add entities/internet-finance/metadao-otc-trade-colosseum.md
This commit is contained in:
parent
3e2f0d77b6
commit
dade9f7d94
1 changed files with 58 additions and 0 deletions
58
entities/internet-finance/metadao-otc-trade-colosseum.md
Normal file
58
entities/internet-finance/metadao-otc-trade-colosseum.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
type: entity
|
||||||
|
entity_type: decision_market
|
||||||
|
name: "MetaDAO: Engage in $250,000 OTC Trade with Colosseum"
|
||||||
|
domain: internet-finance
|
||||||
|
status: passed
|
||||||
|
parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
|
||||||
|
platform: futardio
|
||||||
|
proposer: pR13Aev6U2DQ3sQTWSZrFzevNqYnvq5TM9c1qTKLfm8
|
||||||
|
proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/5qEyKCVyJZMFZSb3yxh6rQjqDYxASiLW7vFuuUTCYnb1"
|
||||||
|
proposal_date: 2024-03-19
|
||||||
|
resolution_date: 2024-03-24
|
||||||
|
category: fundraise
|
||||||
|
summary: "Colosseum acquired up to $250,000 USDC worth of META tokens with dynamic pricing based on TWAP and 12-month vesting structure"
|
||||||
|
tracked_by: rio
|
||||||
|
created: 2026-03-11
|
||||||
|
key_metrics:
|
||||||
|
offer_amount: "$250,000 USDC"
|
||||||
|
price_mechanism: "TWAP-based with $850 cap, void above $1,200"
|
||||||
|
immediate_unlock: "20%"
|
||||||
|
vesting_period: "12 months linear"
|
||||||
|
meta_spot_price: "$468.09 (2024-03-18)"
|
||||||
|
meta_circulating_supply: "17,421 tokens"
|
||||||
|
transfer_amount: "2,060 META (overallocated for price flexibility)"
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
# MetaDAO: Engage in $250,000 OTC Trade with Colosseum
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Summary
|
||||||
|
Colosseum proposed acquiring META tokens from MetaDAO's treasury for $250,000 USDC with a dynamic pricing mechanism tied to the pass market TWAP. The structure included 20% immediate unlock and 80% linear vesting over 12 months through Streamflow. The proposal included a sponsored DAO track ($50,000-$80,000 prize pool) in Colosseum's next hackathon as strategic partnership commitment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Market Data
|
||||||
|
- **Outcome:** Passed
|
||||||
|
- **Proposer:** pR13Aev6U2DQ3sQTWSZrFzevNqYnvq5TM9c1qTKLfm8
|
||||||
|
- **Resolution:** 2024-03-24
|
||||||
|
- **Proposal Number:** 13
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Pricing Mechanism
|
||||||
|
The acquisition price per META was determined by conditional logic:
|
||||||
|
- If pass market TWAP < $850: price = TWAP
|
||||||
|
- If pass market TWAP between $850-$1,200: price = $850 (capped)
|
||||||
|
- If pass market TWAP > $1,200: proposal void, USDC returned
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This created a price discovery mechanism with downside flexibility and upside protection for the treasury.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Execution Structure
|
||||||
|
The proposal transferred 2,060 META to a 5/7 multisig (FhJHnsCGm9JDAe2JuEvqr67WE8mD2PiJMUsmCTD1fDPZ) with members from both Colosseum and MetaDAO. The overallocation (beyond the $250k/$850 = 294 META minimum) provided flexibility for price fluctuations, with excess META returned to treasury.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Strategic Rationale
|
||||||
|
Colosseum positioned the investment as ecosystem development rather than pure capital deployment, emphasizing their ability to funnel hackathon participants and accelerator companies to MetaDAO. The sponsored DAO track commitment ($50k-$80k value) represented immediate reciprocal value beyond the token purchase.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Significance
|
||||||
|
This represents one of the earliest institutional OTC acquisitions through futarchy governance, demonstrating that prediction markets can price complex multi-party agreements with conditional terms. The vesting structure and multisig execution show how futarchy-governed DAOs handle treasury operations requiring operational security beyond pure market mechanisms.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Relationship to KB
|
||||||
|
- [[metadao]] — treasury management decision
|
||||||
|
- [[colosseum]] — strategic investor
|
||||||
|
- [[futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance]] — confirms pattern
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue