfeit-for-liquidity vs hedging) and additional futarchy implementation data point. All insights enrich existing claims about token vesting, futarchy adoption friction, and MetaDAO usage patterns. The failed proposal itself is a factual event, not an arguable claim."
|
||||||
|
processed_by: rio
|
||||||
|
processed_date: 2026-03-11
|
||||||
|
enrichments_applied: ["time-based-token-vesting-is-hedgeable-making-standard-lockups-meaningless-as-alignment-mechanisms-because-investors-can-short-sell-to-neutralize-lockup-exposure-while-appearing-locked.md", "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: "No new claims extracted. Source provides concrete example of vesting modification mechanism (forfeit-for-liquidity vs hedging) and additional futarchy implementation data point. All insights enrich existing claims about token vesting, futarchy adoption friction, and MetaDAO usage patterns. Created decision_market entity for the proposal itself as it represents a significant governance mechanism experiment, even though it failed."
|
||||||
---
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Proposal Details
|
## Proposal Details
|
||||||
|
|
@ -68,3 +73,12 @@ Read the full proposal here https://research.sanctum.so/t/cloud-005-should-sanct
|
||||||
- Potential increase of up to 27 million CLOUD to Team Reserve if all investors opted in
|
- Potential increase of up to 27 million CLOUD to Team Reserve if all investors opted in
|
||||||
- Team committed not to redistribute forfeited tokens for 24 months
|
- Team committed not to redistribute forfeited tokens for 24 months
|
||||||
- Proposal used MetaDAO Autocrat v0.3
|
- Proposal used MetaDAO Autocrat v0.3
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Key Facts
|
||||||
|
- Sanctum proposal C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX failed (2025-08-23)
|
||||||
|
- 9% of CLOUD token supply was unlocking monthly over 24 months from investors
|
||||||
|
- Proposal would have allowed 35% forfeit for immediate unlock
|
||||||
|
- Potential increase of up to 27 million CLOUD to Team Reserve if all investors opted in
|
||||||
|
- Team committed not to redistribute forfeited tokens for 24 months
|
||||||
|
- Proposal used MetaDAO Autocrat v0.3
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue