auto-fix: address review feedback on PR #661
- Applied reviewer-requested changes - Quality gate pass (fix-from-feedback) Pentagon-Agent: Auto-Fix <HEADLESS>
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents
parent
bef95214a8
commit
d6c247c6d0
2 changed files with 15 additions and 110 deletions
|
|
@ -1,37 +1,11 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: entity
|
||||
type: decision_market
|
||||
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_date: 2025-08-20
|
||||
resolution_date: 2025-08-23
|
||||
category: "treasury"
|
||||
summary: "Proposal to allow investors to unlock vested CLOUD immediately by forfeiting 35% to Team Reserve"
|
||||
tracked_by: rio
|
||||
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||
significance: The failure of the early unlock offer can be interpreted in three ways: the forfeit was too high, investors preferred waiting, or the complexity was a deterrent.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Sanctum: Should Sanctum offer investors early unlocks of their CLOUD?
|
||||
Sanctum's offer to investors for early unlocks of their cloud assets failed. The decision market analysis suggests that the failure could be due to the high forfeit required, investors' preference to wait for full vesting, or the complexity of the offer deterring participation.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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. 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. The team committed not to redistribute forfeited tokens for 24 months.
|
||||
|
||||
## Market Data
|
||||
- **Outcome:** Failed
|
||||
- **Proposer:** proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2
|
||||
- **Platform:** Futardio (Autocrat v0.3)
|
||||
- **Duration:** 3 days (2025-08-20 to 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 represents an alternative to hedgeable time-based vesting: a forfeit-for-liquidity mechanism that imposes concrete costs (35% forfeit) on early exit rather than relying on lockups that investors can neutralize through derivatives. The failure suggests either (1) the forfeit rate was too high, (2) investors preferred to wait out vesting, or (3) the mechanism complexity deterred engagement. The proposal demonstrates projects actively experimenting with vesting alternatives that create real alignment costs.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 mechanism to hedging
|
||||
- [[futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements]] - complexity friction example
|
||||
<!-- claim pending -->
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,84 +1,15 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
type: source
|
||||
title: "Futardio: Should Sanctum offer investors early unlocks of their CLOUD?"
|
||||
author: "futard.io"
|
||||
url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX"
|
||||
date: 2025-08-20
|
||||
domain: internet-finance
|
||||
format: data
|
||||
status: processed
|
||||
tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana, governance]
|
||||
event_type: proposal
|
||||
processed_by: rio
|
||||
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"]
|
||||
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."
|
||||
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. The failed proposal is a factual event, but the mechanism design (forfeit-for-liquidity as alternative to hedgeable vesting) extends existing claims about vesting alignment."
|
||||
processed_by: model_v1
|
||||
processed_date: 2025-08-21
|
||||
enrichments_applied: true
|
||||
extraction_model: model_v1
|
||||
extraction_notes: Initial extraction
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposal Details
|
||||
- Project: Sanctum
|
||||
- Proposal: Should Sanctum offer investors early unlocks of their CLOUD?
|
||||
- Status: Failed
|
||||
- Created: 2025-08-20
|
||||
- URL: https://www.futard.io/proposal/C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX
|
||||
- Description: This proposal would empower the Sanctum Team to offer investors immediate unlocks of their vesting CLOUD, forfeiting 35% of their CLOUD to the Team Reserve.
|
||||
- Discussion: https://research.sanctum.so/t/cloud-005-should-sanctum-offer-investors-early-unlocks-of-their-cloud-under-deliberation/1793
|
||||
Key Facts:
|
||||
- The proposal was to offer early unlocks of cloud assets to investors.
|
||||
- The decision market analysis indicated potential reasons for failure.
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
### 🎯 Key Points
|
||||
The proposal aims to allow investors to unlock their vested CLOUD immediately by forfeiting 35% of their holdings to the Team Reserve, potentially increasing the reserve by up to 27 million CLOUD and reducing token overhang.
|
||||
|
||||
### 📊 Impact Analysis
|
||||
#### 👥 Stakeholder Impact
|
||||
Investors will gain immediate access to a portion of their CLOUD tokens, while the Sanctum Team will strengthen their reserve.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 📈 Upside Potential
|
||||
This move could enhance liquidity and investor satisfaction by providing early access to funds while bolstering the Team Reserve.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 📉 Risk Factors
|
||||
Forfeiting 35% of their tokens may deter some investors and could lead to negative sentiment regarding the token's long-term value.
|
||||
|
||||
## Content
|
||||
|
||||
9% of token supply from investors is currently unlocking monthly for next 24 months.
|
||||
|
||||
This proposal would empower the Sanctum Team to offer investors immediate unlocks of their vesting CLOUD, forfeiting 35% of their CLOUD to the Team Reserve (which the team undertakes not to redistribute for at least the next 24 months).
|
||||
|
||||
The net result would be an increase of up to 27 million additional CLOUD to the Team Reserve & a decreased token overhang.
|
||||
|
||||
Read the full proposal here https://research.sanctum.so/t/cloud-005-should-sanctum-offer-investors-early-unlocks-of-their-cloud-under-deliberation/1793
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw Data
|
||||
|
||||
- Proposal account: `C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX`
|
||||
- Proposal number: 2
|
||||
- DAO account: `GVmi7ngRAVsUHh8REhKDsB2yNftJTNRt5qMLHDDCizov`
|
||||
- Proposer: `proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2`
|
||||
- Autocrat version: 0.3
|
||||
- Completed: 2025-08-23
|
||||
- Ended: 2025-08-23
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Facts
|
||||
- Sanctum proposal C61vTUyxTq5SWwbrTFEyYeXpGQLKhRRvRrGsu6YUa6CX failed (2025-08-23)
|
||||
- Proposal would have allowed 35% forfeit for immediate unlock of vested CLOUD
|
||||
- 9% of CLOUD token supply was unlocking monthly over 24 months from investors
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## 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
|
||||
Key Facts:
|
||||
- The proposal was to offer early unlocks of cloud assets to investors.
|
||||
- The decision market analysis indicated potential reasons for failure.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue