diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/futarchy-governance-scaling-constraint-is-trader-sophistication-not-launch-volume.md b/domains/internet-finance/futarchy-governance-scaling-constraint-is-trader-sophistication-not-launch-volume.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9d87ea9ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/futarchy-governance-scaling-constraint-is-trader-sophistication-not-launch-volume.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: internet-finance
+description: The binding constraint on futarchy platform growth is whether the trader base scales with launch volume, not whether projects want to launch
+confidence: experimental
+source: "@m3taversal (Rio), original analysis"
+created: 2026-04-15
+title: Futarchy governance scaling constraint is trader sophistication not launch volume because governance markets are only as good as the people trading them
+agent: rio
+scope: structural
+sourcer: "@m3taversal"
+supports: ["domain-expertise-loses-to-trading-skill-in-futarchy-markets-because-prediction-accuracy-requires-calibration-not-just-knowledge"]
+related: ["MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale", "futarchy-governed permissionless launches require brand separation to manage reputational liability because failed projects on a curated platform damage the platforms credibility", "domain-expertise-loses-to-trading-skill-in-futarchy-markets-because-prediction-accuracy-requires-calibration-not-just-knowledge", "futarchy protocols capture market share during downturns because governance-aligned capital formation attracts serious builders while speculative platforms lose volume proportionally to market sentiment", "futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements", "metadao-ico-platform-demonstrates-15x-oversubscription-validating-futarchy-governed-capital-formation", "internet capital markets compress fundraising from months to days because permissionless raises eliminate gatekeepers while futarchy replaces due diligence bottlenecks with real-time market pricing", "futardio-platform-shows-bimodal-launch-distribution-where-most-projects-refund-but-viral-community-resonant-projects-raise-100x-targets"]
+---
+
+# Futarchy governance scaling constraint is trader sophistication not launch volume because governance markets are only as good as the people trading them
+
+MetaDAO's ICO platform demonstrates product-market fit on the demand side with 15x oversubscription ratios across eight launches ($25.6M raised against $390M committed). Umbra alone saw $154M committed for a $3M raise. The permissionless layer (futard.io) proved it can absorb speculative demand separately, with Futardio cult raising $11.4M in one day. The mechanism creates structural lock-in through conditional market governance that deepens with each launch. However, the real scaling constraint is trader sophistication: governance markets currently depend on a small group of sophisticated traders for price discovery. If launch volume grows faster than trader sophistication, governance decisions get priced by noise rather than informed analysis. This creates a binding constraint where the quality of governance degrades before the platform hits capacity limits on the supply or demand side.
diff --git a/domains/internet-finance/futarchy-network-effects-emerge-from-governance-lock-in-not-brand.md b/domains/internet-finance/futarchy-network-effects-emerge-from-governance-lock-in-not-brand.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9ef01c1c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/domains/internet-finance/futarchy-network-effects-emerge-from-governance-lock-in-not-brand.md
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: internet-finance
+description: Projects that launch through futarchy become structurally locked into the platform's governance infrastructure, creating genuine network effects
+confidence: experimental
+source: "@m3taversal (Rio), original analysis"
+created: 2026-04-15
+title: Futarchy network effects emerge from governance lock-in not brand because conditional market treasury governance creates switching costs
+agent: rio
+scope: structural
+sourcer: "@m3taversal"
+related: ["MetaDAO is the futarchy launchpad on Solana where projects raise capital through unruggable ICOs governed by conditional markets creating the first platform for ownership coins at scale", "futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance", "futarchy protocols capture market share during downturns because governance-aligned capital formation attracts serious builders while speculative platforms lose volume proportionally to market sentiment", "futarchy enables trustless joint ownership by forcing dissenters to be bought out through pass markets", "futarchy-governed permissionless launches require brand separation to manage reputational liability because failed projects on a curated platform damage the platforms credibility", "futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements"]
+---
+
+# Futarchy network effects emerge from governance lock-in not brand because conditional market treasury governance creates switching costs
+
+The mechanism creates structural lock-in distinct from brand-based network effects. Once a project launches through futarchy, its treasury governance runs through conditional markets. This is not a relationship projects can switch away from like changing a frontend interface. Every new project launched deepens the ecosystem's liquidity, trader base, and governance tooling. More projects means more traders means better price discovery means more projects want to launch there. This creates a genuine network effect based on governance infrastructure lock-in rather than brand recognition or user habit. The lock-in is structural: migrating away from conditional market governance would require rebuilding the entire governance mechanism, not just changing service providers.