auto-fix: strip 11 broken wiki links

Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.

domains/internet-finance/futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort that the Howey test requires.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Since [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token
 - Holding through the TWAP window is itself a revealed preference (implicit approval at current terms)
 - The mechanism is continuous, not discrete (three-day decision periods, not one-time votes)
 
-Since [[MetaDAO empirical results show smaller participants gaining influence through futarchy]], the mechanism provides genuine active participation, not just theoretical access.
+Since MetaDAO empirical results show smaller participants gaining influence through futarchy, the mechanism provides genuine active participation, not just theoretical access.
 
 ## 2. Company does not control treasury
 
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ In a traditional raise, the team controls the capital. In a metaDAO ICO:
 - If the market disagrees, the proposal fails and capital stays in the pool
 - The team is effectively an employee of the market, not a promoter controlling outcomes
 
-Since [[STAMP replaces SAFE plus token warrant by adding futarchy-governed treasury spending allowances that prevent the extraction problem that killed legacy ICOs]], the treasury spending mechanism is structurally designed so teams cannot self-deal. Monthly spending caps, bid programs, and futarchy approval for any capital deployment.
+Since STAMP replaces SAFE plus token warrant by adding futarchy-governed treasury spending allowances that prevent the extraction problem that killed legacy ICOs, the treasury spending mechanism is structurally designed so teams cannot self-deal. Monthly spending caps, bid programs, and futarchy approval for any capital deployment.
 
 ## 3. No beneficial owners in the traditional sense
 
@@ -42,11 +42,11 @@ Since [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there a
 
 ## Strength varies by project
 
-**Strongest — Solomon Labs:** Since [[Solomon Labs takes the Marshall Islands DAO LLC path with the strongest futarchy binding language making governance outcomes legally binding and determinative]], Solomon's operating agreement makes futarchy outcomes legally determinative. The company CANNOT override market decisions. The "efforts of others" prong fails cleanly.
+**Strongest — Solomon Labs:** Since Solomon Labs takes the Marshall Islands DAO LLC path with the strongest futarchy binding language making governance outcomes legally binding and determinative, Solomon's operating agreement makes futarchy outcomes legally determinative. The company CANNOT override market decisions. The "efforts of others" prong fails cleanly.
 
-**Strong — Ranger, Omnipair:** Since [[Ranger Finance demonstrates the standard Cayman SPC path through MetaDAO with dual-entity separation of token governance from operations across jurisdictions]], operational execution matters, but strategic decisions are market-governed. The team executes; the market directs.
+**Strong — Ranger, Omnipair:** Since Ranger Finance demonstrates the standard Cayman SPC path through MetaDAO with dual-entity separation of token governance from operations across jurisdictions, operational execution matters, but strategic decisions are market-governed. The team executes; the market directs.
 
-**Weakest — Avici:** Since [[Avici is a self-custodial crypto neobank with a secured credit card serving 48 countries that achieved the highest ATH ROI in the metaDAO ecosystem at 21x with zero team allocation at launch]], the team's operational execution (building the card product, acquiring users) IS what drives value. The treasury is market-governed, but the business depends on concentrated team effort. The SEC could argue this is a security where the team's efforts drive profits, regardless of how treasury decisions are made.
+**Weakest — Avici:** Since Avici is a self-custodial crypto neobank with a secured credit card serving 48 countries that achieved the highest ATH ROI in the metaDAO ecosystem at 21x with zero team allocation at launch, the team's operational execution (building the card product, acquiring users) IS what drives value. The treasury is market-governed, but the business depends on concentrated team effort. The SEC could argue this is a security where the team's efforts drive profits, regardless of how treasury decisions are made.
 
 ## The "new structure" argument
 
@@ -66,25 +66,25 @@ Since [[Ooki DAO proved that DAOs without legal wrappers face general partnershi
 
 
 ### Additional Evidence (challenge)
-*Source: [[2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state]] | Added: 2026-03-16*
+*Source: 2026-02-00-prediction-market-jurisdiction-multi-state | Added: 2026-03-16*
 
 The securities law question may be superseded by state gaming law enforcement. Even if futarchy-governed entities pass the Howey test, they may still face state gaming commission enforcement if courts uphold state authority over prediction markets. The Tennessee ruling's broad interpretation—that any 'occurrence of events' qualifies under CEA—would encompass futarchy governance proposals, but Nevada and Massachusetts courts rejected this interpretation. The regulatory viability of futarchy may depend on Supreme Court resolution of the circuit split, not just securities law analysis.
 
 
 ### Additional Evidence (challenge)
-*Source: [[2026-03-17-arizona-ag-criminal-charges-kalshi]] | Added: 2026-03-18*
+*Source: 2026-03-17-arizona-ag-criminal-charges-kalshi | Added: 2026-03-18*
 
 Arizona's criminal charges against Kalshi demonstrate that being 'not a security' does not protect prediction market operators from criminal gambling prosecution. The structural separation that defeats Howey test classification is irrelevant to state gaming laws and election betting prohibitions. Criminal charges create personal liability for executives that persists regardless of securities law analysis.
 
 
 ### Additional Evidence (challenge)
-*Source: [[2026-03-12-cftc-advisory-anprm-prediction-markets]] | Added: 2026-03-18*
+*Source: 2026-03-12-cftc-advisory-anprm-prediction-markets | Added: 2026-03-18*
 
 The CFTC's March 2026 ANPRM creates a parallel regulatory vector through the Commodity Exchange Act that could affect futarchy governance markets independently of securities law. If 'gaming' under CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C) is defined broadly, futarchy markets could face prohibition or restriction not because they're securities, but because they're classified as gaming contracts. This means proving futarchy entities aren't securities under Howey may be necessary but not sufficient for regulatory defensibility—they must also avoid the 'gaming' classification under the CEA.
 
 
 ### Additional Evidence (confirm)
-*Source: [[2026-03-17-sec-cftc-token-taxonomy-interpretation]] | Added: 2026-03-18*
+*Source: 2026-03-17-sec-cftc-token-taxonomy-interpretation | Added: 2026-03-18*
 
 The SEC's March 2026 Token Taxonomy interpretation strongly supports this claim's core logic through the investment contract termination doctrine. The framework formally recognizes that investment contract status terminates when the issuer's essential managerial efforts are fulfilled or abandoned — and the Transition Point mechanism creates a defined pathway for tokens to transition from SEC to CFTC jurisdiction once sufficiently decentralized. However, there is a nuance: the SEC's model focuses on when issuers CEASE managerial efforts (fulfillment/abandonment), while this claim argues futarchy STRUCTURALLY PREVENTS concentrated effort from existing. These are compatible but not identical — the SEC pathway may be more pragmatic for futarchy projects seeking regulatory clarity. The staking-as-service-payment precedent also strengthens the mechanical participation argument: if staking is service payment (not profit from others' efforts), prediction market trading is equally mechanical.
 
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ Relevant Notes:
 - [[Ooki DAO proved that DAOs without legal wrappers face general partnership liability making entity structure a prerequisite for any futarchy-governed vehicle]] — why entity wrapping matters
 - [[AI autonomously managing investment capital is regulatory terra incognita because the SEC framework assumes human-controlled registered entities deploy AI as tools]] — the separate AI adviser question
 - [[decision markets make majority theft unprofitable through conditional token arbitrage]] — the minority protection mechanism that strengthens the governance argument
-- [[legacy ICOs failed because team treasury control created extraction incentives that scaled with success]] — the failure mode that futarchy governance prevents
+- legacy ICOs failed because team treasury control created extraction incentives that scaled with success — the failure mode that futarchy governance prevents
 
 Topics:
 - [[living capital]]

domains/internet-finance/polymarket-achieved-us-regulatory-legitimacy-through-qcx-acquisition-establishing-prediction-markets-as-cftc-regulated-derivatives.md

@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Polymarket's CFTC regulatory status is now under direct challenge in 50+ state e
 
 
 ### Additional Evidence (extend)
-*Source: [[2026-03-00-ebg-kalshi-litigation-preemption-analysis]] | Added: 2026-03-18*
+*Source: 2026-03-00-ebg-kalshi-litigation-preemption-analysis | Added: 2026-03-18*
 
 The Kalshi litigation reveals that CFTC regulation alone does not resolve state gambling law conflicts. Despite operating as CFTC-regulated DCMs, Kalshi faces state enforcement actions in Maryland, Tennessee, California, and New York. Maryland courts found that federal DCM status does not preempt state gambling authority because the CEA lacks express preemption language. This means Polymarket's QCX acquisition, while establishing CFTC legitimacy, may not shield it from state-level gambling enforcement.