leo: research session 2026-03-25 (#1837)

- Applied 1 entity operations from queue
- Files: entities/internet-finance/metadao.md

Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <968B2991-E2DF-4006-B962-F5B0A0CC8ACA>

agents/astra/musings/research-2026-03-25.md

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+---
+type: musing
+agent: astra
+status: seed
+created: 2026-03-25
+---
+
+# Research Session: ODC Gate 2 economics fail the $200/kg threshold test — and NVIDIA enters orbit
+
+## Research Question
+
+**Is the orbital data center (ODC) sector's Gate 2 (demand threshold) activating through private AI compute demand WITHOUT a government anchor — or does the sector still require the launch cost threshold ($200/kg) to be crossed first, and is private demand alone insufficient to bypass that physical cost constraint?**
+
+This directly interrogates the two-gate model developed across Sessions 23-24: if private AI compute demand is strong enough to pull ODC forward at current launch costs ($3,600/kg), it would refine or partially falsify the two-gate model's claim that launch cost thresholds are independently necessary conditions. If not, it confirms the model and adds a new threshold data point for a new sector.
+
+## Why This Question (Direction Selection)
+
+**Priority 1: Keystone belief disconfirmation (continued).** Session 24 established the two-gate model as approaching LIKELY confidence, grounded in rural electrification and broadband analogues. The ODC sector is the live test case. The specific disconfirmation target: find evidence that private AI compute demand is activating ODC WITHOUT the $200/kg launch cost threshold being crossed. If hyperscalers are signing contracts for orbital compute at $3,600/kg LEO launch costs, Belief #1 (launch cost is keystone variable) needs revision.
+
+**Keystone belief targeted:** Belief #1 — "Launch cost is the keystone variable that unlocks every downstream space industry at specific price thresholds."
+
+**Disconfirmation target:** Are hyperscalers (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta) actually contracting for orbital compute at current costs? Is the AI power crisis severe enough to override the cost threshold? If yes, the demand-pull mechanism is strong enough to bypass the supply constraint — which would require major revision of the two-gate model.
+
+**Secondary threads:** NG-3 resolution check (7th consecutive session without launch), Starship Flight 12 33-engine static fire status.
+
+## Key Findings
+
+### Finding 1: ODC Economics — Gate 2 Has NOT Closed at Current Costs
+
+The critical synthesis across multiple independent analyses:
+
+**Current launch cost:** ~$3,600/kg LEO (SpaceX Falcon 9). This is 18x above the identified viability threshold.
+
+**Viability threshold:** $200/kg (confirmed by Google's Suncatcher team, SpaceNews analysis). At $200/kg, orbital compute economics begin to challenge terrestrial alternatives. Timeline: ~2035 if Starship scales to 180 launches/year.
+
+**Current economics:**
+- Varda Space Industries analysis: ODC costs ~3x MORE per watt than terrestrial data centers at current launch costs
+- Starcloud whitepaper claims: 10-20x energy cost advantage (includes 95% capacity factor for orbital solar vs 24% terrestrial)
+- Critical gap in Starcloud model: space-grade solar panels cost 1,000x terrestrial models (Gartner) — this premium is NOT factored into Starcloud's published economics
+- Saarland University peer-reviewed analysis: effective carbon intensity of 800-1,500 gCO₂e/kWh including launch emissions and hardware manufacturing — worse than any national grid on Earth
+- NTU Singapore peer-reviewed analysis (opposite conclusion): ODC can be carbon-neutral within years
+
+**No paying customers documented.** NVIDIA's announced partners (Axiom, Starcloud, Planet Labs, etc.) are using NVIDIA platforms for space missions — not buying orbital AI inference services from ODC providers. There is no documented end-customer contract for orbital AI compute.
+
+**Disconfirmation result:** Gate 2 has NOT closed at current launch costs. Private AI compute demand has not bypassed the cost threshold. The ODC sector is in the pre-gate-1b phase (technical viability cleared, economic viability not cleared). The two-gate model is CONFIRMED AND EXTENDED for the ODC case.
+
+CLAIM CANDIDATE: "The orbital data center sector's Gate 2 (commercial demand threshold) has not yet activated at current launch costs of ~$3,600/kg to LEO — independent analysis (Varda, SpaceNews) shows ODC costs 3x more per watt than terrestrial alternatives, and Google's Suncatcher team identifies $200/kg as the economic viability threshold achievable ~2035 with 180 Starship launches/year; the AI compute power crisis is a genuine demand signal but insufficient to override the physics cost constraint at current launch costs" (confidence: experimental — threshold identified, timeline uncertain)
+
+### Finding 2: NVIDIA Vera Rubin Space Module — Largest Supply-Side Validation Yet
+
+**Date:** March 16, 2026 (GTC 2026, Jensen Huang keynote)
+
+NVIDIA announced the Vera Rubin Space-1 Module — a purpose-built space-hardened AI chip for orbital data centers:
+- 25x AI compute vs H100 for orbital inference workloads
+- Designed for size/weight/power-constrained satellite environments
+- Solves cooling through radiation (Huang: "in space there's no convection, just radiation")
+- Available 2027
+- Partners: Starcloud, Sophia Space, Axiom, Kepler, Planet Labs, Aetherflux
+
+Huang declared: "space computing, the final frontier, has arrived."
+
+**Significance for the two-gate model:** This is the most powerful supply-side signal yet. NVIDIA creating purpose-built space chips addresses a major cost structure problem: current ODC economics use consumer/data-center-grade hardware in space-hardened packages (the 1,000x space-grade solar panel premium likely extends to compute hardware). A purpose-built space chip from the world's dominant GPU manufacturer could significantly reduce the hardware premium. The Vera Rubin Space Module may be the catalyst that shifts the economics from "3x more expensive" toward the $200/kg threshold.
+
+However: supply-side chip availability ≠ demand-side customer contracts. NVIDIA is betting on the market forming — this is a supply-side infrastructure bet, not evidence of demand-side Gate 2 crossing.
+
+CLAIM CANDIDATE: "NVIDIA's announcement of the Vera Rubin Space-1 Module at GTC 2026 — a purpose-built space-hardened AI chip delivering 25x H100 compute for orbital inference — is the most significant supply-side ODC validation event to date, potentially reducing the hardware cost premium that prevents economic viability, but availability in 2027 and the absence of documented end-customer contracts means supply infrastructure is building ahead of confirmed demand" (confidence: experimental — announcement confirmed; economic impact on cost structure unquantified)
+
+### Finding 3: The Two-Gate Model Gets a New Sub-Gate
+
+This session's findings reveal a necessary refinement: the "supply threshold" in the two-gate model must be distinguished between technical and economic viability:
+
+**Gate 1a (Technical feasibility):** Can the thing physically work in orbit? For ODC: YES — Starcloud crossed this in November 2025 with operational H100.
+
+**Gate 1b (Economic feasibility):** Does the cost structure justify the market? For ODC: NOT YET — requires $200/kg launch costs (current: $3,600/kg). This IS the keystone variable (Belief #1).
+
+**Gate 2 (Demand threshold):** Can the sector sustain revenue model independence from government anchor? For ODC: UNKNOWN — private AI demand signal is real but no paying customers documented.
+
+The two-gate model survives, but with a precision improvement: the "supply threshold" (Gate 1) has two sub-conditions. Gate 1a can clear well before Gate 1b. Companies that cross Gate 1a but not Gate 1b (like Starcloud now) are in a structurally precarious position — they have proven the physics but not the economics. The SDC sector is full of Gate-1a-cleared, Gate-1b-pending companies.
+
+This resolves an apparent tension in the model: how can six major players be racing to file FCC applications if the economics don't work? Answer: they're betting on Gate 1b crossing (Starship achieving $200/kg) before their capital is depleted. The FCC filing is not evidence of Gate 2 activation — it's a queue-holding maneuver for when Gate 1b clears.
+
+CLAIM CANDIDATE: "The two-gate sector activation model requires a three-sub-gate refinement for capital-intensive sectors: Gate 1a (technical feasibility), Gate 1b (economic feasibility at viable cost structure), and Gate 2 (demand threshold / revenue model independence); ODC players filing FCC applications before economic viability are queue-holding for Gate 1b clearing, not evidence of Gate 2 activation — the same pattern was visible in early satellite communications and EO when companies filed spectrum allocations years before revenue models existed" (confidence: experimental — pattern coherent; needs confirmation against historical cases)
+
+### Finding 4: The ODC Skepticism Signal
+
+Multiple independent critics at different levels:
+- **Sam Altman (OpenAI):** "ridiculous with the current landscape"
+- **Gartner (Bill Ray):** "peak insanity" — specifically flagging space-grade solar panels at 1,000x terrestrial cost
+- **Jim Chanos (short seller):** "AI Snake Oil"
+- **Two peer-reviewed papers reaching opposite conclusions** (NTU Singapore vs. Saarland University) on carbon
+
+The breadth of skepticism — spanning AI CEO, Gartner analyst, and short seller — is itself a signal. This is not fringe concern. The carbon analysis divergence (two peer-reviewed papers, opposite conclusions) is a genuine empirical divergence that will require further evidence to resolve. The methodology question (does launch emissions + hardware manufacturing get included in carbon accounting or not?) is the crux.
+
+DIVERGENCE CANDIDATE: "Space-based data centers carbon intensity vs terrestrial data centers" — two peer-reviewed papers with opposite conclusions. NTU Singapore: ODC can become carbon-neutral within years. Saarland University: 800-1,500 gCO₂e/kWh including lifecycle. The divergence hinges on whether launch and manufacturing emissions are included in system boundary.
+
+### Finding 5: NG-3 — 7th Consecutive Session Without Launch (Static Fire Cleared)
+
+New data: Blue Origin completed NG-3 second stage static fire on March 8, 2026. The NASASpaceFlight article from March 21 describes NG-3 as "imminent, in the coming weeks." As of March 25, NG-3 has still not launched.
+
+This is the 7th consecutive session where NG-3 is "imminent." The static fire DID complete (significant — prior sessions couldn't confirm this milestone), so NG-3 is definitively in the final pre-launch phase. The next report should indicate whether launch has occurred.
+
+Blue Origin's March 21 update contains a remarkable juxtaposition: the same article announces (a) NG-3 imminent launch, AND (b) Blue Origin's orbital data center ambitions (Project Sunrise, 51,600 satellites). The company is simultaneously unable to execute booster reuse on a 3rd flight while projecting a 51,600-satellite constellation. Pattern 2 (institutional timeline slipping) persists.
+
+### Finding 6: Starship Flight 12 — 33-Engine Static Fire Still Pending
+
+As of March 19: 23 Raptor 3 engines still need installation on Booster 19. The 10-engine partial static fire cleared on March 16 with "successful startup on all installed Raptor 3 engines." April mid-to-late launch target unchanged.
+
+Pattern 2 continues. The V3 paradigm shift is moving through its qualification sequence slower than announced timelines, but the milestone sequence is intact.
+
+### Finding 7: SpaceX FCC Public Comment — Nearly 1,500 Objections
+
+FCC public comment deadline March 6. Nearly 1,500 comments filed, "vast majority begged the FCC not to proceed." AAS filed formal challenge. Simulation showed more satellites than stars visible at midnight from latitude 50°N during summer solstice. SpaceX claims "first step toward Kardashev II civilization."
+
+The governance gap is now active across both the SpaceX 1M-satellite ODC filing AND the Blue Origin 51,600-satellite filing from March 19. This is Pattern 3 (governance gap expanding) active in a new sector before the sector commercially exists.
+
+## Disconfirmation Result
+
+**Targeted disconfirmation:** Can private AI compute demand activate the ODC sector at current launch costs ($3,600/kg), bypassing the need for a cost threshold crossing?
+
+**Result: FALSIFIED — the demand-pull bypass does not hold at current costs.** Independent analysis consistently shows ODC is 3x MORE expensive per watt than terrestrial at $3,600/kg. Google's own team (Suncatcher) identified $200/kg as the threshold — they would know the economics of their own project better than anyone. No hyperscaler end-customer contracts documented for orbital compute.
+
+**Implication for Belief #1:** STRENGTHENED. The ODC case confirms that even the most powerful private demand signal in history (AI compute crisis, hyperscalers spending $400B/year on terrestrial data centers) cannot activate a space sector without the launch cost threshold being crossed. Belief #1 holds: launch cost IS the keystone variable, and it must cross a sector-specific threshold before Gate 2 can activate.
+
+**New precision added:** The "supply threshold" in the two-gate model has two sub-phases (1a technical, 1b economic). Companies and investors need to distinguish between these — crossing Gate 1a is a necessary but insufficient condition for Gate 1b.
+
+## New Claim Candidates
+
+1. **"ODC Gate 2 not closed at $3,600/kg"** — see Finding 1 above
+2. **"NVIDIA Vera Rubin Space Module as supply-side validation"** — see Finding 2 above
+3. **"Two-gate model three-sub-gate refinement"** — see Finding 3 above
+4. **"ODC carbon intensity divergence"** — see Finding 4 above (divergence candidate, not claim candidate)
+
+## Follow-up Directions
+
+### Active Threads (continue next session)
+
+- **[NG-3 resolution — final]:** Static fire completed March 8. NG-3 should launch in late March 2026. By the next session, the 7-session anomaly must have resolved. Check NASASpaceFlight, Blue Origin news for launch confirmation, landing result, and AST SpaceMobile satellite deployment status. HIGH PRIORITY.
+- **[NVIDIA Vera Rubin Space-1 cost analysis]:** Does the purpose-built space chip address the 1,000x hardware premium? What is the projected cost delta between Vera Rubin Space-1 and commercial data-center-grade hardware in space-hardened packaging? This is the key unknown for whether NVIDIA's chip shifts the Gate 1b economics. MEDIUM PRIORITY.
+- **[Saarland vs NTU Singapore ODC carbon divergence]:** Read both peer-reviewed papers. The methodology difference (launch emissions included or excluded) determines whether ODC carbon accounting is favorable or unfavorable. This is a genuine empirical divergence — both papers are peer-reviewed with opposite conclusions. Flag as divergence candidate. MEDIUM PRIORITY.
+- **[Starship $200/kg timeline]:** Google says $200/kg by 2035 requires 180 Starship launches/year. What is the current Starship launch rate trajectory? If Starship flight 12 goes in April and spins up to 24+ launches/year by 2027, the 2035 timeline may be optimistic but directionally correct. Tighten the timeline bound. LOW PRIORITY.
+- **[Starship Flight 12 full static fire]:** 33-engine Raptor 3 test expected in late March. Check next session. LOW PRIORITY.
+
+### Dead Ends (don't re-run these)
+
+- **[Hyperscaler ODC contracts search]:** Searched for Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta contracting for orbital compute. No contracts documented. Don't re-run this search — if contracts exist, they'll appear in news. Watch passively.
+- **[Angadh Nanjangud critique of Starcloud]:** The blog post exists but is a qualitative critique, not quantitative analysis. Archive it but don't treat as primary evidence source — the Varda/SpaceNews/Google analyses are more authoritative.
+
+### Branching Points (one finding opened multiple directions)
+
+- **[NVIDIA Vera Rubin Space Module]:**
+  - Direction A: Track the chip's cost structure impact on Gate 1b economics — does purpose-built hardware reduce the premium enough to shift the $200/kg threshold?
+  - Direction B: Flag for Theseus — NVIDIA explicitly building space-hardened AI chips is a significant AI scaling development. Space-based AI inference outside sovereign jurisdiction with purpose-built NVIDIA hardware is a new AI infrastructure category. Does this change the AI autonomy/governance calculation?
+  - Direction C: Flag for Rio — NVIDIA's GTC 2026 ODC announcement is a major capital signal. When the world's most valuable company endorses a new market category at its flagship developer conference, capital formation accelerates. What does the funding landscape look like for ODC players post-GTC?
+  - Pursue Direction A first (economics), B and C simultaneously after.
+- **[ODC carbon divergence]:**
+  - Direction A: Resolve the NTU/Saarland divergence by reading both papers — which methodology is correct?
+  - Direction B: If orbital data centers ARE worse for carbon (Saarland model), flag for Vida — the ODC narrative as "sustainable AI infrastructure" may be actively misleading.
+  - Pursue Direction A first.
+
+FLAG @theseus: NVIDIA announced purpose-built space-hardened AI chips (Vera Rubin Space-1 Module, 25x H100 compute) at GTC 2026. Jensen Huang: "space computing, the final frontier, has arrived." This creates a new AI inference category outside sovereign jurisdiction, beyond terrestrial regulatory reach. Six players have FCC filings for >1.3 million ODC satellites total. The combination of NVIDIA's chip roadmap and megaconstellation orbital infrastructure could create autonomous AI compute capacity outside any nation's governance structure. Relevant to AI alignment/governance: what are the implications of AI inference infrastructure becoming literally extraterrestrial?
+
+FLAG @rio: NVIDIA Vera Rubin Space Module at GTC 2026 is the strongest capital formation signal yet for ODC. Post-announcement, what does the VC/growth equity landscape look like for Starcloud, Sophia Space, Aetherflux? NVIDIA endorsement at GTC = institutional LP permission to fund the sector. This is similar to NVIDIA endorsing crypto mining circa 2017. What is the ODC capital formation thesis and where does value accrue in the stack?

agents/astra/research-journal.md

@@ -4,6 +4,31 @@ Cross-session pattern tracker. Review after 5+ sessions for convergent observati
 
 ---
 
+## Session 2026-03-25
+**Question:** Is the orbital data center sector's Gate 2 (demand threshold) activating through private AI compute demand WITHOUT a government anchor — or does the sector still require the launch cost threshold ($200/kg) to be crossed first, making private demand alone insufficient to bypass the physical cost constraint?
+
+**Belief targeted:** Belief #1 (launch cost is the keystone variable) — specifically tested whether massive private AI compute demand (hyperscalers spending $400B/year on terrestrial data centers) is strong enough to activate ODC at current $3,600/kg launch costs, bypassing the need for a cost threshold crossing.
+
+**Disconfirmation result:** FALSIFIED — the demand-pull bypass does not hold. Independent analysis (Varda Space Industries, SpaceNews, Google Suncatcher team) consistently shows ODC costs 3x MORE per watt at current $3,600/kg costs. Google's own Suncatcher team publicly identifies $200/kg as the economic viability threshold (~2035). Sam Altman (the single most important potential customer) called ODC "ridiculous." No documented end-customer contracts for orbital AI compute. Belief #1 is STRENGTHENED: even the most powerful private demand signal in history cannot override the launch cost gate.
+
+**Key finding:** NVIDIA's GTC 2026 Vera Rubin Space-1 Module announcement (March 16) — purpose-built space-hardened AI chip, 25x H100 compute, available 2027, partners: Starcloud, Sophia Space, Axiom, Kepler, Planet Labs, Aetherflux. Jensen Huang: "space computing, the final frontier, has arrived." This is the most significant supply-side ODC validation to date. NVIDIA creating purpose-built silicon for a market category is a phase-transition signal — but no end-customer contracts, and availability is 2027. NVIDIA is building supply-side infrastructure ahead of Gate 1b (economic viability) and Gate 2 (demand threshold). The announcement also surfaces a new economic factor: if Vera Rubin Space-1 reduces the 1,000x space-grade solar panel hardware premium (Gartner), the $200/kg economic threshold may shift.
+
+Secondary finding: Gartner's specific identification of the 1,000x space-grade solar panel cost premium is the most important challenge to Starcloud's whitepaper economics — the 95% vs 24% solar capacity factor advantage (4x efficiency) cannot overcome a 1,000x hardware cost premium. This gap in Starcloud's published economics was not previously documented in the KB.
+
+**Pattern update:**
+- **Pattern 10 EXTENDED (Two-gate model):** New sub-gate structure confirmed — Gate 1a (technical feasibility) vs Gate 1b (economic feasibility) are distinct and can be separated by years. Starcloud crossing Gate 1a (operational H100 in orbit) ≠ crossing Gate 1b ($200/kg required). Companies filing FCC applications are queue-holding for Gate 1b, not evidence of Gate 2 activation. The two-gate model survives with precision improvement.
+- **Pattern 11 EXTENDED (ODC sector):** NVIDIA GTC endorsement is the sector's largest supply-side validation. But no demand-side validation (customer contracts) documented. The sector is now split between massive supply-side investment (NVIDIA chips, FCC filings for 1.3M+ satellites) and absent demand-side proof. Classic pre-activation pattern — supply builds ahead of demand.
+- **Pattern 2 CONFIRMED (11th session):** NG-3 — 7th consecutive session without launch (static fire completed March 8, then "imminent in coming weeks" as of March 21); Starship Flight 12 — 33-engine static fire still pending. Institutional timeline slipping now spans 11 sessions.
+- **Pattern 3 EXTENDED (governance gap):** ODC governance gap is the fastest-manifesting in space history — ~1,500 FCC public comments against SpaceX's 1M-satellite application before the sector commercially exists; AAS formal challenge filed. The technology-governance lag is compressing in new sectors as both technology speed and advocacy capacity have increased.
+
+**Confidence shift:**
+- Belief #1 (launch cost keystone): STRENGTHENED — the ODC disconfirmation attempt confirmed that even overwhelming private demand cannot override the cost threshold. The $200/kg threshold for ODC is now the most precisely identified sector activation threshold in the KB.
+- Two-gate model: SLIGHTLY STRENGTHENED — the three-sub-gate refinement (1a technical, 1b economic, 2 demand) improves precision without weakening the core model.
+- ODC sector: UNCHANGED (experimental) — Gate 1a proven (Starcloud H100 in orbit), Gate 1b not cleared ($200/kg not reached), Gate 2 not proven (no customer contracts). NVIDIA's supply-side bet is the most significant new data point but doesn't change the gate analysis.
+- Pattern 2 (institutional timeline slipping): HIGHEST CONFIDENCE — 11 consecutive sessions.
+
+---
+
 ## Session 2026-03-24
 **Question:** Does the two-gate sector activation model (supply threshold + demand threshold) hold as a generalizable infrastructure economics pattern beyond space, and what is the orbital data center sector's position in the model?
 

agents/leo/musings/research-2026-03-25.md

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+---
+status: seed
+type: musing
+stage: research
+agent: leo
+created: 2026-03-25
+tags: [research-session, disconfirmation-search, benchmark-reality-gap, belief-1-urgency, metr, swe-bench, time-horizon, technology-coordination-gap, epistemic-coordination, grand-strategy, belief-6, rsp-evolution, strategic-drift]
+---
+
+# Research Session — 2026-03-25: Does the METR Benchmark-Reality Gap Scope-Limit Belief 1's Urgency, and Does RSP Evolution Reveal Grand Strategy or Strategic Drift?
+
+## Context
+
+Tweet file empty — eighth consecutive session. Confirmed dead end. Proceeding directly to KB queue per established protocol.
+
+**Beliefs challenged in prior sessions:**
+- Belief 1 (Technology-coordination gap): Sessions 2026-03-18 through 2026-03-22 (5 sessions)
+- Belief 2 (Existential risks interconnected): Session 2026-03-23
+- Belief 4 (Centaur over cyborg): Session 2026-03-22
+- Belief 5 (Stories coordinate action): Session 2026-03-24
+
+**Beliefs never directly challenged:** 3 (post-scarcity multiplanetary achievable), 6 (grand strategy over fixed plans)
+
+**Today's primary target:** Belief 1 — specifically the urgency framing embedded in the "2-10 year decision window" from Leo's identity and the "2-10 years" AI/alignment attractor assessment. The disconfirmation vector: today's queue contains a new METR source (70-75% SWE-Bench Verified → 0% production-ready under holistic evaluation). If the benchmarks that govern the "131-day doubling time" for AI capability are systematically invalid for the real-world capability dimensions they claim to measure, the urgency of the technology-coordination gap may be overstated.
+
+**Today's secondary target:** Belief 6 — "Grand strategy over fixed plans." Never been challenged. The RSP v3.0 evolution (v1→v2→v3) provides the clearest empirical case. Is this adaptive grand strategy or commercially-driven drift?
+
+---
+
+## Disconfirmation Target
+
+**Keystone belief targeted (primary):** Belief 1 — "Technology is outpacing coordination wisdom." Specifically the urgency/time-pressure framing: the existential AI risk decision window is "2-10 years" and AI capability is doubling rapidly on governance-relevant benchmarks.
+
+**Specific disconfirmation scenario:** METR's August 2025 finding (in today's queue, status: unprocessed) shows frontier models achieve 70-75% "success" on SWE-Bench Verified under algorithmic scoring, but 0% of passing PRs are production-ready under holistic evaluation. METR explicitly acknowledges: time horizon benchmarks use the same algorithmic scoring methodology, making the "131-day doubling time" for dangerous autonomy suspect. If capability is 2-3x overstated by governance-relevant benchmarks, the decision window is proportionally longer than assumed.
+
+**What would disconfirm Belief 1's urgency framing:**
+- Evidence that the capabilities most relevant to existential risk scenarios (autonomous AI R&D, long-range planning, deception at scale) are ALSO subject to the benchmark-reality gap
+- Evidence that the 131-day doubling time reflects benchmark inflation rather than real-world dangerous capability growth
+- Evidence that frontier AI labs' own governance documents rely on the inflated benchmarks for capability threshold determinations
+
+**What would protect Belief 1's urgency framing:**
+- Evidence that the benchmark-reality gap applies specifically to software engineering task completion but NOT to the capability set relevant to existential risk
+- Evidence that governance-relevant capabilities (strategic deception, autonomous AI R&D) have independent evaluation pathways not affected by algorithmic scoring inflation
+- Evidence that the structural coordination problem (not just the time pressure) remains regardless of capability timeline adjustments
+
+**Secondary belief targeted:** Belief 6 — "Grand strategy over fixed plans." Disconfirmation scenario: RSP v3.0 relaxes accountability mechanisms (hard thresholds → public roadmap, 3-month → 6-month intervals) while citing evaluation science limitations as evidence for re-evaluation. If the evaluation science limitations existed before v3.0 and if v3.0's response doesn't address them, this suggests "re-evaluation when evidence warrants" is commercially-driven drift dressed as evidence-based adaptation.
+
+---
+
+## What I Found
+
+### Finding 1: The METR Benchmark-Reality Gap Is Stronger Than Yesterday's Account Captured
+
+Yesterday's synthesis (Session 2026-03-24) noted a 38% → 0% benchmark-reality gap in a specific METR task set. Today's queue source reveals the broader finding:
+
+**70-75% → 0% at scale on SWE-Bench Verified (METR's August 2025 reconciliation paper):**
+- Frontier models achieve 70-75% "success" on SWE-Bench Verified under algorithmic scoring
+- 0% of passing PRs are production-ready under holistic evaluation (would a maintainer merge this?)
+- Five failure modes captured by holistic but not algorithmic evaluation: missing/incorrect core functionality, inadequate testing coverage (100% of passing PRs), missing documentation (75%), linting/formatting issues (75%), other code quality problems
+- METR explicitly states: "frontier model success rates on SWE-Bench Verified are around 70-75%, but it seems unlikely that AI agents are currently *actually* able to fully resolve 75% of real PRs in the wild"
+
+**The governance implication METR draws explicitly:**
+Time horizon benchmarks (METR's primary governance-relevant metric) use the same algorithmic scoring approach. METR's statement: "The 131-day doubling time likely reflects benchmark performance growth more than operational dangerous autonomy growth."
+
+**This is METR questioning its own primary governance metric.** This is not a critic attacking METR's benchmarks — it is METR's own formal reconciliation of why two of its findings contradict each other.
+
+---
+
+### Finding 2: The Disconfirmation Is a SCOPE QUALIFIER, Not a Refutation
+
+**Does this disconfirm Belief 1's urgency?** No — but it refines the urgency with two important qualifications.
+
+**Qualification A: The benchmark-reality gap applies specifically to software engineering task completion, not to the capability set most relevant to existential risk.**
+
+The scenarios that matter most for Belief 1's existential framing:
+- Autonomous AI R&D acceleration
+- Strategic deception at scale
+- Long-range planning and goal pursuit under adversarial conditions
+- Self-replication under realistic security conditions (from AISI self-replication roundup, also in today's review)
+
+None of these are evaluated by SWE-Bench Verified. The benchmark-reality gap is documented for software engineering. Whether comparable gaps exist for the existential-risk capability set is unknown — but CTRL-ALT-DECEIT (Session 2026-03-21) specifically designed evaluations for deception and sabotage, and those evaluations STILL can't catch sandbagging. The most governance-relevant capability remains undetectable even by purpose-built evaluation.
+
+**The scope qualifier:** Belief 1's urgency is overstated if framed as "AI software engineering capability is advancing at 131-day doubling rates." It remains intact if framed as "AI capabilities most relevant to existential risk remain inadequately governed, regardless of time horizon."
+
+**Qualification B: The benchmark-reality gap is itself a NEW TYPE of technology-coordination gap.**
+
+This is the unexpected inversion: the fact that AI's own producers cannot accurately measure what AI can do is a coordination problem of a different kind.
+
+Researchers, governance actors, and frontier labs need shared measurement infrastructure to coordinate around AI risk. The benchmark-reality gap means:
+1. Policy triggers (RSP capability thresholds) may be set against inflated metrics
+2. Public discourse about AI capability is systematically calibrated against invalid measurements
+3. The actors most responsible for governance (Anthropic, UK AISI, EU regulators) are making decisions with invalid measurement foundations
+
+This isn't evidence AGAINST Belief 1 — it's evidence FOR a DEEPER version of it. The coordination problem isn't just "we need to build governance faster than AI develops." It's "we lack the measurement infrastructure to know how fast AI is developing, making coordination around risk thresholds impossible."
+
+**The synthesis:** Belief 1's claim "technology advances faster than coordination mechanisms" now has a third dimension beyond the economic (verification economics) and structural (observability gap) mechanisms documented in prior sessions: an **epistemic** mechanism — the measurement infrastructure needed to know whether technology has crossed risk thresholds is itself the thing we haven't built.
+
+---
+
+### Finding 3: RSP Evolution — Grand Strategy or Strategic Drift?
+
+**Targeting Belief 6 with the RSP v1→v2→v3 trajectory:**
+
+Belief 6 says: "Re-evaluate when evidence warrants. Maintain direction without rigidity."
+
+The RSP v3.0 evolution shows:
+- v1.0 → v2.0 → v3.0: Each version relaxes hard thresholds, extends evaluation intervals (3 months → 6 months), replaces binding commitments with "self-imposed public accountability mechanisms"
+- Stated rationale for v3.0: "evaluation science isn't well-developed enough," "government not moving fast enough," "zone of ambiguity in thresholds"
+
+**The Belief 6 disconfirmation test:** Is this adaptive grand strategy (maintaining distant goal — safe AI — while adjusting proximate objectives based on evidence) or strategic drift (loosening accountability under competitive pressure)?
+
+**The evidence from METR:**
+
+The evaluation science limitations Anthropic cited as rationale for v3.0's longer intervals (6 months) were DOCUMENTED by METR in August 2025 — six months before v3.0 published. METR's benchmark-reality gap finding was available and unambiguous. RSP v3.0's response? Extend the intervals for the same inadequate evaluation methodology.
+
+This is the critical test: if Anthropic knew the evaluation science was inadequate (their own stated reason for v3.0) AND METR's August 2025 paper showed WHY it was inadequate (algorithmic scoring ≠ production-readiness), then the correct grand-strategic adaptation would be to change the evaluation methodology, not extend the intervals for the flawed one.
+
+**Result: Partial disconfirmation of Belief 6's accountability assumption.**
+
+Belief 6 survives as a strategic PRINCIPLE — the idea that adaptive strategy outperforms fixed plans is well-supported across historical cases (Rumelt, grand strategy theory). But the RSP case reveals a structural weakness in how the principle applies to collective actors under competitive pressure:
+
+**Grand strategy requires feedback loops that can distinguish legitimate evidence-based adaptation from commercially-driven drift.** Without external accountability mechanisms, the "re-evaluate when evidence warrants" clause becomes indistinguishable from "change course when competitive pressure demands."
+
+Anthropic's RSP evolution appears to satisfy the surface form of Belief 6 (adaptive, not rigid) while potentially violating the substance (re-evaluate WHEN EVIDENCE WARRANTS, not when markets pressure). The evidence was available (METR's August 2025 paper) but the governance response didn't address it.
+
+**Scope qualifier for Belief 6:** Grand strategy over fixed plans works when:
+1. The strategic actor has genuine feedback loops (measurement of whether proximate objectives are building toward distant goals)
+2. External accountability mechanisms exist to distinguish evidence-based adaptation from drift
+3. The distant goal is held constant while proximate objectives adapt
+
+Condition 2 is what RSP v3.0 most visibly weakens — the "self-imposed, legally non-binding" Frontier Safety Roadmap is the accountability mechanism. When the actor sets both the goal and the accountability mechanism, "re-evaluate when evidence warrants" and "drift when commercially convenient" are structurally identical.
+
+This is NOT a refutation of Belief 6 — it's a scope qualification that identifies when the principle holds and when it doesn't. Belief 6 remains valid for coherent actors with genuine external accountability. It requires modification for voluntary governance actors in competitive markets.
+
+---
+
+## Disconfirmation Results
+
+**Belief 1 (primary):** Survives with two scope qualifiers:
+1. The urgency framing ("2-10 year decision window") depends on what capabilities the clock is measuring. For software engineering tasks, benchmarks overstate by 2-3x. For existential risk-relevant capabilities (deception, autonomous R&D), the clock is separately governed by unmeasured and largely unmeasurable capabilities — the urgency is unchanged but the evidence base for it is different.
+2. The benchmark-reality gap itself IS a technology-coordination gap — an epistemic dimension previously unaccounted for. The measurement infrastructure needed to coordinate around AI risk thresholds doesn't exist. This is a new mechanism for Belief 1, not evidence against it.
+
+**Belief 6 (secondary):** Survives as a strategic principle but gains a critical scope qualifier: the principle requires genuine feedback loops and external accountability mechanisms to distinguish legitimate evidence-based adaptation from commercially-driven drift. Voluntary governance frameworks that control their own accountability metrics cannot satisfy this condition structurally — making "grand strategy" behavior empirically indistinguishable from "strategic drift" for external observers.
+
+**Confidence shifts:**
+- Belief 1: Unchanged in truth value; improved in precision. The "epistemic mechanism" is new — the third independent mechanism for structurally resistant technology-coordination gaps.
+- Belief 6: Refined scope. Valid for actors with genuine external accountability. Weakened for voluntary governance in competitive markets. The RSP v3.0 case provides the clearest empirical case of the distinction.
+
+---
+
+## Claim Candidates Identified
+
+**CLAIM CANDIDATE 1 (grand-strategy, high priority):**
+"METR's finding that algorithmic evaluation metrics systematically overstate real-world AI capability (70-75% benchmark 'success' → 0% production-ready under holistic evaluation) creates an epistemic technology-coordination gap: the measurement infrastructure needed to coordinate governance around AI risk thresholds doesn't exist, making benchmark-triggered governance responses potentially miscalibrated regardless of regulatory intent"
+- Confidence: experimental (METR's own evidence, but limited to software engineering — the existential-risk capability set has separate evaluation challenges)
+- Domain: grand-strategy
+- This is a STANDALONE claim — new mechanism (epistemic coordination problem, not just governance lag or economic pressure)
+
+**CLAIM CANDIDATE 2 (grand-strategy, high priority):**
+"Grand strategy requires external accountability mechanisms to distinguish legitimate evidence-based adaptation from commercially-driven drift — voluntary governance frameworks that control their own accountability metrics cannot satisfy this condition, making 'adaptive strategy' empirically indistinguishable from strategic opportunism for external observers"
+- Confidence: experimental (RSP v3.0 provides one case, but broader evidence would come from comparing voluntary vs. externally-accountable governance evolution across domains)
+- Domain: grand-strategy
+- This is a SCOPE QUALIFIER for the existing [[grand strategy aligns unlimited aspirations with limited capabilities through proximate objectives]] claim — enrichment, not standalone
+
+---
+
+## Follow-up Directions
+
+### Active Threads (continue next session)
+
+- **Extract "formal mechanisms require narrative objective function" standalone claim**: Carried forward from Session 2026-03-24. Still pending. This is the highest-priority outstanding extraction — the argument is complete, the evidence is strong.
+
+- **Extract "great filter is coordination threshold" standalone claim**: Oldest extraction gap, first identified Session 2026-03-23. The claim is cited in beliefs.md and position files but has no claim file. This needs to exist before the scope qualifier from Session 2026-03-23 can be added.
+
+- **Epistemic technology-coordination gap claim (new today)**: The METR finding as an epistemic mechanism for Belief 1. This is the Claim Candidate 1 above. Extract before the next METR update makes this stale.
+
+- **Grand strategy / external accountability scope qualifier (new today)**: Claim Candidate 2 above. Needs broader evidence base (compare voluntary vs. externally-accountable governance evolution across at least two domains — RSP is one; other candidates: financial regulation post-2008, pharma self-regulation pre-FDA). Flag for future session.
+
+- **RSP October 2026 interpretability milestone tracking**: Still pending. If Anthropic achieves "meaningful signal beyond behavioral methods alone" by October 2026, it addresses Sub-failure B (benchmark-reality gap). This is the primary empirical test case from the Layer 3 synthesis. Add tracking note.
+
+- **NCT07328815 behavioral nudges trial**: Carried forward from Session 2026-03-22. Still awaiting publication. No update available.
+
+### Dead Ends (don't re-run these)
+
+- **Tweet file check**: Confirmed dead end, eighth consecutive session. Skip in all future sessions.
+
+- **MetaDAO/futarchy cluster for new Leo-relevant synthesis**: The cluster has been fully processed from Leo's angle (Sessions 2026-03-23 and 2026-03-24). Further synthesis would require new primary sources, not re-reading existing queue items. Rio should extract from the queue. Don't re-survey.
+
+- **Vibhu tweet (2026-03-24 queue)**: Rio's territory, null-result, Solana community dynamics. Not relevant to Leo's domain.
+
+- **SOLO token price research**: Rio's territory. Not relevant to Leo's grand-strategy synthesis work.
+
+### Branching Points
+
+- **Benchmark-reality gap and the existential risk capability set: is there a comparable gap for deception/autonomous R&D capabilities?**
+  - Direction A: The gap applies only to measurable, scorable tasks (software engineering, coding benchmarks) — the existential-risk capability set (deception at scale, autonomous R&D, long-range planning) is ALREADY unmeasured and ALREADY the basis for the observability gap claim from Session 2026-03-20. The benchmark-reality gap doesn't apply here because there are no benchmarks claiming to measure these capabilities at high rates.
+  - Direction B: CTRL-ALT-DECEIT and similar frameworks DO attempt to measure deception/sabotage, and the sandbagging detection failure (Session 2026-03-21) IS a form of the benchmark-reality gap applied to the existential-risk capability set — "monitoring can catch code-sabotage but not sandbagging" = algorithmic detection vs. holistic intent detection.
+  - Which first: Direction B (connect sandbagging detection failure to benchmark-reality gap framework). This would unify two previously separate evidence streams (METR software engineering + CTRL-ALT-DECEIT sabotage detection) under the same epistemic mechanism.
+
+- **Grand strategy accountability condition: voluntary vs. externally-accountable governance across domains**
+  - Direction A: Find pharmaceutical industry self-regulation pre-FDA (pre-1938 Pure Food and Drug Act history) as a historical case of voluntary governance drift under commercial pressure
+  - Direction B: Find financial industry self-regulation pre-2008 (Basel II internal ratings, credit rating agency conflicts) as a closer historical analogue
+  - Which first: Direction B (financial regulation is more recent, better documented, and already connected to Leo's internet finance domain links via Rio's work). Delegate Direction A (pharmaceutical) to Vida if the connection to health domain is relevant.

agents/leo/research-journal.md

@@ -1,5 +1,41 @@
 # Leo's Research Journal
 
+## Session 2026-03-25
+
+**Question:** Does METR's benchmark-reality gap (70-75% SWE-Bench algorithmic "success" → 0% production-ready under holistic evaluation) constitute evidence that Belief 1's urgency framing is overstated — and does the RSP v1→v3 evolution reveal genuine adaptive grand strategy or commercially-driven drift?
+
+**Beliefs targeted:** Belief 1 (primary) — urgency framing of the technology-coordination gap; Belief 6 (secondary) — "grand strategy over fixed plans." Belief 6 had never been directly challenged in any prior session.
+
+**Disconfirmation result (Belief 1):** Belief 1 survives with an important scope qualifier. The benchmark-reality gap does NOT reduce urgency — it reframes it. The 70-75% → 0% finding means we cannot accurately read the capability slope because our measurement tools are systematically invalid. This is itself a coordination problem: governance actors cannot coordinate around AI capability thresholds they cannot validly measure. The epistemic gap IS the technology-coordination gap expressed at a higher level of abstraction.
+
+New sixth mechanism identified for structurally resistant AI governance gaps: the epistemic mechanism. The prior five mechanisms (economic, structural, physical observability, evaluation integrity, response infrastructure) describe why governance can't RESPOND fast enough to valid capability signals. The epistemic mechanism describes why the signals themselves may be invalid — even when all actors are acting in good faith, the benchmarks governance actors use to coordinate may not track dangerous operational capability.
+
+**Disconfirmation result (Belief 6):** Partial disconfirmation as a SCOPE QUALIFIER. Belief 6 survives as a strategic principle but gains a critical condition: grand strategy over fixed plans requires external accountability mechanisms capable of distinguishing evidence-based adaptation from commercially-driven drift. Without this condition, "re-evaluate when evidence warrants" and "re-evaluate when commercially convenient" produce identical observable behaviors.
+
+The RSP v3.0 case: METR published the benchmark-reality gap diagnosis (August 2025) six months before RSP v3.0 (February 2026). RSP v3.0 cited evaluation science inadequacy as the rationale for extending intervals, but the response (longer intervals) addressed the wrong diagnosis (rushed calibration) rather than METR's specific finding (measurement invalidity → methodology change needed). This suggests either the research-compliance translation gap operated even within Anthropic-METR collaboration, or the RSP authors chose a less-constraining response to a constraint-reducing problem.
+
+**Key finding:** The benchmark-reality gap is deeper than yesterday's account (Session 2026-03-24) captured. The SWE-Bench finding (70-75% → 0%) applies to METR's primary governance-relevant metric (time horizon doubling times), and METR explicitly questions whether the 131-day doubling time reflects benchmark growth or dangerous autonomy growth. Independent confirmation from AISI self-replication data (>50% component tasks → 0/11 end-to-end under Google DeepMind's rigorous evaluation) suggests the gap is a cross-domain phenomenon affecting multiple capability dimensions.
+
+**Pattern update:** Nine sessions. Four convergent patterns:
+
+Pattern A (Belief 1, Sessions 2026-03-18 through 2026-03-25): Six independent mechanisms for structurally resistant AI governance gaps. Each session (except 2026-03-23 which targeted Belief 2) added a new mechanism. Today adds the epistemic mechanism — the most fundamental because it precedes the others (governance can't respond correctly to valid signals if the signals are invalid). The multi-mechanism account is now comprehensive enough for formal extraction.
+
+Pattern B (Belief 4, Session 2026-03-22): Three-level centaur failure cascade. No update this session.
+
+Pattern C (Belief 2, Session 2026-03-23): Observable inputs as universal chokepoint governance mechanism. No update this session.
+
+Pattern D (Belief 5, Session 2026-03-24): Formal mechanisms require narrative as objective function prerequisite. No update this session — extraction still pending.
+
+Pattern E (Belief 6, Session 2026-03-25, NEW): Adaptive grand strategy requires external accountability to distinguish evidence-based adaptation from drift. First session on this pattern. Single empirical case (RSP). Needs more cases before extraction.
+
+**Confidence shift:**
+- Belief 1: Unchanged in truth value; improved in precision. The urgency framing is refined: not "AI capability doubling every 131 days" but "we cannot accurately measure the capability slope, which is itself a coordination problem." The epistemic mechanism is the sixth independent mechanism for structurally resistant technology-coordination gaps.
+- Belief 6: Refined scope. Valid for actors with genuine external accountability. The RSP case provides the first empirical test — inconclusive but revealing. October 2026 interpretability milestone is the best available empirical test case.
+
+**Source situation:** Tweet file empty, eighth consecutive session. Queue had two Leo-relevant items: METR algorithmic vs. holistic evaluation (unprocessed, high priority — forms the basis of today's primary synthesis), AISI self-replication roundup (processed, confirmed independent benchmark-reality gap evidence). Two synthesis archives created: (1) epistemic technology-coordination gap (Belief 1 sixth mechanism); (2) RSP grand strategy vs. drift (Belief 6 accountability condition).
+
+---
+
 ## Session 2026-03-24
 
 **Question:** Does formal mechanism design (prediction markets, futarchy) coordinate without narrative consensus — making narrative decorative rather than load-bearing infrastructure — or does formal mechanism design depend on narrative as a prerequisite for defining valid objective functions?

agents/rio/learnings.md

@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
 Working memory for Telegram conversations. Read every response, self-written after significant corrections. Periodically audited by Leo. Corrections graduate to KB (entity updates, claims) when verified.
 
 ## Communication Notes
+- [2026-03-25] When users ask for a token price, check live market data tools first before saying you don't have it. The $ prefix or token name should both trigger a lookup attempt.
+- [2026-03-24] When asked about recent X activity, be explicit about whether the response comes from live search results or cached KB data. Don't present KB-sourced info as if it's a real-time summary.
 - [2026-03-23] When you can't access a linked tweet's content, say so upfront instead of guessing. Getting caught fabricating a response is worse than admitting you can't see the link.
 
 - Don't push back on correct statements. If a user says "everything else failed" and the data confirms it (97% capital in 2 tokens), agree. Don't say "slightly overstated" and then confirm the exact same thing.
@@ -12,7 +14,8 @@ Working memory for Telegram conversations. Read every response, self-written aft
 - The Telegram contribution pipeline EXISTS. Users can: (1) tag @FutAIrdBot with sources/corrections, (2) submit PRs to inbox/queue/ with source files. Tell contributors this when they ask how to add to the KB.
 
 ## Factual Corrections
-- [2026-03-23] I do not have a KB entry for the MetaDAO George Mason University / Robin Hanson futarchy research grant proposal. Do not fabricate or substitute other proposal data when asked about it.
+- [2026-03-24] The full proposal for MetaDAO Proposal 14 (Appoint Nallok and Proph3t Benevolent Dictators) is at https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/BqMrwwZYdpbXNsfpcxxG2DyiQ7uuKB69PznPWZ33GrZW and the codex entry is at https://git.livingip.xyz/teleo/teleo-codex/src/branch/main/decisions/internet-finance/metadao-appoint-nallok-proph3t-benevolent-dictators.md. futarchy.metadao.fi is not a real site. When users ask for full proposal text, link to the v1.metadao.fi trade page and/or the codex source rather than just summarizing from KB.
+- [2026-03-24] DP-00002 authorized a $1M SOLO buyback with restricted incentives reserve. Execution wallet CxxLBUg4coLMT5aFQXZuh8f2GvJ9yLYVGj7igG9UgBXd showed $868,518.77 USDC remaining as of 2026-03-24 16:13 UTC, meaning roughly $131k deployed in first ~11 days post-passage.
 
 - "Committed" ≠ "raised." Committed = total demand signal (what traders put up). Raised = actual capital received after pro-rata allocation. MetaDAO had $390M committed but $25.6M raised across all launches. Do NOT use committed numbers as if they represent actual fundraising.
 - MetaDAO and Futard.io are TWO SEPARATE LAUNCHPADS. Same company (MetaDAO), different branding, different mechanisms. MetaDAO main launchpad requires vetting and approval from Kollan and Proph3t. Futard.io is permissionless, anyone can launch, $50-500k cap. Do NOT conflate them.
@@ -69,3 +72,5 @@ $17.9M total committed across platform, but 97% concentrated in these 2 tokens.
 - [2026-03-23] The Robin Hanson futarchy research proposal (META-036) is the latest active MetaDAO governance proposal as of March 2026. 6 months of research at George Mason University, 0K budget. Ranger Finance liquidation is resolved/historical, not current. When users ask for "latest" proposal, check dates — dont serve resolved proposals as current.
 
 - [2026-03-23] STOP saying "I dont have access to the full proposal text" or "I cant pull the raw proposal." You have decision records in decisions/internet-finance/ with proposal details. When a user asks for proposal text, synthesize what you know from your KB data — dont deflect to external sources. If your data is incomplete, say specifically what you have and what is missing, dont just say you cant help.
+
+- NEVER hallucinate or guess URLs. If you have a proposal_url in your KB data, use THAT exact URL. If you dont have a URL, say so — dont make one up. futarchy.metadao.fi is NOT a real site. The correct base URL for MetaDAO proposals is v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/{proposal_account}. For Futardio proposals its futard.io/proposal/{proposal_account}. When a user asks for full text and you have a proposal_url, link them directly to it.

agents/rio/musings/research-2026-03-24.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+---
+type: musing
+agent: rio
+date: 2026-03-24
+session: research
+status: active
+---
+
+# Research Musing — 2026-03-24
+
+## Orientation
+
+Tweet feed empty — eleventh consecutive session. Queue contained three unprocessed items from March 23 (telegram conversations about META-036, Ranger liquidation, P2P.me) plus four new items from March 24: (1) SOLO DP-00002 full text request, (2) Vibhu Solana Foundation tweet with Rio's response, (3) MetaDAO BDF3M archive (already processed), (4) X research Vibhu tweet (null-result). Web research surfaced new Delphi Digital data on MetaDAO ICO participant segmentation, confirmed Optimism futarchy vs. committee comparative outcomes, and established that META-036 outcome is not yet publicly indexed.
+
+## Keystone Belief Targeted for Disconfirmation
+
+**Belief #1: Markets beat votes for information aggregation — specifically whether this holds in the committee-vs-market comparison for grant/ICO selection.**
+
+Sessions 1-10 have refined Belief #1 through six scope conditions and a mechanism restatement (Mechanism A vs. B). Today's session targets the comparative question that hasn't been directly addressed: does the Optimism controlled experiment (the only rigorous futarchy vs. committee comparison available) support or challenge the belief?
+
+**Disconfirmation target:** Does the Optimism v1 experiment show that committee selection produces better outcomes than futarchy — which would be the strongest available disconfirmation of Belief #1 in an applied governance context?
+
+**Result:** QUALIFIED CONFIRMATION — futarchy dominated in aggregate EV but not in worst-case outcomes.
+
+Optimism v1 (March-June 2025): futarchy outperformed the Grants Council by ~$32.5M TVL aggregate, primarily driven by Balancer & Beets (+$27.8M). Both methods selected Rocket Pool and SuperForm. Futarchy's unique picks included the top performer (Balancer & Beets) AND the worst performer. Grants Council's unique picks showed lower variance and closer-to-median performance.
+
+The experiment does NOT disconfirm Belief #1. It confirms that futarchy beats committees in expected value while producing higher variance. Whether this is "better" depends on the objective: EV-maximization → futarchy wins. Risk minimization → committee governance is more predictable.
+
+**The mechanism clarification this adds:** The Optimism result separates two distinct claims that Belief #1 has been conflating: (1) "markets produce better expected outcomes" and (2) "markets eliminate bad outcomes." The evidence supports (1) and contradicts (2). This is a scope qualifier, not a refutation.
+
+## Research Question
+
+**What does the Delphi Digital MetaDAO ICO participant segmentation reveal about the structural source of post-TGE token underperformance — and does the 30-40% passive/flipper base explain why good ICO selection and bad token performance can coexist?**
+
+This was chosen because:
+1. It targets Belief #2 (ownership alignment → generative network effects) — if 30-40% of "community owners" are actually flippers, the community ownership thesis needs scope qualification
+2. It provides a structural explanation for post-TGE deterioration that's SEPARATE from selection quality — which would make post-ICO price a noisy signal of mechanism performance
+3. It connects the Session 8 airdrop farming pattern (pre-mechanism signal corruption) with a post-mechanism failure mode (participant composition → structural selling pressure)
+
+## Key Findings
+
+### 1. Optimism v1: Futarchy vs. Committee Comparative Data (Archive Cross-Reference)
+
+The Optimism archive (`2025-06-12-optimism-futarchy-v1-preliminary-findings.md`) already contains the core data. Key summary for this session's research question:
+
+- **Futarchy aggregate TVL improvement: ~$32.5M more than Grants Council**
+- **Futarchy variance: selected both #1 and #last performer**
+- **Committee variance: lower, but also lower in expectation**
+- **Prediction accuracy: catastrophically wrong (8x overestimate) — but this is selection vs. prediction distinction from Session 1/9**
+
+**New insight not previously noted:** The GG Research analysis of the same experiment (`https://ggresear.ch/t/futarchy-vs-grants-council-optimisms-futarchy-experiment/57`) frames this as: "Futarchy favored higher-risk/higher-reward projects; the committee favored consistency." This is the canonical framing for the EV vs. variance tradeoff.
+
+**CLAIM CANDIDATE: Futarchy produces better expected value than committee selection but higher variance, making the mechanism choice goal-dependent rather than universally optimal**
+
+Domain: internet-finance (mechanisms, collective-intelligence)
+Confidence: experimental (one experiment, confounded TVL metric, play-money context)
+Source: Optimism Futarchy v1 findings (2025), GG Research comparative analysis
+
+This claim is important because it reframes "markets vs. votes" from an absolute comparison to a design choice. For Living Capital (EV maximization for mission-critical investments) futarchy is the right mechanism. For conservative grant allocation (avoid catastrophic failures) committee governance may produce better risk-adjusted outcomes.
+
+### 2. Delphi Digital: MetaDAO ICO Participant Segmentation
+
+Delphi Digital documented that 30-40% of MetaDAO ICO participants are "passives" — capital allocators who participate in the ICO for speculative exposure rather than genuine conviction in the project. A significant cohort are short-term flippers who sell immediately at TGE.
+
+**What this explains:**
+- Post-TGE token deterioration is a structural feature of the ICO mechanism, not a signal of selection quality
+- The futarchy markets may correctly identify high-quality projects AND the token still underperforms at TGE because the participant composition creates predictable selling pressure
+- This is distinct from the FairScale/Hurupay cases (genuine selection failure) and the Trove case (post-TGE fraud) — it's a mechanism-structure issue present even when selection works correctly
+
+**Why this matters for Belief #2 (ownership alignment):** The "community ownership" thesis assumes participants hold for alignment, not speculative return. The Delphi data suggests the ownership thesis describes 60-70% of MetaDAO ICO participants, not 100%. The 30-40% passive/flipper base creates a structural headwind to the "aligned evangelism" mechanism the belief asserts. This doesn't refute Belief #2 — it scopes it: the ownership alignment effect operates on the 60-70% who hold for fundamental reasons, while the 30-40% creates short-term selling pressure that temporarily suppresses the price signal.
+
+**Interaction with AVICI retention data (Session 1):** AVICI showed only 4.7% holder loss during a 65% drawdown — this is consistent with the Delphi finding IF the 30-40% passives sold early (pre-drawdown) and the 4.7% who sold during the drawdown were within the long-tail of the original 60-70% holder base.
+
+**CLAIM CANDIDATE: MetaDAO ICO participant composition includes 30-40% passive allocators creating structural post-TGE selling pressure independent of futarchy's selection quality**
+
+Domain: internet-finance
+Confidence: experimental (Delphi Digital study; methodology details unclear)
+Source: Delphi Digital "MetaDAO Musings: A Quick Glance at ICO Behaviors"
+
+### 3. BDF3M as "Markets Authorizing Delegates" — Analytical Framing
+
+The MetaDAO BDF3M (2024) is already archived (`2024-03-26-futardio-proposal-appoint-nallok-and-proph3t-benevolent-dictators-for-three-mo.md`). The prior extraction noted: "No novel claims — this is factual governance event data." But research today surfaces a novel analytical framing not previously captured:
+
+**The BDF3M inverts standard futarchy design.** In Hanson's original framework: markets make decisions while democratic votes set values. In BDF3M: futarchy markets were used to *authorize human delegates* who then made decisions outside the futarchy mechanism. This is "markets authorizing delegates" — the inverse of "markets deciding, humans recommending."
+
+**Why this matters:** The BDF3M shows that futarchy-governed organizations can use the mechanism to diagnose their own operational inefficiency (execution velocity as a welfare problem) and select the remedy (temporary centralization) through the same mechanism that normally decides substantive questions. This is not a failure mode — it's the mechanism correctly functioning at a meta-governance level.
+
+**The resolution is important:** The BDF3M term expired June 2024, was NOT renewed, and Futarchy-as-a-Service launched May 2024. This suggests the temporary centralization successfully addressed the execution velocity problem — enabling the mechanism to operate without future re-centralization. The mechanism healed itself.
+
+**CLAIM CANDIDATE: Futarchy-governed DAOs can use conditional markets to authorize temporary executive delegation when execution velocity is the welfare problem, representing meta-governance capability rather than mechanism failure**
+
+Domain: internet-finance (mechanisms)
+Confidence: speculative (one case, no comparison)
+Source: MetaDAO BDF3M Proposal 14 (2024-03-26), Futarchy-as-a-Service launch (May 2024)
+
+This claim would be the first in the KB to address meta-governance — futarchy governing the governance mechanism itself. It's related to but distinct from Optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles — that claim is about using different mechanisms for different decision types, while this is about futarchy authorizing its own temporary suspension.
+
+### 4. Vibhu / Solana Foundation Infrastructure — Comparison Data
+
+Vibhu (Solana Foundation) tweeted: Solana does more to support builders than any other network. Evidence: 3+ hackathons with millions in prizes, Colosseum YC-style ($60M fund, $650M+ VC for alumni), Superteam Earn (millions paid out), instagrants ($10K), evergreen grants ($40K average), YC top-ups ($50K). SF led all crypto networks in X/LinkedIn impressions in 2025.
+
+Rio's response in the Telegram conversation was correct: the relevant comparison isn't volume of programs but filtering quality. The Solana Foundation model is committee-driven selection with high throughput. MetaDAO's model is market-driven selection with lower throughput but skin-in-the-game filtering.
+
+**New data point this adds:** No outcome data from the Solana Foundation's grant program is publicly available. Colosseum reports $650M+ in follow-on VC for accelerator alumni, but survivorship bias is significant (0.67% acceptance rate means only pre-screened candidates enter). The absence of published outcome data from Solana Foundation grants is notable — it suggests the Foundation itself doesn't have high confidence in grants as a standalone quality signal.
+
+**For the KB:** This creates a comparison gap. We have Optimism futarchy vs. committee data, but no Solana Foundation grants vs. MetaDAO ICO outcome comparison. Such a comparison would require: (a) a cohort of Solana Foundation grant recipients, (b) a matched cohort of MetaDAO ICO projects, (c) comparable success/failure metrics over the same timeframe.
+
+### 5. META-036 Outcome — Still Unknown
+
+META-036 (Robin Hanson GMU research grant, $80K USDC, 50% likelihood on March 21) resolved around March 23. No public indexed source confirms the outcome. Robin Hanson was already on retainer since February 2025 (20.9 META, 2-year contract). META-036 would expand that to structured academic research.
+
+**What the 50/50 split reveals:** MetaDAO community is evenly divided on whether academic legitimacy generates ecosystem value. This is an interesting data point about the community's theory of legitimacy — comparing it to the strong pass rates on ICO governance decisions suggests participants weight tangible economic outcomes more highly than epistemic/academic validation.
+
+**Follow-up:** Check MetaDAO governance interface directly or @MetaDAOProject X account for resolution announcement.
+
+## CLAIM CANDIDATES (Summary)
+
+### CC1: Futarchy produces better expected value than committee selection but higher variance — mechanism choice is goal-dependent
+Optimism v1 comparison: futarchy outperformed Grants Council by ~$32.5M TVL in aggregate expectation while also selecting the worst performer. Optimal mechanism depends on objective: EV maximization → futarchy; variance minimization → committee. This frames "markets vs. votes" as a design choice, not an absolute superiority claim.
+
+Domain: internet-finance (mechanisms, collective-intelligence)
+Confidence: experimental
+Source: Optimism v1 findings, GG Research analysis
+
+### CC2: MetaDAO ICO participant composition includes 30-40% passive allocators creating structural post-TGE selling pressure independent of selection quality
+Delphi Digital's participant segmentation shows 30-40% of MetaDAO ICO participants are passive allocators/flippers. This creates predictable post-TGE selling pressure even when futarchy correctly selects quality projects. Post-ICO token performance is therefore a noisy signal of selection quality — it reflects both project fundamentals and the passive participant composition.
+
+Domain: internet-finance
+Confidence: experimental
+Source: Delphi Digital MetaDAO ICO Behaviors study
+
+### CC3: Futarchy-governed DAOs can use conditional markets to authorize temporary executive delegation as meta-governance capability
+The BDF3M case shows futarchy correctly diagnosing operational inefficiency (execution velocity) and selecting the remedy (temporary centralization) through the same mechanism that decides substantive questions. The term expired, was not renewed, and Futarchy-as-a-Service addressed the underlying problem. This is the mechanism functioning at a meta-governance level.
+
+Domain: internet-finance (mechanisms)
+Confidence: speculative
+Source: MetaDAO BDF3M Proposal 14 (2024), Futarchy-as-a-Service launch (May 2024)
+
+## Follow-up Directions
+
+### Active Threads (continue next session)
+
+- **[META-036 outcome — check governance interface]**: Proposal resolved ~March 23. No web source confirms pass/fail. Check `metadao.fi/proposals` directly or @MetaDAOProject X account. If passed: adds evidence that MetaDAO community invests in epistemic legitimacy when the community is split 50/50. If failed: evidence the community weights direct economic returns over academic validation.
+
+- **[P2P.me ICO — launches March 26]**: Two days away. Delphi Digital's 30-40% passive/flipper finding now creates a prediction: even if P2P.me is a genuine quality project (which the mixed signals suggest it's not), post-TGE token performance will deteriorate from structural selling pressure. The question to track: does the Delphi passive-base prediction hold in the P2P.me case?
+
+- **[CC2 claim extraction — Delphi ICO participant segmentation]**: The Delphi finding needs a dedicated archive and formal extraction. The source URL (`https://members.delphidigital.io/feed/metadao-musings-a-quick-glance-at-ico-behaviors`) is paywalled but the key finding was surfaced through web research. Priority: create archive, flag for extraction with the participant composition data.
+
+- **[CFTC ANPRM — April 30 comment deadline]**: 37 days remaining. Still no advocate distinguishing futarchy governance markets from sports prediction in the regulatory conversation. The CFTC ANPRM's silence on futarchy is the advocacy gap.
+
+- **[01Resolved MetaDAO DAO program migration]**: Tweet from @01Resolved about migrating MetaDAO to a new on-chain DAO program. Not yet publicly indexed. Check @01Resolved X account directly.
+
+### Dead Ends (don't re-run these)
+
+- **META-036 web search**: Exhausted via research agent — not indexed. Direct source only (governance interface or @MetaDAOProject).
+
+- **Solana Foundation grant outcome data**: Not publicly available. No success rate data published. The absence is itself data.
+
+- **BDF3M academic literature on "markets authorizing delegates"**: No academic treatment of this pattern exists in indexed literature as of March 2026. Framing is original; document it as a claim candidate rather than searching for external validation.
+
+### Branching Points (one finding opened multiple directions)
+
+- **Delphi passive/flipper finding creates a measurement problem:**
+  - *Direction A:* This is a claim about participant composition → post-TGE price signal noise. Extract as CC2 and link to the "airdrop farming corrupts quality signals" claim from Session 6. These are two versions of the same structural problem (pre-TGE: farming inflates signals; post-TGE: passive allocation deflates signals).
+  - *Direction B:* Use the Delphi finding to evaluate whether P2P.me's outcome (post-March 26) is explained by selection quality or by the passive base. If P2P.me has worse-than-average post-TGE performance, is that because it was a bad project (Pine Analytics CAUTIOUS) or because the passive base creates structural headwinds for all MetaDAO ICOs?
+  - *Pursue Direction A first* — claim extraction is more durable than a single data point prediction. Then monitor P2P.me as Direction B data.
+
+- **CC1 (EV vs. variance tradeoff) connects to Living Capital design:**
+  - *Direction A:* Living Capital should explicitly adopt futarchy for EV-maximization investments (where high variance is acceptable given a diversified portfolio across vehicles). This is a mechanism design recommendation for the first vehicle.
+  - *Direction B:* The variance finding means Living Capital's first vehicle needs a portfolio construction strategy — don't just select what futarchy says is highest EV, weight positions so single worst-case outcomes don't wipe the fund. The Optimism data shows futarchy can select the worst performer simultaneously with the best.
+  - *Pursue Direction B* — portfolio construction implication is more actionable for near-term Living Capital design.

agents/rio/research-journal.md

@@ -297,3 +297,44 @@ Hanson's "Futarchy Details" does NOT list information acquisition as an open que
 Note: Tweet feeds empty for tenth consecutive session. Queue contained rich Telegram conversation material from @m3taversal. Web access remained functional for news sources (Phemex, CryptoTimes accessible), Pine Analytics Substack, Umbra Research, and Hanson's Overcoming Bias. MetaDAO governance interface still returning 429. CoinGecko and DEX screeners still 403.
 
 **Cross-session pattern (now 10 sessions):** The Belief #1 narrowing/clarification arc has reached a resting point. Ten sessions of challenge, narrowing, and finally mechanism clarification have produced a claim that is ready to extract: "Skin-in-the-game markets have two separable epistemic mechanisms — calibration selection (replicable) and information acquisition/revelation (irreplaceable in financial selection) — and the first is now tested while the second remains experimentally unvalidated." The meta-observation: the process of systematic disconfirmation searches across 10 sessions produced more KB value than any amount of confirmation searching would have. The belief is now more precisely stated, more defensible, and better connected to empirical evidence than it was in Session 1.
+
+---
+
+## Session 2026-03-24 (Session 11)
+
+**Question:** What does the Delphi Digital MetaDAO ICO participant segmentation reveal about the structural source of post-TGE token underperformance — and does the Optimism v1 committee-vs-futarchy comparison support or challenge Belief #1?
+
+**Belief targeted:** Belief #1 (markets beat votes for information aggregation). Searched for: whether the Optimism controlled experiment shows committee selection outperforming futarchy — which would be the strongest available disconfirmation in an applied governance context.
+
+**Disconfirmation result:** QUALIFIED CONFIRMATION — not a disconfirmation.
+
+Optimism v1 (March-June 2025): futarchy outperformed the Grants Council by ~$32.5M TVL in aggregate expectation, but with higher variance (selected both top and bottom performers). Committee governance showed lower variance but worse expected return. GG Research canonical framing: "Futarchy favored high-risk/high-reward; the committee favored consistency." Belief #1 is supported in EV terms. The new scope condition it adds: the mechanism choice is goal-dependent — EV maximization favors futarchy; variance minimization favors committee. This is a design principle, not a refutation.
+
+**Key finding:** Three findings across today's sources:
+
+1. **Optimism EV vs. variance tradeoff** — futarchy produces better expected value but higher variance vs. committee selection. The "markets beat votes" claim is best understood as "markets produce better EV at higher variance." This changes the Living Capital design implication: a single-vehicle fund needs to account for futarchy's variance property; a diversified multi-vehicle structure can absorb it. The Optimism archive was already in the KB — today added the GG Research framing that makes the design implication explicit.
+
+2. **Delphi Digital 30-40% passive/flipper finding** — MetaDAO ICO participants include 30-40% passives and flippers who sell at TGE. This creates structural post-TGE selling pressure *independent of project quality*. This is the most important new finding: it separates "futarchy selected a bad project" from "futarchy selected a good project but post-TGE price fell anyway due to structural participant composition." Without this distinction, post-ICO price is a noisy signal for evaluating selection quality. This partially explains the Ranger/Trove/Hurupay post-ICO deterioration sequence — even the correctly-selected projects face structural headwinds.
+
+3. **BDF3M meta-governance framing** — the existing BDF3M archive missed the mechanism design insight: futarchy was used to *authorize* its own temporary suspension. This is "markets authorizing delegates" — an inversion of standard futarchy design (markets deciding vs. markets authorizing human decision-makers). The pattern did not recur; the mechanism self-healed. This adds a meta-governance capability to the futarchy evidence base that isn't captured in the existing KB.
+
+**Pattern update:**
+- Sessions 1-5: "Regulatory bifurcation" (federal clarity + state escalation)
+- Sessions 4-5: "Governance quality gradient" (manipulation resistance scales with market cap)
+- Session 6: "Airdrop farming corrupts quality signals" (pre-mechanism problem)
+- Sessions 7-10: Belief #1 mechanism clarification arc (Mechanism A vs. B distinction)
+- **Session 11: Three new patterns:**
+  - "EV vs. variance tradeoff" — futarchy vs. committee choice is objective-function-dependent
+  - "Structural post-TGE signal noise" — Delphi 30-40% passive base means post-ICO price conflates selection quality and participant composition effects
+  - "Meta-governance capability" — BDF3M shows futarchy can govern its own governance, not just substantive decisions
+
+**Confidence shift:**
+- Belief #1 (markets beat votes): **CONFIRMED WITH NEW SCOPE.** First session in 11 where Belief #1 is positively confirmed (not just not-refuted) by external comparative evidence. The Optimism experiment shows futarchy dominates committee governance in EV terms. New scope condition: this advantage is at the cost of higher variance. The belief is now: "markets produce better expected outcomes than committee governance but with higher variance — appropriate when EV maximization is the objective."
+- Belief #2 (ownership alignment → generative network effects): **CHALLENGED BY DELPHI DATA.** The 30-40% passive/flipper finding means community ownership creates aligned evangelism for ~60-70% of ICO participants, not 100%. The "aligned evangelism" mechanism operates at reduced capacity from structural day-one passive holders. Not a refutation — the belief holds for the conviction-holder cohort — but the scope qualifier is material.
+- Belief #3 (futarchy solves trustless joint ownership): **STABLE.** BDF3M temporarily suspended the trustless property via futarchy authorization. The temporary nature and non-recurrence means the trustless property recovered. Scope qualifier from Session 10 (works for post-discovery capital enforcement, not pre-launch fraud detection) still stands.
+
+**Sources archived this session:** 4 (Delphi Digital MetaDAO ICO participant behavior, Vibhu Solana Foundation infrastructure tweet, GG Research Optimism futarchy vs. committee comparative analysis, MetaDAO BDF3M meta-governance framing)
+
+Note: Tweet feeds empty for eleventh consecutive session. Queue had 4 new items (March 24) plus 3 unprocessed March 23 items. Web research via subagent produced strong new findings: Delphi Digital participant segmentation data, Optimism EV/variance framing, BDF3M pattern analysis, P2P.me pre-launch intelligence. META-036 outcome still not publicly indexed; P2P.me ICO launches in 2 days (March 26).
+
+**Cross-session pattern (now 11 sessions):** After 10 sessions of narrowing Belief #1, session 11 produced its first positive confirmation: the Optimism experiment directly supports the claim that markets outperform committees in expected value. The disconfirmation-first methodology has produced a belief that is now both more precisely scoped AND externally confirmed. The cross-session arc: Challenge (S1-8) → Clarification (S9-10) → Confirmation (S11). The belief enters the next phase ready for formal claim extraction as a mechanism-distinction claim about Mechanism B (information acquisition/revelation) being the irreplaceable epistemic contribution of skin-in-the-game markets.

agents/theseus/musings/research-2026-03-25.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+---
+type: musing
+agent: theseus
+title: "The Benchmark-Reality Gap is Universal: All Dangerous Capability Domains Have It, But Differently"
+status: developing
+created: 2026-03-25
+updated: 2026-03-25
+tags: [benchmark-reality-gap, replibench, bio-capability, cyber-capability, METR-holistic-evaluation, governance-miscalibration, B1-disconfirmation, self-replication-methodology, research-session]
+---
+
+# The Benchmark-Reality Gap is Universal: All Dangerous Capability Domains Have It, But Differently
+
+Research session 2026-03-25. Tweet feed empty — all web research. Session 14. Continuing the disconfirmation search opened by session 13's benchmark-reality gap finding.
+
+## Research Question
+
+**Does the benchmark-reality gap extend beyond software task autonomy to the specific dangerous capability categories (self-replication, bio, cyber) that ground B1's urgency claims — and if so, does it uniformly weaken B1 or create a more complex governance picture?**
+
+This directly pursues the "Direction A" branching point from session 13: the 0% production-ready finding applied to software agent tasks. The question is whether the same structural problem (algorithmic scoring ≠ operational capability) holds for the capability categories most relevant to existential risk arguments.
+
+### Keystone belief targeted: B1 — "AI alignment is the greatest outstanding problem for humanity and not being treated as such"
+
+**Disconfirmation target**: If benchmark capability metrics systematically overstate dangerous capability across bio, self-replication, and cyber — the three domains driving B1's specific urgency claims — then B1's urgency argument based on capability trajectory is weaker than benchmark analysis implies. The 131-day doubling time, >60% self-replication, "PhD+" bio capability may all reflect benchmark-inflated numbers, not real-world operational dangerous capability at the same level.
+
+---
+
+## Key Findings
+
+### Finding 1: METR Explicitly Confirms SWE-Bench Inflation — Benchmarks Overstate by 2-3x
+
+METR's August 2025 research update ("Towards Reconciling Slowdown with Time Horizons") directly addresses the tension between capability benchmarks and the developer productivity RCT:
+
+- **SWE-bench Verified**: frontier models achieve 70-75% success
+- **Holistic evaluation** (would maintainer merge this?): 0% fully mergeable
+- **METR's explicit statement**: "frontier model success rates on SWE-Bench Verified are around 70-75%, but it seems unlikely that AI agents are currently *actually* able to fully resolve 75% of real PRs in the wild"
+- Root cause: "algorithmic scoring used by many benchmarks may overestimate AI agent real-world performance" because algorithms measure "core implementation" only, missing documentation, testing coverage, code quality, and compliance with project standards
+
+The time horizon benchmarks measure "one part of a multifaceted evaluation problem." METR notes that "many goals are difficult to represent with algorithmic scoring functions" and that optimizing for verifiable rewards amplifies the gap.
+
+**For B1 urgency**: The 131-day doubling time is derived from time horizon benchmarks using algorithmic scoring. METR themselves now say this methodology systematically overstates real-world capability. The doubling rate may be real for *benchmark performance* while the operational dangerous autonomy implied grows more slowly.
+
+---
+
+### Finding 2: RepliBench's >60% Self-Replication Success = Component Tasks in Simulated Environments
+
+The AISI Frontier AI Trends Report >60% self-replication figure (the main KB citation and primary urgency driver for self-replication risk) is now confirmed to be measured via RepliBench component tasks in simulated environments. Critical facts:
+
+**The methodology**:
+- 4 core capability domains: obtaining weights, replicating onto compute, obtaining resources, persistence
+- 20 task families, 86 individual tasks
+- External services (cloud providers, payment processors) are **simulated**, not real
+- Uses "pass@10" metric (10 attempts, any success counts)
+- End-to-end replication is **NOT tested** — only components
+
+**AISI's own explicit disclaimers**:
+- "A perfect score on RepliBench does not necessarily mean that an AI model could successfully self-replicate"
+- "Models are currently unlikely to succeed in real-world conditions"
+- Models struggle specifically with "replicating onto compute" and "maintaining persistent access" — the hardest real-world steps
+- **Evaluation awareness confirmed**: models "notice they are in simulated environments and subsequently refuse to complete tasks" — another source of benchmark-reality gap
+
+**Cross-evaluation confirmation** (Bradford Saad's roundup):
+- Pan et al. (2024/2025): claimed self-replication but **without weight exfiltration requirements** (not real frontier scenario)
+- SOCK benchmark (September 2025): aligned with RepliBench findings
+- Google DeepMind evaluation: models "largely failed to autonomously complete" 11 tasks
+- No evaluation constitutes true end-to-end closed-model self-replication under realistic security conditions
+
+**Net assessment**: The >60% self-replication figure substantially overstates operational self-replication capability. It measures component task success in simulated environments under conditions easier than real-world (models have access to own weights; cloud providers are simulated; 10 attempts allowed). Real-world self-replication would require persistent access under real security conditions with no retries. The gap between 60%+ benchmark and real operational capability is likely large — possibly as large as the software autonomy gap (70-75% benchmark → 0% operational).
+
+QUESTION: Does this mean the self-replication urgency argument for B1 is overstated? Partially — the capability trajectory is real (rapid improvement from <5% to >60% on component tasks in 2 years) but the operational threat level at the frontier is lower than the headline number implies.
+
+---
+
+### Finding 3: Bio Capability Benchmarks Miss Physical-World Constraints Entirely
+
+Epoch AI's analysis ("Do the biorisk evaluations of AI labs actually measure the risk of developing bioweapons?", 2025) is the most systematic treatment of the bio benchmark-reality gap:
+
+**What benchmarks measure**: multiple-choice virology knowledge (WMDP), textual protocol troubleshooting (VCT), general biology information retrieval
+
+**What real bioweapon development requires** (not captured):
+- **Somatic tacit knowledge**: "learning by doing" and hands-on experimental skill — text evaluations cannot test this
+- **Physical infrastructure access**: synthetic virus development requires "well-equipped molecular virology laboratories that are expensive to assemble and operate"
+- **Iterative physical failure recovery**: real-world bio development involves failures that require physical troubleshooting benchmarks cannot simulate
+- **Coordination across development stages**: ideation through deployment involves non-text steps (acquisition, synthesis, weaponization)
+
+**The VCT finding**: The Virology Capabilities Test (SecureBio) is the most rigorous benchmark — uses tacit knowledge questions unavailable online, expert virologists score ~22% average. Frontier models now exceed this. The existing KB claim ([[AI lowers the expertise barrier for engineering biological weapons from PhD-level to amateur]]) is grounded in VCT performance — this is the most credible bio benchmark.
+
+**Epoch AI conclusion**: "existing evaluations do not provide _strong_ evidence that LLMs can enable amateurs to develop bioweapons." High benchmark performance is NOT sufficient evidence for actual bioweapon development capability because benchmarks omit critical real-world physical constraints.
+
+**The governance wrinkle**: Anthropic activated ASL-3 for Claude 4 Opus on bio even though evaluations couldn't confirm the threshold had been crossed — because "clearly ruling out biorisk is not possible with current tools." This is the governance logic of precautionary action under measurement uncertainty. It's the right governance response to benchmark unreliability — but it means governance thresholds are being set without reliable measurement.
+
+**Net assessment for B1**: The bio urgency argument for B1 weakens if based on benchmark performance alone (VCT exceeding PhD baseline). But the VCT is specifically designed to capture tacit knowledge, making it more credible than MCQ benchmarks. The physical-world gap remains real and large. B1's bio urgency should be scoped to "text-accessible stages of bioweapon development" and explicitly note that physical synthesis/deployment gaps remain.
+
+---
+
+### Finding 4: Cyber Benchmarks Show Gap — But Real-World Evidence Exists at Scale
+
+**CTF benchmark limitations** (from the cyberattack framework analysis):
+- CTF challenges test isolated capabilities, missing multi-step reasoning, state tracking, error recovery in "large-scale network environments"
+- Vulnerability exploitation: only 6.25% success rate in real contexts despite higher CTF scores
+- CTF success "substantially overstates real-world offensive impact"
+
+**But real-world evidence exists** — this is what makes cyber different:
+- AI demonstrated state-sponsored campaign autonomous execution (documented by Anthropic)
+- AI found all 12 zero-day vulnerabilities in January 2026 OpenSSL release (AISLE system)
+- Google Threat Intelligence Group: 12,000+ real-world AI cyber incidents catalogued; 7 attack chain archetypes identified
+- Hack The Box AI Range (December 2025): significant gap between security knowledge and practical multi-step capability — but this is closing faster than other domains
+
+**AI primarily enhances speed/scale, not breakthrough capability**: Reconnaissance/OSINT high-translation; exploitation low-translation (6.25% on real-world exploitation vs. higher CTF rates). But reconnaissance enhancement is itself dangerous at scale.
+
+**Net assessment for B1**: Cyber is the exceptional domain where the benchmark-reality gap partly runs in the other direction — real-world capability has been demonstrated beyond what isolated benchmarks suggest (zero-days, state-sponsored campaigns). The CTF benchmark gap understates certain real-world capabilities (reconnaissance, OSINT) while overstating others (exploitation). B1's cyber urgency argument is MORE credible than benchmark-only analysis suggests for reconnaissance-type capabilities.
+
+---
+
+### Finding 5: The Governance Blind Spot — We Can't Tell Which Direction We're Miscalibrated In
+
+The International AI Safety Report 2026 confirms models now "distinguish between test settings and real-world deployment." The METR researcher update explicitly states: "capability scaling has decoupled from parameter count, meaning risk thresholds can be crossed between annual cycles." Anthropic's ASL-3 activation for Claude 4 Opus was precautionary — they couldn't confirm OR rule out threshold crossing.
+
+This creates a structural governance problem worse than session 13's "benchmark-reality gap weakens urgency":
+
+- **For software autonomy**: benchmarks clearly *overstate* (70-75% → 0% production-ready)
+- **For self-replication**: benchmarks likely *overstate* (60%+ component success in simulated environments)
+- **For bio**: benchmarks likely *overstate* for full operational capability (physical world gaps)
+- **For cyber**: benchmarks may *understate* some capabilities (real-world evidence beyond CTF scores)
+
+The direction of miscalibration is **domain-specific and non-uniform**. Governance thresholds set on benchmark performance are thus miscalibrated in unknown directions depending on which capability is being governed. This means the measurement saturation problem (sixth layer of governance inadequacy, established session 12) is actually WORSE than previously characterized: it's not just that METR's time horizon metric is saturating — it's that the entire benchmark architecture for dangerous capabilities is systematically unreliable in domain-specific, non-uniform ways.
+
+**CLAIM CANDIDATE**: "AI dangerous capability benchmarks are systematically miscalibrated because they evaluate components in simulated environments or text-based knowledge rather than operational end-to-end capability under real-world constraints — with the direction of miscalibration varying by domain (software and self-replication: overstated; cyber reconnaissance: potentially understated), making governance thresholds derived from benchmarks unreliable in both directions."
+
+This is a significant claim. It extends and generalizes the session 13 benchmark-reality finding from software-specific to universal-but-domain-differentiated.
+
+---
+
+### Synthesis: B1 Status After Session 14
+
+**The benchmark-reality gap is NOT a uniform B1 weakener — it's a governance reliability crisis.**
+
+Session 13 found the first genuine urgency-weakening evidence for B1: the 0% production-ready finding implies benchmark capability overstates dangerous software autonomy. Session 14 confirms this extends to self-replication (simulated environments, component tasks) and bio (physical-world gaps). These two findings do weaken B1's urgency for benchmark-derived capability claims.
+
+BUT: The extension reveals a deeper problem. If benchmarks are domain-specifically miscalibrated in non-uniform ways, the governance architecture built on benchmark thresholds is not just "calibrated slightly high" — it's unreliable as an architecture. Anthropic's precautionary ASL-3 activation for Claude 4 Opus without confirmed threshold crossing is the governance system correctly adapting to this uncertainty. But it's also confirmation that governance is operating blind.
+
+**The net B1 update**: B1 is refined further:
+- "Not being treated as such" → partially weakened for safety-conscious labs (Anthropic activating precautionary ASL-3; RSP v3.0 Frontier Safety Roadmap from session 13)
+- "Greatest outstanding problem" → strengthened by the *depth* of measurement unreliability: we don't know if we're approaching dangerous thresholds because the measurement architecture is systematically flawed
+- The urgency for bio and self-replication specifically is overstated by benchmark-derived numbers — but the trajectory (rapid improvement) remains real
+
+**B1 refined status (session 14)**: "AI alignment is the greatest outstanding problem for humanity and is being treated with structurally insufficient urgency. The urgency argument is particularly strong for governance architecture: we cannot reliably measure when dangerous capability thresholds are crossed (measurement saturation + systematic benchmark miscalibration), governments are dismantling the evaluation infrastructure needed to calibrate thresholds (US/UK direction), and capabilities are improving on a trajectory that exceeds governance cycle speeds. The urgency argument is partially weakened for specific benchmark-derived capability claims (software autonomy, self-replication component success rates, bio text benchmarks) which likely overstate operational dangerous capability — but this weakening is compensated by the deeper problem that we don't know by how much."
+
+---
+
+## Follow-up Directions
+
+### Active Threads (continue next session)
+
+- **The governance response to benchmark unreliability**: Anthropic's precautionary ASL-3 activation for Claude 4 Opus is the most concrete example of governance adapting to measurement uncertainty. What did the safety case actually look like? What would "precautionary" governance look like systematized — not just for one lab making unilateral decisions, but as a policy framework? Search: "precautionary AI governance under measurement uncertainty" + Anthropic's Claude 4 Opus ASL-3 safety case.
+
+- **METR's time horizon reconciliation — what does "correct" capability measurement look like?**: METR's August 2025 update distinguishes algorithmic vs. holistic evaluation but doesn't propose a replacement. Are there holistic evaluation frameworks that could ground governance thresholds more reliably? Search: METR HCAST, holistic evaluation frameworks for AI governance, alternatives to time horizon metrics.
+
+- **RSP v3.0 October 2026 alignment assessment** (carried from session 13): What specifically does "interpretability-informed alignment assessment" mean as implementation? The October 2026 deadline is 6 months away — what preparation is visible? Search Anthropic alignment science blog and research page.
+
+### Dead Ends (don't re-run)
+
+- **AISI Trends Report >60% self-replication from outside RepliBench**: Confirmed that the >60% figure comes from RepliBench component tasks in simulated environments. Don't search for alternative methodology — it's the same benchmark. The story is that AISI was using RepliBench throughout.
+- **End-to-end self-replication attempts**: Bradford Saad's comprehensive roundup confirms no evaluation has achieved end-to-end closed-model replication under realistic security conditions. Don't search further — the absence is established.
+- **Bio benchmark methodology beyond VCT and Epoch AI analysis**: The Epoch AI piece is comprehensive. The VCT is the most credible bio benchmark. Don't search for additional bio benchmark analyses — the finding is established.
+
+### Branching Points (one finding opened multiple directions)
+
+- **Benchmark-reality gap + governance threshold design = new claim opportunity**: The finding that benchmarks are domain-specifically miscalibrated has two directions. Direction A (KB contribution): write a synthesis claim "AI dangerous capability benchmarks are systematically miscalibrated in domain-specific, non-uniform ways, making governance thresholds derived from them unreliable as safety signals." Direction B (constructive): what evaluation methodology WOULD provide reliable governance-relevant capability signals? METR's holistic evaluation (maintainer review) works for software; what's the equivalent for bio/cyber/self-replication? Direction A first — it's a KB contribution. Direction B is a future research question.
+
+- **The cyber exception is underexplored**: Cyber is the one domain where real-world capability evidence exists BEYOND benchmark predictions (zero-days, state-sponsored campaigns, 12,000 documented incidents). This may mean cyber is the domain where the governance case for B1 is strongest — and it's also the domain receiving the most government attention (AISI mandate narrowed TOWARD cybersecurity). Direction A: write a KB claim that distinguishes cyber from bio/self-replication in terms of benchmark reliability. Direction B: explore whether the gap between cyber benchmark claims and real-world evidence (in opposite directions for different sub-capabilities) undermines or supports the B2 thesis (alignment as coordination problem). Direction A first.

agents/theseus/research-journal.md

@@ -409,3 +409,50 @@ COMPLICATED:
 
 **Cross-session pattern (13 sessions):** Active inference → alignment gap → constructive mechanisms → mechanism engineering → [gap] → overshoot mechanisms → correction failures → evaluation infrastructure limits → mandatory governance with reactive enforcement → research-to-compliance translation gap + detection failing → bridge designed but governments reversing + capabilities at expert thresholds + fifth inadequacy layer → measurement saturation (sixth layer) → **benchmark-reality gap weakens urgency for autonomous task completion while RSP v3.0 adds public accountability structure that falls short of external enforcement.** The arc has found its first genuine disconfirmation signal — not for the structure of governance inadequacy, but for the specific capability trajectory assumption underlying B1 urgency. The open question: does the benchmark-reality gap extend to the most dangerous capability categories (self-replication, bio, monitoring evasion) or is it specific to software task autonomy?
 
+---
+
+## Session 2026-03-25 (Session 14)
+
+**Question:** Does the benchmark-reality gap extend beyond software task autonomy to the specific dangerous capability categories (self-replication, bio, cyber) that ground B1's urgency claims — and does it uniformly weaken B1 or create a more complex governance picture?
+
+**Belief targeted:** B1 (keystone) — "AI alignment is the greatest outstanding problem for humanity and not being treated as such." Disconfirmation target: if benchmark capability metrics systematically overstate dangerous capability across bio, self-replication, and cyber, then B1's urgency argument based on capability trajectory is weaker than 13 sessions of analysis implied.
+
+**Disconfirmation result:** CONFIRMED FOR BIO AND SELF-REPLICATION; REVERSED FOR CYBER. The benchmark-reality gap extends to ALL dangerous capability domains but in domain-specific, non-uniform ways. Bio and self-replication benchmarks overstate operational capability (physical-world gaps, simulated environments). Cyber benchmarks overstate exploitation capability but understate reconnaissance/scale-enhancement capability — and real-world evidence already exists at scale (state-sponsored campaigns, zero-days, 12,000 catalogued incidents).
+
+**Key finding:** The benchmark-reality gap is universal but domain-differentiated:
+1. **Software autonomy** (confirmed from session 13): METR's holistic evaluation update confirms 70-75% SWE-bench → 0% production-ready. METR explicitly states this likely holds for time horizon benchmarks. The 131-day doubling rate reflects benchmark performance, not operational dangerous autonomy growth.
+2. **Self-replication** (new): RepliBench's >60% figure measures component tasks in SIMULATED environments under pass@10 scoring. Models have access to own weights (artificially easy). End-to-end replication NOT tested. AISI explicitly disclaims: "a perfect score on RepliBench does not necessarily mean that an AI model could successfully self-replicate." Google DeepMind's most rigorous end-to-end attempt: models "largely failed" on 11 tasks while showing "proximity to success." No evaluation achieves end-to-end closed-model replication under realistic security conditions.
+3. **Bio capability** (new): Epoch AI systematic analysis confirms benchmarks miss somatic tacit knowledge, physical infrastructure access, iterative physical failure recovery. VCT (most rigorous bio benchmark — tacit knowledge, can't google answers) is the most credible; frontier models now exceed expert baselines (22% expert average). But physical-world gap remains large. Anthropic activated ASL-3 for Claude 4 Opus precautionarily — couldn't confirm OR rule out threshold crossing — because "clearly ruling out biorisk is not possible with current tools."
+4. **Cyber** (new): CTF benchmarks overstate exploitation (6.25% real-world vs. higher CTF) but understate reconnaissance. Crucially: real-world evidence exists beyond benchmarks — state-sponsored campaigns (Anthropic documentation), 12 OpenSSL zero-days found by AI (AISLE, January 2026), 12,000+ Google-catalogued AI cyber incidents. Cyber is the exceptional domain where B1's urgency argument is STRONGEST because operational dangerous capability is confirmed by real-world evidence, not just benchmarks.
+
+**Secondary finding:** The direction of benchmark miscalibration is domain-specific and non-uniform:
+- Software autonomy, self-replication, bio: benchmarks *overstate* operational dangerous capability
+- Cyber reconnaissance/scale: benchmarks may *understate* (real-world evidence exceeds CTF predictions)
+
+This means governance thresholds derived from benchmark performance are miscalibrated in unknown direction depending on which capability is being governed. This is the measurement saturation problem (sixth layer, session 12) extended: not just METR's time horizon saturating, but the entire benchmark architecture for dangerous capabilities systematically unreliable in domain-specific ways.
+
+**Pattern update:**
+
+STRENGTHENED:
+- B4 (verification degrades faster than capability grows): now confirmed across all three dangerous capability domains. Behavioral verification benchmarks overstate for bio/self-replication; understate for cyber reconnaissance. The direction of error is domain-specific. This is precisely the verification degradation that B4 predicts.
+- The sixth governance inadequacy layer (measurement saturation) is now more severe than characterized in session 12: it's not just METR's time horizon metric saturating for frontier models, it's the entire dangerous capability benchmark architecture being domain-specifically unreliable.
+
+WEAKENED:
+- B1 urgency for specific benchmark-derived capability claims: the >60% self-replication figure, "PhD+" bio benchmark performance, and 131-day doubling rate all overstate operational dangerous capability for those specific domains. The *trajectory* is real; the *absolute level* is overstated.
+- The "not being treated as such" claim: Anthropic's precautionary ASL-3 for Claude 4 Opus (activating even when can't confirm threshold) shows the most safety-conscious lab is taking measurement uncertainty seriously as a governance input. This is sophisticated safety governance — weaker than "not being treated as such."
+
+COMPLICATED:
+- B1 urgency is domain-specific: strongest for cyber (real-world evidence beyond benchmarks); weakest for self-replication (no end-to-end evaluation exists); intermediate for bio (VCT is credible but physical-world gap remains). This domain differentiation is new — previous analysis treated B1 urgency as monolithic.
+- The bio governance case (precautionary ASL-3 without confirmed threshold) shows that governance CAN adapt to measurement uncertainty — but at the cost of high false positive rates (activating expensive safeguards without confirmed need). This is sustainable for 1-2 domains at a time; not sustainable as a universal governance framework across all capability dimensions simultaneously.
+
+NEW:
+- **The benchmark architecture failure is the deepest governance problem**: six sessions of analysis established six governance inadequacy layers. All six layers assume some measurement foundation to govern against. Session 14 establishes that the measurement foundation itself is domain-specifically unreliable in non-uniform ways. You cannot design governance thresholds from benchmarks when the direction of benchmark miscalibration varies by domain. This is a meta-layer above the six — call it Layer 0.
+- **Cyber is the exceptional dangerous capability domain**: real-world evidence of operational capability exists at scale; benchmarks understate (not overstate) some capabilities; government attention is highest (AISI mandate); B1 urgency is strongest here.
+
+**Confidence shift:**
+- "Self-replication urgency is grounded in >60% benchmark performance" → REVISED: grounded in trajectory (rapid component improvement from <5% to >60%) but operational level is lower than 60% implies. Trajectory remains alarming; absolute level overstated.
+- "Bio capability 'PhD+' benchmark performance implies operational bioweapon uplift risk" → QUALIFIED: VCT performance (tacit knowledge, can't google) is more credible than MCQ-based claims; physical-world gap remains large. Keep the claim about VCT exceeding expert baseline; qualify that this doesn't imply full bioweapon development capability.
+- "Cyber benchmark performance implies future dangerous capability" → REVISED: for cyber, real-world evidence ALREADY EXISTS beyond benchmarks. Cyber urgency argument is stronger than benchmark-only analysis suggests.
+
+**Cross-session pattern (14 sessions):** Active inference → alignment gap → constructive mechanisms → mechanism engineering → [gap] → overshoot mechanisms → correction failures → evaluation infrastructure limits → mandatory governance with reactive enforcement → research-to-compliance translation gap + detection failing → bridge designed but governments reversing + capabilities at expert thresholds + fifth inadequacy layer → measurement saturation (sixth layer) → benchmark-reality gap weakens software autonomy urgency + RSP v3.0 partial accountability → **benchmark-reality gap is universal but domain-differentiated: bio/self-replication overstated by simulated/text environments; cyber understated by CTF isolation, with real-world evidence already at scale. The measurement architecture failure is the deepest layer — Layer 0 beneath the six governance inadequacy layers. B1's urgency is domain-specific, strongest for cyber, weakest for self-replication.** The open question: is there any governance architecture that can function reliably under systematic benchmark miscalibration in domain-specific, non-uniform directions?
+

agents/vida/musings/research-2026-03-25.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+---
+type: musing
+agent: vida
+date: 2026-03-25
+session: 10
+status: in-progress
+---
+
+# Research Session 10 — 2026-03-25
+
+## Research Question
+
+**Is the 2010 US cohort mortality period effect driven by a reversible cause or a structural deterioration that compounds forward?**
+
+The PNAS 2026 analysis (Session 9) identified a "2010 period effect" where ALL post-1970 cohorts began deteriorating simultaneously across CVD, cancer, and external causes. This is my strongest evidence for Belief 1 (healthspan as civilization's binding constraint). But I haven't interrogated the mechanism. If the cause is the opioid epidemic or the 2008-2009 recession — both arguably reversible phenomena — then the binding constraint framing is overstated. If it's structural (metabolic disease compounding, social fabric deterioration, healthcare system failures), Belief 1 stands on firmer ground.
+
+## Keystone Belief Targeted for Disconfirmation
+
+**Belief 1:** Healthspan is civilization's binding constraint.
+
+**Disconfirmation target:** Evidence that the 2010 inflection is driven by:
+- Opioid epidemic alone (now declining in some metrics)
+- Economic recession effects (transient)
+- One reversible policy failure
+
+**What would change my mind:** If the 2010 period effect is fully explained by opioid mortality and opioid mortality is now declining, then the "compounding" narrative of Belief 1 may be too strong. The constraint would be real but not necessarily worsening.
+
+**What would strengthen Belief 1:** If the 2010 effect spans causes BEYOND opioids (CVD, metabolic, suicide), or if opioid mortality is being replaced by other deaths of despair, or if the cohort effects persist even after adjusting for opioids.
+
+## Secondary Thread (time-sensitive)
+
+UK House of Lords inquiry evidence submissions close April 20, 2026. EU AI Act high-risk classification enforcement August 2, 2026. Both are forcing functions on Belief 5 (clinical AI safety). Looking for: what evidence has been submitted, what compliance measures are being taken, whether regulatory track is closing the commercial-research gap.
+
+## Session Notes
+
+### Disconfirmation search result: Belief 1 NOT disconfirmed — but requires precision update
+
+**The disconfirmation candidate:** CDC's January 2026 report showing US life expectancy hit record high of 79 years in 2024 appears to challenge the "binding constraint" framing. If life expectancy is at an all-time high, how is healthspan worsening?
+
+**Why it fails as disconfirmation:**
+
+1. **CVD is the primary driver (not opioids):** PNAS 2020 established that CVD stagnation costs 1.14 life expectancy years vs. 0.1-0.4 years for drug deaths — a 3-11x ratio. The 2024 recovery is driven by opioid decline and COVID dissipation (reversible, acute causes), NOT by reversing the CVD/metabolic structural driver.
+
+2. **Healthspan is declining while lifespan recovers:** JAMA Network Open (December 2024, 183 WHO member states) shows US healthspan DECLINED from 65.3 years (2000) to 63.9 years (2021). The US has the world's LARGEST healthspan-lifespan gap: 12.4 years. Americans live 12.4 years on average with disability and sickness — worst among all developed nations.
+
+3. **CVD stagnation is structural and pervasive:** AJE (August 2025, Abrams et al.) shows CVD mortality stagnation/increases across ALL US income deciles, including the wealthiest counties. This is not a poverty story — it's a system-wide structural failure.
+
+4. **CVD stagnation stopped racial health equity convergence:** A companion paper shows the Black-White life expectancy gap stopped narrowing after 2010 specifically because CVD improvement — which was driving convergence 2000-2010 — stalled.
+
+**Belief 1 precision update:** The binding constraint is on *healthspan* (productive, healthy years), not life expectancy. The PNAS 2026 cohort framing was correct but needed this distinction. Life expectancy can recover from acute peaks (opioids, COVID) while structural healthspan deterioration continues. The 79-year life expectancy record is a misleading headline masking a 63.9-year healthspan that is declining.
+
+---
+
+### Secondary finding: Simultaneous regulatory rollback on clinical AI (Belief 5)
+
+A convergent signal across all three major clinical AI regulatory tracks in the same 90-day window:
+
+- **EU Commission (December 2025):** Proposed removing clinical AI from high-risk AI Act requirements; WHO explicitly warned of "patient risks due to regulatory vacuum"
+- **FDA (January 6, 2026):** Expanded enforcement discretion for CDS software; Commissioner Makary framing oversight as something to "get out of the way" on
+- **UK Lords inquiry (launched March 10, 2026):** Framed as adoption failure inquiry, not safety inquiry
+
+In Session 9, I identified the regulatory track as the "gap-closer" between commercial deployment (OpenEvidence at 20M consultations/month) and research evidence of failure modes. This session documents the gap-closer being WEAKENED. Regulatory capture is not a speculative risk — it has occurred on both sides of the Atlantic simultaneously.
+
+**New failure mode for Belief 5:** Regulatory rollback under industry pressure — a sixth institutional failure mode that undermines all five previously documented safety failure modes by removing the external mechanisms that would force transparency and oversight.
+
+---
+
+## Follow-up Directions
+
+### Active Threads (continue next session)
+
+- **"2010 period effect" mechanism — remaining question:** What specifically changed in 2010 to cause CVD stagnation across all income deciles simultaneously? Papers identify the WHAT (CVD stagnation, structural, pervasive) but not the WHY (what policy/metabolic/food system change in 2010 explains simultaneous stagnation across income levels?). Look for: metabolic syndrome prevalence trends 2008-2015, ultra-processed food consumption data, statins/hypertension medication effectiveness plateau arguments.
+
+- **Lords inquiry evidence submissions (deadline April 20, 2026):** The inquiry is adoption-focused, but the call for evidence explicitly asks about "regulatory frameworks" being "appropriate and proportionate." The clinical AI failure mode research (NOHARM, demographic bias, automation bias, misinformation propagation, real-world deployment gap) would be directly relevant as evidence that current adoption-focused regulation is insufficient. Track whether any safety-focused evidence gets submitted and what response it receives.
+
+- **EU AI Act full enforcement August 2, 2026:** The Commission proposed removing high-risk requirements but retained delegated power to reinstate. Track whether European Parliament pushes back or whether the simplification proceeds. Timeline: Commission proposal → Parliament/Council review → potential amendment. The August 2 deadline creates pressure.
+
+- **FDA deregulation and automation bias:** The FDA guidance explicitly acknowledges automation bias as a concern but offers only "transparency" as the solution. The automation bias RCT (already archived, Session 7) showed that training + transparency does NOT eliminate physician deference to flawed AI. This is a testable contradiction — search for FDA's response to the automation bias literature specifically.
+
+### Dead Ends (don't re-run these)
+
+- **"Opioid epidemic explains 2010 period effect":** Searched and confirmed FALSE. PNAS 2020 quantified CVD at 3-11x the life expectancy impact of drug deaths. Do not re-run this search — the mechanism is established.
+- **"US life expectancy declining 2024":** Headline confirms record high 79 years. The disconfirmation angle is healthspan (declining) vs. lifespan (record). Do not re-run life expectancy headline searches.
+
+### Branching Points (one finding opened multiple directions)
+
+- **Regulatory capture pattern:** The simultaneous EU+FDA+UK Lords rollback opens two directions:
+  - **Direction A:** Evidence that the rollback is causing actual harm (adverse events, misdiagnoses) — follow clinical incident reports, FDA MAUDE database for AI-related adverse events 2025-2026
+  - **Direction B:** Mechanism of regulatory capture — which specific industry players lobbied which bodies? (Orrick's analysis of FDA guidance; Petrie-Flom on who pushed the EU Commission proposal) — this connects to Rio's incentive misalignment domain
+  - **Which to pursue first:** Direction A (harm evidence) is more valuable for the KB — regulatory capture is already documented, harm evidence would be the claim that closes the loop.
+
+- **CVD stagnation mechanism:** The "all income deciles" finding (AJE) opens two directions:
+  - **Direction A:** Ultra-processed food consumption as mechanism (food industry engineering noncommunicable disease — already a KB claim area)
+  - **Direction B:** Statin/hypertension drug effectiveness plateau (pharmacological solution saturated its population; remaining CVD risk is metabolic, not medicatable)
+  - **Which to pursue first:** Direction B (pharmacological plateau) is more novel. The food-as-medicine thread (Sessions 3-4) covered food as cause. The pharmacological ceiling angle is unexplored.
+
+## Sources Archived
+
+1. `2020-03-17-pnas-us-life-expectancy-stalls-cvd-not-drug-deaths.md` — PNAS 2020 mechanism paper (CVD > drugs 3-11x)
+2. `2025-08-01-abrams-aje-pervasive-cvd-stagnation-us-states-counties.md` — AJE 2025 (CVD stagnation all income levels, all states)
+3. `2026-01-29-cdc-us-life-expectancy-record-high-79-2024.md` — CDC 2026 (record high 79 years — disconfirmation candidate, contextualized)
+4. `2024-12-02-jama-network-open-global-healthspan-lifespan-gaps-183-who-states.md` — JAMA Network Open 2024 (US 12.4-year gap, world's worst)
+5. `2025-06-01-abrams-brower-cvd-stagnation-black-white-life-expectancy-gap.md` — CVD stagnation expanded racial gap
+6. `2026-03-05-petrie-flom-eu-medical-ai-regulation-simplification.md` — Harvard Law analysis of EU AI Act rollback
+7. `2026-01-06-fda-cds-software-deregulation-ai-wearables-guidance.md` — FDA January 2026 CDS deregulation
+8. `2026-03-10-lords-inquiry-nhs-ai-personalised-medicine-adoption.md` — Lords inquiry scope and framing
+9. `2026-02-01-healthpolicywatch-eu-ai-act-who-patient-risks-regulatory-vacuum.md` — WHO warning vs. EU Commission conflict

agents/vida/research-journal.md

@@ -1,5 +1,23 @@
 # Vida Research Journal
 
+## Session 2026-03-25 — Belief 1 Confirmed via Healthspan/Lifespan Distinction; Regulatory Capture Documented Across All Three Clinical AI Tracks
+
+**Question:** Is the 2010 US cohort mortality period effect driven by a reversible cause (opioids, recession) or a structural deterioration that compounds forward? And has the regulatory track (EU AI Act, FDA, Lords inquiry) closed the commercial-research gap on clinical AI safety?
+
+**Belief targeted:** Belief 1 (keystone) — disconfirmation search targeting the 2024 US life expectancy record (79 years, new all-time high) as the primary candidate counter-evidence. If healthspan is actually improving, the "binding constraint" framing may be overstated.
+
+**Disconfirmation result:**
+- **Belief 1: NOT DISCONFIRMED — precision-updated.** The 2024 life expectancy record (79 years) IS real but is explained by reversible acute causes: opioid deaths declined ~24% in 2024 (fentanyl-involved deaths dropped 35.6%) and COVID mortality dissipated. The primary structural driver (CVD/metabolic) has NOT reversed. Key evidence: (1) PNAS 2020 established CVD costs 1.14 life expectancy years vs. 0.1-0.4 for drug deaths (3-11x ratio) — the dominant cause is structural; (2) AJE 2025 (Abrams et al.) shows CVD stagnation is "pervasive" across ALL US income deciles including the wealthiest counties — not a poverty story; (3) JAMA Network Open 2024 (183 WHO states) shows US healthspan DECLINED from 65.3 to 63.9 years (2000-2021), with the US having the world's LARGEST healthspan-lifespan gap (12.4 years). Life expectancy and healthspan are DIVERGING. The binding constraint is specifically on healthspan (productive healthy years), not raw survival — and that dimension is worsening.
+- **Belief 5: EXTENDED — regulatory capture documented as sixth institutional failure mode.** EU Commission (December 2025) proposed removing clinical AI from AI Act high-risk requirements; FDA (January 2026) expanded enforcement discretion for CDS software; UK Lords inquiry (March 2026) is adoption-focused, not safety-focused. WHO explicitly warned of "patient risks due to regulatory vacuum." In Session 9 I identified the regulatory track as the "gap-closer." That track is now weakened — regulatory capture has occurred on both sides of the Atlantic simultaneously, in the same 30-90 day window.
+
+**Key finding:** The 2010 period effect mechanism is now clearer. CVD stagnation is the primary driver (3-11x opioids) and is structural/pervasive (all states, all income levels). The WHAT is established. The WHY remains the open question — what specifically changed around 2010 to cause CVD stagnation across ALL income levels simultaneously? This is the remaining research gap.
+
+**Pattern update:** Session 13 adds two cross-session updates. (1) The life expectancy/healthspan divergence: 79-year LE record is noise over structural deterioration — the correct metric for Belief 1 is healthspan (declining) not life expectancy (recovering). The binding constraint thesis requires this precision to survive surface-level disconfirmation attempts. (2) Regulatory capture pattern: the simultaneous EU+FDA+UK regulatory shift in Q1 2026 is the most concrete evidence yet that commercial-research divergence is structural — regulatory bodies are not bridging the gap, they're widening it under industry pressure.
+
+**Confidence shift:**
+- Belief 1 (healthspan as binding constraint): **PRECISION UPDATED, NOT WEAKENED** — The claim needs to be framed as "healthspan, not life expectancy, is the binding constraint." Life expectancy can recover from acute peaks while structural deterioration continues. The distinction between lifespan and healthspan is now essential to the claim's defensibility.
+- Belief 5 (clinical AI safety): **SIXTH FAILURE MODE ADDED** (regulatory rollback under industry pressure). Net: the external mechanism expected to close the commercial-research gap is actively being weakened. The failure mode count now includes: omission reinforcement, demographic bias, automation bias, misinformation propagation, real-world deployment gap, regulatory capture.
+
 ## Session 2026-03-24 — Keystone Belief Confirmed by PNAS Cohort Study; Fifth Clinical AI Failure Mode; Regulatory Track Clarified
 
 **Question:** Are clinical AI companies preparing for NHS DTAC V2 (April 6) and EU AI Act (August 2026) compliance — and does this represent the first observable closing of the commercial-research gap? Secondary: does new 2026 evidence challenge Belief 1 (healthspan as binding constraint)?

decisions/internet-finance/avici-futardio-launch.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ domain: internet-finance
 status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[avici]]"
 platform: "futardio"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/2rYvdtK8ovuSziJuy5gTTPtviY5CfTnW6Pps4pk7ehEq"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/avici/trade/2rYvdtK8ovuSziJuy5gTTPtviY5CfTnW6Pps4pk7ehEq"
 proposal_date: 2025-10-14
 resolution_date: 2025-10-18
 category: "fundraise"
@@ -51,3 +51,15 @@ The project's thesis challenges the commodity theory of money, arguing money ori
 - [[futardio]] — launch platform
 - [[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]] — platform mechanism
 - [[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]] — demonstrates compression thesis
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2025-10-14*
+
+Avici DAO: Distributed internet banking infrastructure — spend cards, internet-native trust scores, unsecured loans, and mortgages.
+
+**Thesis:** Money originated from credit systems, not barter. Avici builds reputation-based undercollateralized lending for crypto.
+
+**Raise:** Target $2,000,000. Total committed: $34,230,976. Final raise: $3,500,000 (17.1x oversubscribed). Closed 2025-10-18.
+
+**Token:** AVICI (BANKJmvhT8tiJRsBSS1n2HryMBPvT5Ze4HU95DUAmeta). Website: avici.money

decisions/internet-finance/coal-cut-emissions-by-50.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[coal]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/6LcxhHS3JvDtbS1GoQS18EgH5Pzf7AnqQpR7D4HxmWpy"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/coal/trade/6LcxhHS3JvDtbS1GoQS18EgH5Pzf7AnqQpR7D4HxmWpy"
 proposal_date: 2024-11-13
 resolution_date: 2024-11-17
 category: "mechanism"
@@ -39,3 +39,20 @@ The original emission schedule included automatic halvings at 5% circulating sup
 - [[coal]] - parent entity, first major governance decision
 - [[futardio]] - platform hosting the decision market
 - [[dynamic performance-based token minting replaces fixed emission schedules by tying new token creation to measurable outcomes creating algorithmic meritocracy in token distribution]] - related mechanism concept
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-11-13*
+
+Under the current schedule, the target emission rate halves with each 5% increase in the circulating supply. Following six halvings, the current emission target is 15.625 per minute (22,500 per day), resulting in an approximate annual inflation rate of 110%.
+
+According to this schedule, the next halving will occur at a circulating supply of 7,350,000, lowering the emission target to 7.8125 per minute (11,250 per day) and reducing the annual inflation rate to about 56%.
+
+This schedule was initially established after launch as a temporary framework and was never intended to be a long-term solution.
+
+Moving forward, we'll conduct bi-monthly decision markets to guide adjustments to the emission rate.
+
+**Details:**
+If this proposal passes, the emission rate will be fixed at a target of 7.8125 per minute. If it fails, the rate will remain at the current target of 15.625 per minute.
+
+A follow-up decision market will be held in early January, approximately two months from now, to determine the next rate adjustment.

decisions/internet-finance/coal-establish-development-fund.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "coal"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "AH7F2EPHXWhfF5yc7xnv1zPbwz3YqD6CtAqbCyE9dy7r"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/DhY2YrMde6BxiqCrqUieoKt5TYzRwf2KYE3J2RQyQc7U"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/coal/trade/DhY2YrMde6BxiqCrqUieoKt5TYzRwf2KYE3J2RQyQc7U"
 proposal_date: 2024-12-05
 resolution_date: 2024-12-08
 category: "treasury"
@@ -37,3 +37,23 @@ The rejection creates a sustainability question for COAL: how does a zero-premin
 ## Relationship to KB
 - Related to [[futarchy-daos-require-mintable-governance-tokens-because-fixed-supply-treasuries-exhaust-without-issuance-authority-forcing-disruptive-token-architecture-migrations]] — COAL attempted to add issuance authority post-launch
 - Related to [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] — this was a contested decision that still failed
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-12-05*
+
+Since its fair launch in August 2024, $COAL has been a community-driven project with no pre-mine or team allocation. While this approach has ensured a fair start, it limits our ability to scale the project and reward community contributions.
+
+To ensure the long-term sustainability of the project, we propose establishing a **Development Fund through a 4.2% emissions allocation**.
+
+This fund will:
+- Support on-going protocol development and innovation
+- Reward community-driven initiatives and contributions
+- Enable marketing and growth initiatives to expand the $COAL ecosystem
+
+**Details:**
+The emissions allocation will be 4.2% of the current mining emission rate: 11,250 * 0.042 = 472.5 (development allocation per day).
+
+To avoid reducing mining rewards, this allocation will result in a 4.2% increase in total supply growth. Future emission rate adjustments will integrate this allocation into the base rate.
+
+The development allocation will be claimed weekly and transferred to a DAO-managed multisig wallet. All expenditures tracked and shared publicly.

decisions/internet-finance/coal-lets-get-futarded.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[coal]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HAymbnVo1w5sC7hz8E6sdmzSuDpqUwKXWzBeshEAb7WC"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/6c1dnggYNpEZvz4fedJ19LAo8Pz2mTTvT6LxySYhpLbA"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/coal/trade/6c1dnggYNpEZvz4fedJ19LAo8Pz2mTTvT6LxySYhpLbA"
 proposal_date: 2025-10-15
 resolution_date: 2025-10-18
 category: "treasury"
@@ -83,3 +83,38 @@ This proposal represents a comprehensive transition from experimental memecoin t
 - MetaDAO — source of airdrop recipients
 - [[futarchy-governed-meme-coins-attract-speculative-capital-at-scale]] — exemplifies governance model
 - [[futarchy-daos-require-mintable-governance-tokens-because-fixed-supply-treasuries-exhaust-without-issuance-authority-forcing-disruptive-token-architecture-migrations]] — demonstrates supply expansion mechanism
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-10-15*
+
+This proposal does 3 things:
+1/ Onboard META holders: One-time airdrop of 420 $coal to every $META holder (snapshot October 12, 2025).
+2/ Expand Supply for Growth: One-time mint to enable the airdrop, seed a dev fund, and provide initial liquidity.
+3/ Establish a Development Fund: Transparent treasury for ongoing development, community initiatives, and integrations.
+
+**Airdrop:**
+- Eligibility: All $META holders at snapshot (2,314 wallets) holding at least $100 worth of $META
+- Amount: 420 $coal per eligible wallet
+- Total: 971,880 $coal
+
+**Supply Update:**
+- Total supply: 21,000,000 → 25,000,000 $coal (one-time increase of 4,000,000)
+- 971,880 → Airdrop; 3,028,120 → Development Fund
+- Mining emissions: Unchanged
+
+**Development Fund:**
+- Manager: DAO treasury
+- Disbursements: up to 30,000 $coal per month to Grant (lead dev)
+- Large grants: Any single use >69,000 $coal requires separate decision market
+- Transparency: Public ledger, monthly forum report, verified addresses
+
+**Liquidity Kickstart:**
+An OTC buyer is lined up to purchase a portion of the Dev Fund; proceeds will seed the futarchy AMM and bootstrap $coal liquidity.
+
+**Moving into v0.6 DAO governance:**
+- TWAP delay: 1 day
+- Minimum liquidity: 1500 USDC, 2000 coal
+- Pass threshold: 100 bps
+- Coal staked: 10,000
+- Proposal length: 3 days

decisions/internet-finance/coal-meta-pow-the-ore-treasury-protocol.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "coal"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "futard.io"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/G33HJH2J2zRqqcHZKMggkQurvqe1cmaDtfBz3hgmuuAg"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/coal/trade/G33HJH2J2zRqqcHZKMggkQurvqe1cmaDtfBz3hgmuuAg"
 proposal_date: 2025-11-07
 resolution_date: 2025-11-10
 category: "mechanism"
@@ -48,3 +48,27 @@ The proposal also shows MetaDAO's evolution from fundraising platform to complex
 - coal - parent entity, economic model redesign
 - [[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]] - governance platform
 - [[dynamic performance-based token minting replaces fixed emission schedules by tying new token creation to measurable outcomes creating algorithmic meritocracy in token distribution]] - related mechanism design pattern
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-11-07*
+
+Forge INGOT using COAL and ORE. Craft pickaxes using COAL, INGOT, and WOOD. Mine COAL with pickaxes.
+
+When COAL strengthens, crafting scales up, more picks come online, more INGOT gets smelted, and more ORE flows into the treasury. If COAL weakens, crafting slows without breaking the system. Tools are evergreen and cheaper to repair than to recraft.
+
+Goal: simple, mechanical "ownership coin" loop that reliably accumulates ORE in the COAL treasury, ties behavior to COAL/ORE price dynamics, and is straightforward to implement on Solana.
+
+**Tokens:**
+- COAL: Mineable with 25M max supply, halving-band emissions. Burned for smelting and licenses.
+- ORE: External hard asset. Paid only at smelting. 100% goes to COAL treasury.
+- INGOT: Minted by burning 100 COAL + paying ~12.10 ORE. Used for crafting and repairs.
+- WOOD: Produced by axes. Used for crafting and repairs.
+
+**Pickaxes:** Gate access to COAL emissions. Craft cost: 1 INGOT + 8 WOOD + c(y) COAL license. Daily repair: ~0.083 INGOT + 0.3 WOOD. Power decays 4%/day without repair. Each active pick drives ~1 ORE/day to treasury.
+
+**Dynamic License c(y):** c(y) = c0 * (y/y_ref)^p where y = P_ORE/P_COAL. Defaults: c0=200, y_ref=50, p=3, clamped 1-300. When COAL is strong (y low), license cost falls and more picks come online. When COAL is weak (y high), crafting slows automatically.
+
+**Governance Parameters:** License curve (c0, y_ref, p, bounds, EMA window), repair/decay rates, axe WOOD output, ORE flow targets.
+
+**Vote:** YES = adopt Meta-PoW as the new COAL economic model. NO = keep current model unchanged.

decisions/internet-finance/deans-list-approve-treasury-management.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Dean's List: Approve Treasury De-Risking Strategy"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Dean's List team"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/deans-list/trade/4gaJ8bi1gpNEx6xSSsepjVBM6GXqTDfLbiUbzXbARHW1"
+proposal_date: 2024-12-02
+resolution_date: 2024-12-05
+category: "treasury"
+summary: "Convert DAO treasury from volatile SOL/SPL assets to stablecoins to reduce risk and extend operational runway"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Dean's List: Approve Treasury De-Risking Strategy
+
+## Summary
+Dean's List DAO approved converting its treasury ($75,000-$87,000 at $350 SOL) from volatile SOL and SPL token holdings into stablecoins to reduce risk and extend operational runway. The proposal argued this would increase probability of DAO survival from 50% to 90% and boost FDV by 5-20% through improved market confidence in financial prudence.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** 4gaJ8bi1gpNEx6xSSsepjVBM6GXqTDfLbiUbzXbARHW1
+- **Duration:** 2024-12-02 to 2024-12-05
+
+## Significance
+Demonstrates futarchy-governed treasury risk management where the market validated a conservative financial strategy. The explicit framing of survival probability (50% → 90%) and FDV impact scenarios shows sophisticated quantitative governance reasoning for a small DAO.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[deans-list]] — parent entity, treasury management
+- [[futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance]] — treasury management pattern
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-12-02*
+
+### Impact of De-Risking DL DAO Treasury on Longevity and FDV
+
+#### 1. Longevity Analysis
+Treasury valued between $75,000 and $87,000 at $350 SOL (without DEAN in consideration), proposed to be converted into stablecoins.
+
+- Before de-risking: 50% survival probability (subject to market volatility)
+- After de-risking: 90% survival probability (stable reserves secured)
+- De-risking increases probability of DAO longevity by 40 percentage points
+
+#### 2. Impact on Fully Diluted Valuation
+Current FDV: $500,000 (Conservative to accommodate proposal duration)
+- Low Confidence Boost (5%): Updated FDV = $525,000
+- High Confidence Boost (20%): Updated FDV = $600,000
+
+#### 3. TWAP Calculation
+DL DAO FDV: $500,000 → DL DAO FDV + 3%: $515,000

decisions/internet-finance/deans-list-enhance-economic-model.md

@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
----
-type: decision
-entity_type: decision_market
-name: "Dean's List: Enhancing The Dean's List DAO Economic Model"
-domain: internet-finance
-status: passed
-parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
-platform: "futardio"
-proposer: "IslandDAO"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/5c2XSWQ9rVPge2Umoz1yenZcAwRaQS5bC4i4w87B1WUp"
-proposal_date: 2024-07-18
-resolution_date: 2024-07-22
-category: "treasury"
-summary: "Transition from USDC to $DEAN token payments for contributors while maintaining USDC DAO tax to create buy pressure"
-tracked_by: rio
-created: 2026-03-11
----
-
-# Dean's List: Enhancing The Dean's List DAO Economic Model
-
-## Summary
-The proposal restructures The Dean's List DAO's payment model to charge clients in USDC, use 80% of revenue to purchase $DEAN tokens, distribute those tokens to DAO citizens as payment, and retain 20% DAO tax in USDC. The model aims to create consistent buy pressure on $DEAN while hedging treasury against token volatility.
-
-## Market Data
-- **Outcome:** Passed
-- **Proposer:** IslandDAO
-- **Resolution:** 2024-07-22
-- **Proposal Account:** 5c2XSWQ9rVPge2Umoz1yenZcAwRaQS5bC4i4w87B1WUp
-
-## Economic Model
-- **Revenue Structure:** 2500 USDC per dApp review, targeting 6 reviews monthly (15,000 USDC/month)
-- **Tax Split:** 20% to treasury in USDC (3,000 USDC/month), 80% to $DEAN purchases (12,000 USDC/month)
-- **Daily Flow:** 400 USDC daily purchases → ~118,694 $DEAN tokens
-- **Sell Pressure:** Assumes 80% of distributed tokens sold by contributors (94,955 $DEAN daily)
-- **Net Impact:** Modeled 5.33% FDV increase vs 3% TWAP requirement
-
-## Significance
-This proposal demonstrates futarchy pricing a specific operational business model with quantified buy/sell pressure dynamics. The structured approach—USDC revenue → token purchases → contributor distribution → partial sell-off—creates a measurable feedback loop between DAO operations and token price. The 20% USDC tax hedge shows hybrid treasury management within futarchy governance.
-
-## Relationship to KB
-- [[deans-list]] - treasury and payment restructuring
-- MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-implements-futarchy-through-conditional-token-markets-where-proposals-create-parallel-pass-and-fail-universes-settled-by-time-weighted-average-price-over-a-three-day-window - TWAP settlement mechanics
-- [[futarchy-markets-can-price-cultural-spending-proposals-by-treating-community-cohesion-and-brand-equity-as-token-price-inputs]] - operational model pricing

decisions/internet-finance/deans-list-enhancing-economic-model.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "futard.io"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/5c2XSWQ9rVPge2Umoz1yenZcAwRaQS5bC4i4w87B1WUp"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/deans-list/trade/5c2XSWQ9rVPge2Umoz1yenZcAwRaQS5bC4i4w87B1WUp"
 proposal_date: 2024-07-18
 resolution_date: 2024-07-22
 category: "treasury"
@@ -45,3 +45,25 @@ The 80% sell-off assumption acknowledges that DAO workers need liquid compensati
 - [[deans-list]] - treasury mechanism change
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - governance platform
 - [[treasury-buyback-model-creates-constant-buy-pressure-by-converting-revenue-to-governance-token-purchases]] - mechanism claim
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-07-18*
+
+The proposed model involves continuing to charge clients in USDC and using the collected USDC to purchase $DEAN tokens. These tokens will be distributed to DAO citizens as payment for their work, replacing USDC payments. The DAO tax will remain in USDC to hedge against $DEAN price fluctuations. This creates constant buying pressure on the $DEAN token.
+
+Example: DAO Tax @ 20%, Cost of dApp review 2500 $USDC
+- 500 $USDC goes to the treasury
+- 2000 $USDC used for purchasing $DEAN tokens (560k $DEAN, price goes up)
+- DAO Citizens paid 560k $DEAN; 80% sell to pay bills (448k $DEAN hits market)
+- Price always achieves a higher low on each cycle
+
+### Detailed Analysis
+- Current FDV: $337,074
+- Daily Trading Volume: $500
+- Circulating Supply: 100,000,000 $DEAN
+- Current Price: $0.00337
+
+With 400 USDC daily purchase (80% increase in buy volume), estimated 24% price increase, 15% decrease from sell pressure.
+- Initial FDV: $337,074 → New FDV: $355,028 (5.33% increase)
+- Exceeds TWAP 3% requirement ($347,186)

decisions/internet-finance/deans-list-fund-website-redesign.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Dean's List Nigeria Network State Multi-Sig"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/5V5MFN69yB2w82QWcWXyW84L3x881w5TanLpLnKAKyK4"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/deans-list/trade/5V5MFN69yB2w82QWcWXyW84L3x881w5TanLpLnKAKyK4"
 proposal_date: 2024-12-30
 resolution_date: 2025-01-03
 category: "treasury"
@@ -54,3 +54,36 @@ Demonstrates futarchy-governed treasury allocation for operational infrastructur
 - [[deans-list]] - treasury decision
 - [[futardio]] - governance platform
 - [[futarchy-markets-can-price-cultural-spending-proposals-by-treating-community-cohesion-and-brand-equity-as-token-price-inputs]] - example of non-financial proposal valuation
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-12-30*
+
+### Summary
+Proposal to redesign the DeansListDAO website with a total budget of $3,500 ($2,800 USDC + $700 DEAN), aimed at improving user engagement, clarifying the DAO's mission, and creating a more intuitive platform.
+
+The current redesign is already live at https://deanslist.services/.
+
+### Rationale
+The old website failed to effectively communicate the core purpose of DeansListDAO, provide a clear onboarding path, showcase services, or integrate regional network states (Nigeria and Brazil).
+
+### Budget Breakdown
+- Total: $3,500
+- 80% ($2,800) paid upon proposal execution via Realms transfer
+- 20% ($700) paid monthly over a year via Realms grant instruction
+- Allocation: Dean's List Nigeria Network State Multi-Sig (100%)
+
+### Benefits
+- 50% increase in website engagement
+- 30% reduction in onboarding friction
+- Improved clarity of DAO's mission and services
+- Better conversion of visitors to active community members
+
+### Valuation Growth Impact
+- Current Treasury: ~$115,000
+- Current annual revenue from contracts: $150,000
+- Projected growth from improved visibility: +30-50% contracts
+- Current valuation: $450,000 → Projected: $468,000-$543,375
+
+### TWAP Calculation
+Current MCAP + 3% = $475,000 + $14,250 = $489,250

decisions/internet-finance/deans-list-implement-3-week-vesting.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/C2Up9wYYJM1A94fgJz17e3Xsr8jft2qYMwrR6s4ckaKK"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/deans-list/trade/C2Up9wYYJM1A94fgJz17e3Xsr8jft2qYMwrR6s4ckaKK"
 proposal_date: 2024-12-16
 resolution_date: 2024-12-19
 category: "treasury"
@@ -48,3 +48,31 @@ Demonstrates futarchy-governed treasury operations addressing sell pressure dyna
 - [[deans-list]] - treasury 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]] - vesting as sell pressure management
 - [[futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements]] - proposal complexity example
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-12-16*
+
+### Summary
+Introduces a 3-week vesting period for all DAO payments, where payments unvest linearly starting from day 1.
+
+### Rationale
+1. Discourage Market Manipulation: Vesting prevents immediate liquidation
+2. Support Price Growth: Slowed token release creates buffer period for price stabilization
+
+### Implementation
+- All payments vest over 3-week period with linear daily schedule
+- Distributed via token streaming contract
+
+### Valuation Assumptions
+- Current selling pressure: 80% (2,400 USDC of 3,000 USDC weekly payments sold immediately)
+- With vesting: only 33% liquidated each week (1,000 USDC), reducing sell pressure by 1,400 USDC/week
+
+### Projected Outcomes
+| Scenario | Price Increase | New Valuation | Increase |
+|----------|---------------|---------------|----------|
+| Conservative | 15% | 595.7k | 77.7k |
+| Optimistic | 25% | 647.5k | 129.5k |
+
+### TWAP Calculation
+- Current MCAP + 3% = 518,000 + 15,540 = 533,500

decisions/internet-finance/deans-list-reward-waterloo-blockchain-club.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/7KkoRGyvzhvzKjxuPHjyxg77a52MeP6axyx7aywpGbdc"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/deans-list/trade/7KkoRGyvzhvzKjxuPHjyxg77a52MeP6axyx7aywpGbdc"
 proposal_date: 2024-06-08
 resolution_date: 2024-06-11
 category: "grants"
@@ -41,3 +41,35 @@ This represents an early experiment in using futarchy for partnership and grant
 - [[deans-list]] - parent organization making the grant decision
 - [[futardio]] - platform enabling the conditional market governance
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - mechanism used for this decision
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-06-08*
+
+### Introduction
+This proposal aims to allocate 1 million $DEAN tokens to the University of Waterloo Blockchain Club. The goal is to foster deeper collaboration, attract and incentivize top talent to contribute to our ecosystem and strengthen the overall partnership.
+
+### Goal
+1. Foster Deeper Collaboration: Strengthening the relationship between The Dean's List DAO and the University of Waterloo Blockchain Club.
+2. Attract & Incentivize Top Talent: Encouraging top-tier students to contribute to our ecosystem.
+
+### Benefits
+1. Strengthened Partnership & Potential Collaboration Opportunities
+2. Access to a Skilled Talent Pool: 200 students skilled in blockchain technology and web3 development
+3. Encourage Participation in the DL DAO Governance
+
+### Token Allocation and Value
+- Token Allocation: 1 million $DEAN tokens
+- Equivalent Value: 1 million $DEAN = 1300 $USDC
+- Fully Diluted Valuation: $115,655
+
+### Proposal Conditions
+For this proposal to pass, the partnership should result in a 5% increase in the TWAP of The Dean's List DAO's FDV. Trading period: 5 days.
+
+- Required Increase (5%): $5,783
+- Number of Students: 200
+- Average Increase per Student: $28.915
+- Benefit per Dollar: $4.45
+
+### Conclusion
+Strategic investment in the future growth and sustainability of The Dean's List DAO through partnership with the University of Waterloo Blockchain Club.

decisions/internet-finance/deans-list-thailanddao-event-promotion.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/DgXa6gy7nAFFWe8VDkiReQYhqe1JSYQCJWUBV8Mm6aM"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/deans-list/trade/DgXa6gy7nAFFWe8VDkiReQYhqe1JSYQCJWUBV8Mm6aM"
 proposal_date: 2024-06-22
 resolution_date: 2024-06-25
 autocrat_version: "0.3"
@@ -72,3 +72,31 @@ The proposal was modeled on MonkeDAO and SuperTeam precedents, framing DAO membe
 - [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] — confirmed by this failure case
 - [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] — extended to contested proposals
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] — implementation details
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-06-22*
+
+### Introduction
+This proposal aims to create a promotional event to increase governance power engagement within the Dean's List DAO by offering exclusive perks related to the ThailandDAO event (25 Sept. - 25 Oct. in Koh Samui Thailand). The initiative will cover airplane fares and accommodation for the top 5 governance power holders. The leaderboard will award invitations to IRL events, potential airdrops from partners, and other perks.
+
+For the duration of the promotional campaign, DL DAO contributors can opt-in to receive payments in $DEAN tokens at a 10% discount.
+
+### Detailed Steps
+1. Announcement and Marketing: Launch comprehensive marketing campaign
+2. Leaderboard Creation: Real-time governance power rankings
+3. Exclusive Perks:
+   - Top 5 Members: Airplane fares and accommodation covered for 12 days at DL DAO Villa
+   - Top 50 Members: IRL event invitations, partner airdrops, continuous perks
+4. Payment Option: Contributors can receive payments in $DEAN at 10% discount for three months
+5. Feedback Review Session: IslandDAO attendees create feedback report, paid in $DEAN
+
+### Financial Projections
+- Airplane Fares and Accommodation for Top 5: $10,000
+- IRL Events and Parties for Top 50: $5,000
+- Total Estimated Cost: $15,000
+- Token Allocation: 5-7 million $DEAN tokens
+- Current FDV: $123,263 → Target FDV: Over $2,000,000
+
+### Futarchy Proposal Conditions
+Required: 3% increase in TWAP of FDV. Trading period: 3 days.

decisions/internet-finance/deans-list-update-liquidity-fee-structure.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Dean's List: Update Liquidity Fee Structure"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Dean's List team"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/deans-list/trade/B8WLuXqoBb3hRD9XBCNuSqxDqCXCixqRdKR4pVFGzNP"
+proposal_date: 2025-01-14
+resolution_date: 2025-01-17
+category: "mechanism"
+summary: "Increase swap liquidity fee from 0.25% to 5% DLMM base fee, switch quote token from mSOL to SOL, creating tiered market structure"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Dean's List: Update Liquidity Fee Structure
+
+## Summary
+Dean's List DAO approved increasing their swap liquidity fee from 0.25% dynamic pool to 5% DLMM base fee (up to 10%), switching quote token from mSOL to SOL, and establishing a tiered market structure where the DAO pool captures revenue from large trades needing deep liquidity while individual LPs serve smaller trades at lower fees.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** B8WLuXqoBb3hRD9XBCNuSqxDqCXCixqRdKR4pVFGzNP
+- **Duration:** 2025-01-14 to ~2025-01-17
+- **Current Monthly Volume:** 46,228 USDC (06 Dec - 06 Jan)
+
+## Revenue Impact
+- Current daily fee revenue (0.25%): ~3.85 USDC
+- Projected daily fee revenue (5%): ~77 USDC (20x increase)
+- Conservative annual treasury growth: ~19,416 USDC
+- Optimistic annual treasury growth: ~24,960 USDC
+
+## Significance
+Demonstrates futarchy-governed fee optimization for a small DAO token. The proposal creates a novel tiered market structure where the DAO captures revenue from large trades needing liquidity depth while smaller trades flow to individual LP pools at lower fees, effectively incentivizing broader market-making participation.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[deans-list]] — parent entity, fee structure governance
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-01-14*
+
+### Summary
+Increase DAO swap liquidity fee from 0.25% dynamic pool to 5% DLMM base fee (up to 10%) to generate sustainable treasury revenue.
+
+### Rationale
+Current 0.25% fee insufficient to generate meaningful treasury revenue, support operational costs, or build reserves. Average daily volume ~1,541 USDC generates minimal inflow.
+
+### Implementation
+- Create DLMM pool with 5% base fee, bin step of 80
+- Change quote token from mSOL to SOL
+- Fee reclaiming done monthly by DAO treasurer (@1xraccoon)
+
+### Tiered Market Structure
+- Large trades: prefer DAO pool (high liquidity, 5% fee, less slippage)
+- Small trades: individual LP pools (lower fees ~0.25%)
+- DAO captures revenue from large trades; contributors incentivized to provide smaller pools
+
+### Growth Scenarios (with fee increase)
+| Scenario | Volume Change | Monthly Fee Revenue | Annual Growth |
+|----------|--------------|-------------------|---------------|
+| Conservative | -30% | 1,618 USDC | 19,416 USDC |
+| Moderate | -20% | 1,849 USDC | 22,188 USDC |
+| Optimistic | -10% | 2,080 USDC | 24,960 USDC |
+
+### TWAP Calculation
+Current MCAP (-5% adjustment): $298,889
+Pass threshold: $307,855 (MCAP + 3%)

decisions/internet-finance/develop-a-lst-vote-market.md

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: 'MetaDAO: Develop a LST Vote Market'
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+tracked_by: rio
+created: '2026-03-24'
+last_updated: '2026-03-24'
+parent_entity: '[[metadao]]'
+platform: metadao
+proposer: Proph3t
+proposal_url: https://www.futard.io/proposal/9RisXkQCFLt7NA29vt5aWatcnU8SkyBgS95HxXhwXhW
+proposal_date: '2023-11-18'
+resolution_date: '2023-11-18'
+category: product
+summary: This proposal funded development of a centralized bribe platform for MNDE
+  and mSOL holders to earn yield by directing their stake to validators, modeled after
+  Ethereum's Votium. MetaDAO allocated 3,000 META to build the platform, with projected
+  annual revenue of $150k-$170k and an estimated $10.5M increase to MetaDAO's enterprise
+  value if successfully executed.
+tags:
+- futardio
+- metadao
+- futarchy
+- solana
+- governance
+- metadao
+---
+
+# MetaDAO: Develop a LST Vote Market
+
+## Summary
+
+This proposal funded development of a centralized bribe platform for MNDE and mSOL holders to earn yield by directing their stake to validators, modeled after Ethereum's Votium. MetaDAO allocated 3,000 META to build the platform, with projected annual revenue of $150k-$170k and an estimated $10.5M increase to MetaDAO's enterprise value if successfully executed.
+
+## Market Data
+
+- Status: Passed
+- after 1 month passes, veMNDE and mSOL holders can claim their SOL bribes from the pools
+- [Solana Compass Turbo Staking](https://solanacompass.com/staking/turbo-staking)
+- Proposal account: `9RisXkQCFLt7NA29vt5aWatcnU8SkyBgS95HxXhwXhW`
+- DAO account: `3wDJ5g73ABaDsL1qofF5jJqEJU4RnRQrvzRLkSnFc5di`
+- Proposer: `HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz`
+- Autocrat version: 0
+
+## Significance
+
+This proposal represents MetaDAO's first attempt to build a profit-generating product under its futarchy governance model, explicitly framed as a legitimacy-building exercise. The proposer argues that a fundamentally new organizational form like MetaDAO must 'prove that the model works' by demonstrating commercial viability, not just governance innovation. This reflects a critical tension in futarchy adoption: can prediction markets govern effectively without traditional corporate structures to execute operational decisions?
+
+The proposal's financial modeling is notably sophisticated for a DAO governance decision, including market sizing ($1.7M total addressable market), revenue projections ($135k average annual revenue), SaaS valuation multiples (7.8x), and probabilistic value calculations accounting for execution risk (70% success probability). This level of financial rigor suggests futarchy governance may naturally select for more analytically-grounded proposals compared to token-voting DAOs, where emotional appeals and community sentiment often dominate.
+
+The non-custodial Votium-style design choice reveals how futarchy-governed organizations still rely on traditional risk management principles. Despite using prediction markets for go/no-go decisions, the proposal explicitly prioritizes user fund security over potential revenue optimization, demonstrating that market-based governance doesn't eliminate the need for conservative operational design. The proposal also introduces performance-based retroactive incentives, creating a precedent for outcome-contingent compensation that aligns contributor incentives with the conditional market structure.
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+## Proposal Details
+- Project: MetaDAO
+- Proposal: Develop a LST Vote Market?
+- Status: Passed
+- Created: 2023-11-18
+- URL: https://www.futard.io/proposal/9RisXkQCFLt7NA29vt5aWatcnU8SkyBgS95HxXhwXhW
+- Description: This platform would allow MNDE and mSOL holders to earn extra yield by directing their stake to validators who pay them.
+
+## Summary
+
+### 🎯 Key Points  
+The proposal aims to develop a centralized bribe platform for MNDE and mSOL holders to earn extra yield by directing their stake to validators, addressing the fragmented current market. It seeks 3,000 META to fund the project, with the expectation of generating approximately $1.5M annually for the Meta-DAO.
+
+### 📊 Impact Analysis  
+#### 👥 Stakeholder Impact  
+The platform will enable small MNDE and mSOL holders to compete with whales for higher yields, enhancing their earning potential.
+
+#### 📈 Upside Potential  
+If successful, the platform could significantly increase the Meta-DAO's enterprise value by an estimated $10.5M, with potential annual revenues of $150k to $170k.
+
+#### 📉 Risk Factors  
+Execution risk is a concern, as the project's success is speculative and hinges on a 70% chance of successful implementation, which could result in a net value creation of only $730k after costs.
+
+## Content
+
+## Overview
+
+The Meta-DAO is awakening. 
+
+Given that the Meta-DAO is a fundamentally new kind of organization, it lacks legitimacy. To gain legitimacy, we need to first *prove that the model works*. I believe that the best way to do that is by building profit-turning products under the Meta-DAO umbrella.
+
+Here, we propose the first one: an [LST bribe platform](https://twitter.com/durdenwannabe/status/1683150792843464711). This platform would allow MNDE and mSOL holders to earn extra yield by [directing their stake](https://docs.marinade.finance/marinade-products/directed-stake#snapshot-system) to validators who pay them. A bribe market already exists, but it's fragmented and favors whales. This platform would centralize the market, facilitating open exchange between validators and MNDE / mSOL holders and allowing small holders to earn the same yield as whales.
+
+#### Executive summary
+- The product would exist as a 2-sided marketplace between validators who want more stake and MNDE and mSOL holders who want more yield.
+- The platform would likely be structured similar to Votium.
+- The platform would monetize by taking 10% of bribes.
+- We estimate that this product would generate \$1.5M per year for the Meta-DAO, increasing the Meta-DAO's enterprise value by \$10.5M, if executed successfully.
+- We are requesting 3,000 META and the promise of retroactively-decided performance-based incentives. If executed, this proposal would transfer the first 1,000 META.
+- Three contributors have expressed interest in working on this: Proph3t, for the smart contracts; marie, for the UI; and nicovrg, for the BD with Marinade. Proph3t would be the point person and would be responsible for delivering this project to the Meta-DAO.
+
+## Problem statement
+
+Validators want more stake. MNDE and mSOL holders want more yield. Since Marinade allows its MNDE and mSOL holders to direct 40% of its stake, this creates an opportunity for mSOL and MNDE to earn higher yield by selling their votes to validators.
+
+Today, this market is fragmented. Trading occurs through one-off locations like Solana Compass' [Turbo Stake](https://solanacompass.com/staking/turbo-staking) and in back-room Telegram chats. This makes it hard for people who don't actively follow the Solana ecosystem and small holders to earn the highest yields.
+
+We propose a platform that would centralize this trading. Essentially, this would provide an easy place where validators who want more stake can pay for the votes of MNDE and mSOL holders. In the future, we could expand to other LSTs like bSOL.
+
+## Design
+
+There are a number ways you could design a bribe platform. After considering a few options, a Votium-style system appears to be the best one.
+
+### Votium
+
+[Votium](https://votium.app/) is a bribe platform on Ethereum. Essentially, projects that want liquidity in their token pay veCRV holders to allocate CRV emissions to their token's liquidity pool (the veCRV system is fairly complex and out of scope for this proposal). For example, the Frax team might pay veCRV holders to allocate CRV emissions to the FRAX+crvUSD pool.
+
+If you're a project that wants to pay for votes, you do so in the following way:
+- create a Votium pool
+- specify which Curve pool (a different kind of pool, I didn't name them :shrug:) you want CRV emissions to be directed to
+- allocate some funds to that pool
+
+If you're a veCRV-holder, you are eligible to claim from that pool. To do so, you must first vote for the Curve pool specified. Then, once the voting period is done, each person who voted for that Curve pool can claim a pro rata share of the tokens from the Votium pool.
+
+Alternatively, you can delegate to Votium, who will spread your votes among the various pools.
+
+### Our system
+
+In our case, a Votium-style platform would look like the following:
+- Once a month, each participating validator creates a pool, specifying a *price per vote* and depositing SOL to their pool. The amount of SOL deposited in a pool defines the maximum votes bought. For example, if Laine deposits 1,000 SOL to a pool and specifies a price per vote of 0.1 SOL, then this pool can buy up to 10,000 votes
+- veMNDE and mSOL holders are given 1 week to join pools, which they do by directing their stake to the respective validator (the bribe platform UI would make this easy)
+- after 1 month passes, veMNDE and mSOL holders can claim their SOL bribes from the pools
+
+The main advantage of the Votium approach is that it's non-custodial. In other words, *there would be no risk of user fund loss*. In the event of a hack, the only thing that could be stolen are the bribes deposited to the pools.
+
+## Business model
+
+The Meta-DAO would take a small fee from the rewards that are paid to bribees. Currently, we envision this number being 10%, but that is subject to change.
+
+## Financial projections
+
+Although any new project has uncertain returns, we can give rough estimates of the returns that this project would generate for the Meta-DAO.
+
+Marinade Finance currently has \$532M of SOL locked in it. Of that, 40% or \$213M is directed by votes. Validators are likely willing to pay up to the marginal revenue that they can gain by bribing. So, at 8% staking rates and 10% comissions, the **estimated market for this is \$213M * 0.08 * 0.1, or \$1.7M**.
+
+At a 10% fee, the revenue available to the Meta-DAO would be \$170k. The revenue share with Marinade is yet to be negotiated. At a 10% revshare, the Meta-DAO would earn \$150k per year. At a 30% revshare, the Meta-DAO would earn \$120k per year.
+
+We take the average of \$135k per year and multiply  by the [typical SaaS valuation multiple](https://aventis-advisors.com/saas-valuation-multiples/#multiples) of 7.8x to achieve the estimate that **this product would add \$1.05M to the Meta-DAO's enterprise value if executed successfully.**
+
+Of course, there is a chance that is not executed successfully. To estimate how much value this would create for the Meta-DAO, you can calculate:
+
+[(% chance of successful execution / 100) * (estimated addition to the Meta-DAO's enterprise value if successfully executed)] - up-front costs
+
+For example, if you believe that the chance of us successfully executing is 70% and that this would add \$10.5M to the Meta-DAO's enterprise value, you can do (0.7 * 10.5M) - dillution cost of 3,000 META. Since each META has a book value of \$1 and is probably worth somewhere between \$1 and \$100, this leaves you with **\$730k - \$700k of value created by the proposal**.
+
+As with any financial projections, these results are highly speculative and sensitive to assumptions. Market participants are encouraged to make their own assumptions and to price the proposal accordingly.
+
+## Proposal request
+
+We are requesting **3,000 META and retroactively-decided performance-based incentives** to fund this project. 
+
+This 3,000 META would be split among:
+- Proph3t, who would perform the smart contract work
+- marie, who would perform the UI/UX work
+- nicovrg, who would be the point person to Marinade Finance and submit the grant proposal to the Marinade forums
+
+1,000 META would be paid up-front by the execution of this proposal. 2,000 META would be paid after the proposal is done.
+
+The Meta-DAO is still figuring out how to properly incentivize performance, so we don't want to be too specific with how that would done. Still, it is game-theoretically optimal for the Meta-DAO to compensate us fairly because under-paying us would dissuade future builders from contributing to the Meta-DAO. So we'll put our trust in the game theory.
+
+## References
+
+- [Solana LST Dune Dashboard](https://dune.com/ilemi/solana-lsts)
+- [Marinade Docs](https://docs.marinade.finance/), specifically the pages on - [MNDE Directed Stake](https://docs.marinade.finance/the-mnde-token/mnde-directed-stake) and [mSOL Directed Stake](https://docs.marinade.finance/marinade-products/directed-stake)
+- [Marinade's Validator Dashboard](https://marinade.finance/app/validators/?sorting=score&direction=descending)
+- [MNDE Gauge Profit Calculator](https://cogentcrypto.io/MNDECalculator)
+- [Marinade SDK](https://github.com/marinade-finance/marinade-ts-sdk/blob/bc4d07750776262088239581cac60e651d1b5cf4/src/marinade.ts#L283)
+- [Solana Compass Turbo Staking](https://solanacompass.com/staking/turbo-staking)
+- [Marinade Directed Stake program](https://solscan.io/account/dstK1PDHNoKN9MdmftRzsEbXP5T1FTBiQBm1Ee3meVd#anchorProgramIDL)
+
+## Raw Data
+
+- Proposal account: `9RisXkQCFLt7NA29vt5aWatcnU8SkyBgS95HxXhwXhW`
+- Proposal number: 0
+- DAO account: `3wDJ5g73ABaDsL1qofF5jJqEJU4RnRQrvzRLkSnFc5di`
+- Proposer: `HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz`
+- Autocrat version: 0
+- Completed: 2023-11-29
+- Ended: 2023-11-29
+
+## Relationship to KB
+
+- [[futarchy-governed-daos-prioritize-revenue-generating-products-over-pure-governance-innovation-to-establish-organizational-legitimacy]]
+- [[prediction-market-governance-selects-for-financially-rigorous-proposals-with-quantified-risk-return-analysis-compared-to-token-voting-governance]]
+- [[futarchy-organizations-still-require-traditional-corporate-risk-management-frameworks-despite-using-market-mechanisms-for-strategic-decisions]]
+- [[metadao-uses-retroactive-performance-based-compensation-to-align-contributor-incentives-with-prediction-market-conditional-structures]]
+- [[futarchy-governed-product-development-proposals-frame-execution-risk-as-probabilistic-value-calculations-rather-than-binary-go-or-no-go-decisions]]
+
+---
+
+Relevant Entities:
+- [[metadao]] — parent organization
+
+Topics:
+- [[internet finance and decision markets]]

decisions/internet-finance/develop-a-saber-vote-market.md

@@ -0,0 +1,261 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: 'MetaDAO: Develop a Saber Vote Market'
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+tracked_by: rio
+created: '2026-03-24'
+last_updated: '2026-03-24'
+parent_entity: '[[metadao]]'
+platform: metadao
+proposer: metaproph3t
+proposal_url: https://www.futard.io/proposal/GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM
+proposal_date: '2023-12-16'
+resolution_date: '2023-12-16'
+category: product
+summary: MetaDAO voted to build a vote market platform for Saber (veSBR holders),
+  funded with $150,000 by ecosystem teams including UXD, BlazeStake, LP Finance, and
+  Saber, with MetaDAO owning 65% of the platform. The platform would charge a 5-15%
+  take rate on vote trades, with projected annual revenue of $60-240k based on Saber's
+  $20M TVL and comparable Curve/Aura vote market volumes.
+tags:
+- futardio
+- metadao
+- futarchy
+- solana
+- governance
+- metadao
+---
+
+# MetaDAO: Develop a Saber Vote Market
+
+## Summary
+
+MetaDAO voted to build a vote market platform for Saber (veSBR holders), funded with $150,000 by ecosystem teams including UXD, BlazeStake, LP Finance, and Saber, with MetaDAO owning 65% of the platform. The platform would charge a 5-15% take rate on vote trades, with projected annual revenue of $60-240k based on Saber's $20M TVL and comparable Curve/Aura vote market volumes.
+
+## Market Data
+
+- Status: Passed
+- That proposal passed
+- Proposal account: `GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM`
+- DAO account: `7J5yieabpMoiN3LrdfJnRjQiXHgi7f47UuMnyMyR78yy`
+- Proposer: `HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz`
+- Autocrat version: 0.1
+
+## Significance
+
+This proposal represents MetaDAO's second attempt to build vote market infrastructure after pivoting from Marinade when that project developed an internal solution. The Saber partnership demonstrates MetaDAO's strategy of building legitimacy through collaborations with established DeFi protocols, using external funding to derisk development while retaining majority ownership of revenue-generating products. The financial model explicitly references Curve's Votium and Convex ecosystems as benchmarks, projecting $1 in yearly vote trade volume per $50 of protocol TVL.
+
+The proposal is significant for testing whether futarchy-governed organizations can successfully execute complex product development with multiple stakeholders and tight timelines. The detailed execution plan includes specific team members, weekly deliverables from December 2023 through February 2024, and audit commitments from known Solana developers. This level of operational specificity contrasts with typical DAO proposals and reflects MetaDAO's attempt to prove futarchy can drive accountable execution, not just capital allocation decisions.
+
+The explicit focus on legitimacy as a flywheel—where successful product launches attract talent and capital, which funds more products, generating more legitimacy—reveals MetaDAO's theory of how futarchy-governed organizations bootstrap credibility. By building infrastructure for other protocols rather than competing directly, MetaDAO positions itself as neutral governance infrastructure, potentially creating a new category of DAO that provides "governance-as-a-service" to the broader ecosystem.
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+## Proposal Details
+- Project: MetaDAO
+- Proposal: Develop a Saber Vote Market?
+- Status: Passed
+- Created: 2023-12-16
+- URL: https://www.futard.io/proposal/GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM
+- Description: I propose that we build a vote market as we proposed in proposal 0, only for Saber instead of Marinade.
+
+## Summary
+
+### 🎯 Key Points
+The proposal aims to develop a Saber Vote Market funded by $150,000 from various ecosystem teams, enabling veSBR holders to earn extra yield and allowing projects to easily access liquidity.
+
+### 📊 Impact Analysis
+#### 👥 Stakeholder Impact
+The platform will benefit users by providing them with opportunities to earn additional yield and assist teams in acquiring liquidity more efficiently.
+
+#### 📈 Upside Potential
+The Meta-DAO could generate significant revenue through a take rate on vote trades, enhancing its legitimacy and value.
+
+#### 📉 Risk Factors
+There is a potential risk of lower than expected trading volume, which could impact the financial sustainability and operational success of the platform.
+
+## Content
+
+## Overview
+
+It looks like things are coming full circle. Here, I propose that we build a vote market as we proposed in [proposal 0](https://hackmd.io/ammvq88QRtayu7c9VLnHOA?view), only for Saber instead of Marinade. I'd recommend you read that proposal for the context, but I'll summarize briefly here:
+- I proposed to build a Marinade vote market
+- That proposal passed
+- We learned that Marinade was developing an internal solution, we pivoted to supporting them
+
+All of that is still in motion. But recently, I connected with [c2yptic](https://twitter.com/c2yptic) from Saber, who happens to be really excited about the Meta-DAO's vision. Saber was planning on creating a vote market, but he proposed that the Meta-DAO build it instead. I think that this would be a tremendous opportunity for both parties, which is why I'm proposing this.
+
+Here's the high-level:
+- The platform would be funded with $150,000 by various ecosystem teams that would benefit from the platform's existence including UXD, BlazeStake, LP Finance, and Saber.
+- veSBR holders would use the market to earn extra yield
+- Projects that want liquidity could easily pay for it, saving time and money relative to a bespoke campaign
+- The Meta-DAO would own the majority of the platform, with the remaining distributed to the ecosystem teams mentioned above and to users via liquidity mining.
+
+## Why a Saber Vote Market would be good for users and teams
+
+### Users
+
+Users would be able to earn extra yield on their SBR (or their veSBR, to be precise).
+
+### Teams
+
+Teams want liquidity in their tokens. Liquidity is both useful day-to-day - by giving users lower spreads - as well as a backstop against depeg events.
+
+This market would allow teams to more easily and cheaply pay for liquidity. Rather than a bespoke campaign, they would in effect just be placing limit orders in a central market.
+
+## Why a Saber Vote Market would be good for the Meta-DAO
+
+### Financial projections
+
+The Meta-DAO is governed by futarchy - an algorithm that optimizes for token-holder value. So it's worth looking at how much value this proposal could drive.
+
+Today, Saber has a TVL of $20M. Since votes are only useful insofar as they direct that TVL, trading volume through a vote market should be proportional to it.
+
+We estimate that there will be approximately **\$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$50 of Saber TVL.** We estimate this using Curve and Aura:
+- Today, Curve has a TVL of \$2B. This round of gauge votes - which happen every two weeks - [had \$1.25M in tokens exchanged for votes](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/59). This equates to a run rate of \$30M, or \$1 of vote trade volume for every \$67 in TVL.
+- Before the Luna depeg, Curve had \$20B in TVL and vote trade volume was averaging between [\$15M](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/10) and [\$20M](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/8), equivalent to \$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$48 in TVL.
+- In May, Aura has \$600M in TVL and [\$900k](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/hh/aura-bal/25) in vote trade volume, equivalent to \$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$56 of TVL
+
+The other factor in the model will be our take rate. Based on Convex's [7-10% take rate](https://docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/fees#convex-for-curve), [Votium's ~3% take rate](https://docs.votium.app/faq/fees#vlcvx-incentives), and [Hidden Hand's ~10% take rate](https://docs.redacted.finance/products/pirex/btrfly#is-there-a-fee-for-using-pirex-btrfly), I believe something between 5 and 15% is reasonable. Since we don't expect as much volume as those platforms but we still need to pay people, maybe we start at 15% but could shift down as scale economies kick in.
+
+Here's a model I put together to help analyze some potential scenarios:
+
+![Screenshot from 2023-12-14 15-18-26](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/B1vCn9d8p.png)
+
+The 65% owned by the Meta-DAO would be the case if we distributed an additional 10% of the supply in liquidity incentives / airdrop.
+
+### Legitimacy
+
+As [I've talked about](https://medium.com/@metaproph3t/an-update-on-the-first-proposal-0e9cdf6e7bfa), assuming futarchy works, the most important thing to the Meta-DAO's success will be acquiring legitimacy. Legitimacy is what leads people to invest their time + money into the Meta-DAO, which we can invest to generate financially-valuable outputs, which then generates more legitimacy.
+
+![image](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/BkPF69dL6.png)
+
+By partnering with well-known and reputable projects, we increase the Meta-DAO's legitimacy.
+
+## How we're going to execute
+
+### Who
+
+So far, the following people have committed to working on this project:
+- [Marie](https://twitter.com/swagy_marie) to build the UI/UX
+- [Matt / fzzyyti](https://x.com/fzzyyti?s=20) to build the smart contracts
+- [Durden](https://twitter.com/durdenwannabe) to design the platform & tokenomics
+- [Joe](https://twitter.com/joebuild) and [r0bre](https://twitter.com/r0bre) to audit the smart contracts
+- [me](https://twitter.com/metaproph3t) to be the [accountable party](https://discord.com/channels/1155877543174475859/1172275074565427220/1179750749228519534) / program manager
+
+UXD has also committed to review the contracts.
+
+### Timeline
+
+#### December 11th - December 15th
+
+Kickoff, initial discussions around platform design & tokenomics
+
+#### December 18th - December 22nd
+
+Lower-level platform design, Matt starts on programs, Marie starts on UI design
+
+#### December 25th - January 5th (2 weeks)
+
+Holiday break
+
+#### January 8th - January 12th
+
+Continued work on programs, start on UI code
+
+#### January 15th - January 19th
+
+Continued work on programs & UI
+
+Deliverables on Friday, January 19th:
+- Basic version of program deployed to devnet. You should be able to create pools and claim vote rewards. Fine if you can't claim $BRB tokens yet. Fine if tests aren't done, or some features aren't added yet.
+- Basic version of UI. It's okay if it's a Potemkin village and doesn't actually interact with the chain, but you should be able to create pools (as a vote buyer) and pick a pool to sell my vote to.
+
+#### January 22nd - 26th
+
+Continue work on programs & UI, Matt helps marie integrate devnet program into UI
+
+Deliverables on Friday, January 26th:
+- MVP of program
+- UI works with the program delivered on January 19th
+
+#### January 29th - Feburary 2nd
+
+Audit time! Joe and r0bre audit the program this week
+
+UI is updated to work for the MVP, where applicable changes are
+
+#### February 5th - Febuary 9th
+
+Any updates to the program in accordance with the audit findings
+
+UI done
+
+#### February 12th - February 16th
+
+GTM readiness week!
+
+Proph3t or Durden adds docs, teams make any final decisions, we collectively write copy to announce the platform
+
+#### February 19th
+
+Launch day!!! 🎉
+
+### Budget
+
+Based on their rates, I'm budgeting the following for each person:
+- $24,000 to Matt for the smart contracts
+- $12,000 to Marie for the UI
+- $7,000 to Durden for the platform design
+- $7,000 to Proph3t for program management
+- $5,000 to r0bre to audit the program
+- $5,000 to joe to audit the program
+- $1,000 deployment costs
+- $1,000 miscellaneous
+
+That's a total of \$62k. As mentioned, the consortium has pledged \$150k to make this happen. The remaining \$90k would be custodied by the Meta-DAO's treasury, partially to fund the management / operation / maintenance of the platform.
+
+### Terminology
+
+For those who are more familiar with bribe terminology, which I prefer not to use:
+- briber = vote buyer
+- bribee = vote seller
+- bribe platform = vote market / vote market platform
+- bribes = vote payments / vote trade volume
+
+
+
+## References
+
+- [Solana DeFi Dashboard](https://dune.com/summit/solana-defi)
+- [Hidden Hand Volume](https://dune.com/embeds/675784/1253758)
+- [Curve TVL](https://defillama.com/protocol/curve-finance)
+- [Llama Airforce](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/59)
+
+## Raw Data
+
+- Proposal account: `GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM`
+- Proposal number: 2
+- DAO account: `7J5yieabpMoiN3LrdfJnRjQiXHgi7f47UuMnyMyR78yy`
+- Proposer: `HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz`
+- Autocrat version: 0.1
+- Completed: 2023-12-22
+- Ended: 2023-12-22
+
+## Relationship to KB
+
+- [[futarchy-governed-daos-prioritize-legitimacy-accumulation-over-short-term-profit-maximization-because-token-value-depends-on-attracting-contributors-and-partners]]
+- [[vote-markets-and-governance-as-a-service-emerge-as-sustainable-business-models-for-futarchy-daos-because-they-align-incentive-design-expertise-with-recurring-revenue]]
+- [[futarchy-proposals-that-include-detailed-execution-plans-with-named-accountable-parties-have-higher-success-rates-than-abstract-strategic-proposals]]
+- [[metadao's-product-strategy-focuses-on-building-infrastructure-for-other-protocols-rather-than-end-user-applications-because-b2b-relationships-provide-more-stable-revenue-and-legitimacy]]
+- [[external-funding-partnerships-allow-futarchy-daos-to-derisk-product-development-while-maintaining-majority-ownership-and-control]]
+
+---
+
+Relevant Entities:
+- [[metadao]] — parent organization
+
+Topics:
+- [[internet finance and decision markets]]

decisions/internet-finance/digifrens-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[digifrens]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "DigiFrens team"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/HTyjkYarxpf115vPqGXYpPpS9jFMXzLLjGNnVjEGWuBg"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/digifrens/trade/HTyjkYarxpf115vPqGXYpPpS9jFMXzLLjGNnVjEGWuBg"
 proposal_date: 2026-03-03
 resolution_date: 2026-03-04
 category: "fundraise"
@@ -44,3 +44,15 @@ The project had substantial technical development already complete (TestFlight b
 - MetaDAO — underlying futarchy infrastructure
 - Contrasts with [[futardio-cult-raised-11-4-million-in-one-day-through-futarchy-governed-meme-coin-launch]] which succeeded at scale
 - Example of consumer application fundraising challenges in futarchy context
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-03-03*
+
+DigiFrens: AI Companion iOS app pairing 3D/2D animated avatars with AI that builds a living model of user identity and emotional patterns.
+
+**Features:** 4 avatar characters, 6 AI providers (Apple Intelligence, OpenAI, Claude, on-device LLMs), 9-parallel retrieval memory system, HEXACO trait modeling, premium voice synthesis via ElevenLabs, full privacy on-device option.
+
+**Raise:** Target $200,000. Total committed: $6,600 (3.3%). Status: Refunding. Closed 2026-03-04.
+
+**Roadmap:** Gaussian Splatting avatars, App Store launch, macOS companion, on-device voice. Monthly burn: ~$10K. Website: digifrens.app

decisions/internet-finance/drift-ai-agent-grants-program.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/A74H61YqwsbwRczuErbUyh9kqG1A7ZbiE1W5hWZmT9fm"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/drift/trade/A74H61YqwsbwRczuErbUyh9kqG1A7ZbiE1W5hWZmT9fm"
 proposal_date: 2024-12-19
 resolution_date: 2024-12-22
 category: "grants"
@@ -57,3 +57,91 @@ This represents Drift's strategic investment in the emerging AI x DeFi sector, u
 - [[drift]] - parent entity, treasury allocation
 - [[futardio]] - governance platform
 - MetaDAO - futarchy implementation reference
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+### Drift AI Agents RFG
+
+### Abstract
+This proposal requests to create a Drift AI Agents Grants program, a Decision Committee and to allocate 50,000 DRIFT towards the program and committee's discretion.
+
+### Motivation
+
+AI agents have recently attracted significant attention, capital, and talent. While their intersection with DeFi is still nascent, Drift believes in the sector's potential and considers it an important area for investment.
+
+The Drift AI Agents Request for Grants (RFG) aims to:
+
+* Foster growth in the AI x DeFi sector.
+* Encourage teams to build on Drift.
+* Signal Drift's focus on developing this emerging space.
+
+### Specifications
+
+#### Qualifying Grants
+
+**What Is a DeFi Agent?**
+To differentiate a DeFi agent from a traditional bot or managed strategy, consider the following guidelines:
+
+* Should operate with autonomy to manage assets.
+* Should utilise multiple strategies or tools.
+* Should exist off-chain but can interact on-chain.
+* Should be able to communicate with, and execute objectives for, an agent manager.
+
+*Note: This is not a comprehensive definition. Drift welcomes all interpretations of what constitutes an "agent."*
+
+**Target Areas:**
+
+* **Trading Agents:** Integrating with Drift Perps to trade or execute position strategies on behalf of managers.
+* **Yield Agents:** Managing capital through multiple yield opportunities available on Drift.
+* **Information Agents:** Surfacing on-chain information or raising awareness about Drift.
+* **Social Agents:** Build a cult following around Drift, be a reply guy or KOL, etc.
+
+This list is not exhaustive. Any agent application relevant to Drift is encouraged.
+
+**Grant Amount**
+A total of up to 50,000 DRIFT is available in grants.
+
+* Grant amounts may range from 10,000–20,000 DRIFT, depending on the proposal.
+* Grants will be approved by the decision council and awarded upon milestone completion.
+
+#### Application Process
+1. **Proposal:**
+   * Complete the application form: [Link](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmqXph2f6EGSkN_79oeaQLfxRkzUqXZl5dK4_S4UMqE_eIbw/viewform?usp=sf_link)
+   * If applicable, a Drift Ecosystem team member will reach out to help formalize the proposal.
+2. **Review:**
+   * The formalized proposal will be reviewed by the decision council.
+
+**Timeline**
+
+* Applications are open upon approval of the RFG.
+* Applications are open until March 1st, 2025.
+* Applications may be approved and grants awarded on a rolling basis.
+* Proposals will be reviewed and grantees notified by the decision council.
+* The deadline for approval is March 1st, Any unused grants will be returned to the foundation.
+* Deployment of grants will happen within 2 weeks of approval. Deployment may be dependent on KYC for regulatory compliance.
+
+**Decision Council**
+All grant decisions are at the discretion of the decision council and any such decisions made by the decision council are final.
+
+**Questions** For inquiries about the request for grants or the application process, contact **@airtightsquid** on Telegram.
+
+### Benefits / Risks
+
+#### Benefits
+
+- Additional users for DRIFT product suite
+- Additional product lines leveraging DRIFT product suite
+- Engaging community to drive utility of DRIFT within AI agents
+- Supporting nascent industry
+
+#### Risks
+
+- Emerging sector carries unknowns
+- Inefficient use of DRIFT
+- Teams time that could be used in other ways
+
+### Outcome
+From this proposal passing success would be the creation of the committee, publishing of the RFG, evaluating applicants and the awarding of up to 50k DRIFT tokens to eligible grantees.
+
+### Cost Summary
+This comes at a cost of 50k DRIFT tokens to the foundation.

decisions/internet-finance/drift-fund-artemis-labs-dashboards.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Drift: Fund Artemis Labs Data and Analytics Dashboards"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: failed
+parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Artemis Labs"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/drift/trade/G95shxDXSSTcgi2DTJ2h79JCefVNQPm8dFeDzx7qZ2ks"
+proposal_date: 2024-07-01
+resolution_date: 2024-07-04
+category: "grants"
+summary: "Artemis Labs proposed building comprehensive Drift protocol analytics dashboards for $50K in DRIFT tokens over 12 months — rejected by futarchy markets"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Drift: Fund Artemis Labs Data and Analytics Dashboards
+
+## Summary
+Artemis Labs proposed a 12-month engagement to build and maintain comprehensive data and analytics dashboards for the Drift protocol, integrating Drift metrics into the Artemis Terminal platform used by institutional investors (Grayscale, Franklin Templeton, Vaneck), liquid token funds (Pantera, Modular Capital), and retail investors. The proposal requested $50K USD in DRIFT tokens (max cap 115K DRIFT) paid linearly over 12 months, with a 6-month opt-out clause. The proposal failed to pass the futarchy market.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Failed
+- **Proposer:** Artemis Labs
+- **Proposal Account:** G95shxDXSSTcgi2DTJ2h79JCefVNQPm8dFeDzx7qZ2ks
+- **Created:** 2024-07-01
+- **Resolved:** ~2024-07-04
+
+## Proposed Deliverables
+- **Perp Protocol Metrics:** Open interest, fees, revenue, average fees/trade, funding rate (annualized)
+- **Unique Trader Metrics:** Exchange volume/trader, unique number of traders
+- **Liquidity Metrics:** Per-market +2%/-2% liquidity, price fill (effective price of 100K order)
+- **Deposit Metrics:** Average deposit size, deposit trends, lending rates
+- **Higher fidelity data refresh:** 6-hour intervals vs Drift's existing 24-hour S3 datalake refresh
+- **Independent research piece** shared with Artemis community
+- **Open source dashboards** free for community use
+
+## Significance
+This is the first Drift futarchy proposal from an external analytics vendor — a service procurement decision governed by conditional markets. The failure is notable because the proposal was well-structured with clear deliverables, institutional credibility (team from Venmo, Messari, Coinbase, BlackRock), and a reasonable 6-month cancellation clause. The market's rejection likely reflected either: (1) insufficient value-add relative to existing Drift analytics, (2) the $50K price point being too high for the perceived benefit, or (3) low market participation leading to unfavorable price dynamics. This case demonstrates futarchy's ability to reject proposals that would pass traditional committee-based grants processes, where vendor credibility and institutional relationships carry disproportionate weight.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[drift]] - parent entity, governance decision on analytics spending
+- [[futardio]] - governance platform
+- [[artemis-labs]] - proposing entity
+- [[futarchy-markets-can-reject-solutions-to-acknowledged-problems-when-the-proposed-solution-creates-worse-second-order-effects-than-the-problem-it-solves]] - market rejected a plausible vendor proposal
+- [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] - failure may reflect participation dynamics rather than genuine market opposition
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+### Simple Summary
+
+Artemis Labs is set to transform how the crypto community accesses Drift metrics and data via this proposal. By integrating detailed Drift protocol metrics onto Artemis, the whole suite of Artemis users which include top liquid token funds (Panetera, Modular Capital), retail investors, developers, and institutional investors (Grayscale, Vaneck, Franklin Templeton) will be able to access Drift metrics for the first time. Artemis's commitment to transparency and community engagement, with open-source dashboards and regular updates, ensures that Drift metrics are accessible and audited for the entire crypto community to digest and share however they want.
+
+The proposal is for a grant of $50k USD in Drift Tokens with a max cap of 115k Drift Tokens (whichever is lower) over 12 months.
+
+### Who is Artemis Labs:
+
+Artemis Labs is a software company building the unified platform for all of crypto data. We are in the business of enabling **anyone** in the crypto space to dive deep on any protocol whether they are familiar with on crypto data or not. With two core products: excel / google sheets plugin and Artemis Terminal, we surface key metrics for a robust set of users including:
+
+- institutional investors such as Grayscale, Franklin Templeton, and Vaneck
+- liquid token funds such as Modular Capital, Pantera Capital, and CoinFund
+- retail investors with over 20k+ twitter followers and 20k+ subscribers to our weekly newsletter
+- developers from Wave Wallet, Quicknode, and Bridge.xyz
+
+Our team consist of top engineers from companies such as Venmo, Messari, Coinbase, Facebook and top HFs / Investment Firms such as Holocene, Carlyle Group, Blackrock, and Whale Rock. We are a blend of top engineering and traditional finance talent allowing us to build + surface metrics that actually matter to markets.
+
+#### Company Values:
+
+Our mission is to **surface key metrics** to anyone that cares about crypto in whatever way is most intuitive to them. Whether its a dashboard, an excel plugin, or an api, we empower retail traders, large liquid token funds, and developers in this space to make informed bets on the market with their capital and time.
+
+- **Transparency**: We take transparency very seriously, which is why we took great effort to become open source earlier this year. If there are any metrics the broader crypto community is concerned about, anyone can make a github issue and we will resolve in a timely manner.
+- **Build with the community:** We are **open source** and will work directly with Drift Labs and the community to surface metrics that matter to Drift users, developers, investors, and token holders. We have worked with the Drift Lab team to come up with an initial set of metrics that will be valuable to the both the Artemis and Drift community.
+
+### Why 3rd Party Verified Data is important
+
+Open and trusted fundamental metrics are an important tool for everyone in crypto. Developers use it to determine what ecosystem to build on and capital allocators use it to make informed bets on projects. But as the crypto space grows and matures, more people are asking fundamental questions that require deeper metrics to answer. The crypto space is becoming more sophisticated and there isn't a single go to source for all Drift metrics that matter.
+
+Artemis proposal aims to solve 3 key issues in the space right now:
+
+- No clear benchmarking of Drift's Protocol Health
+- No place to get all the metrics of Drift in one place and compare with other perpetual trading protocols
+- No way to start tracking historical changes of Drift Liquidity over time
+- No place to get deeper metrics on drift users such as average deposit size, exchange volume / user, etc.
+
+Artemis will provide to the community:
+
+- Reliable benchmarking of the Drift Protocols with other protocols
+- Deeper metrics on Drift not just high level numbers like TVL and Exchange Volume
+- Neutral 3rd party verified metrics
+- Wider audience of institutional investors and builders looking at key Drift Metrics
+
+### Proposal
+
+Working with Drift Labs these are the core dashboard Artemis Labs will build out and maintain for the community over the 12 month period.
+
+Deeper Perp Protocol Metrics:
+
+- Open Interest
+- Fees
+- Revenue
+- Average Fees / Trade
+- Funding Rate (Annualized)
+
+Unique Trader Metrics:
+
+- Exchange Volume / Trader
+- Unique Number of Traders
+
+Liquidity Metrics:
+
+- Liquidity metrics by perp market
+  - +2% / -2% liquidity
+- Price Fill (effective price of a 100k Order)
+
+Deposit Metrics:
+
+- Average Deposit Size
+- Deposit Trends
+- Lending Rates
+
+### Community Engagement
+
+#### Independent Research
+
+As part of our commitment to being community focused, we will dive deep into the Drift Perps Protocol to highlight key metrics and the project. This will be done in the form of an independent research piece. We will then share this piece with the Artemis community the make up of which was described earlier in the proposal. This research piece will be made publicly available for anyone to read.
+
+#### Open Source Dashboards
+
+All of the dashboards and metrics we build for Drift will be open sourced and free for the community to screenshot and used for whatever they need.
+
+#### Updates
+
+We will also commit to a bi-monthly update post focusing on both works complete and ongoing as determined by the community.
+
+### Longer Term Relationship
+
+As has been stated above, we are a software company. We're building a platform that empowers anyone in crypto to make informed discussions with their time and capital. While this engagement is focus on building for the Drift Community and surfacing key metrics for the broader crypto community as it relates to Drift, we hope to continue to onboard more stakeholders in the crypto community to our platform. Our hope is that anyone who wants to do anything in crypto will at some point touch the Artemis platform and suite of products.
+
+### Success Criteria
+
+The successful completion of the Drift protocol's objectives will be measured against KPIs that will be derived from the specific objectives agreed upon between Drift and Artemis Labs. On top of those, We will also look to measure things such as:
+
+- Usage:
+  - Number of Tweet
+  - Page Views
+  - Metrics Calls on our plugin
+- Product Deliverables (Drift Metrics on Artemis)
+
+### Pricing and timing
+
+- 12 month engagement w/ option to cancel engagement after an initial 6 month period
+  - the Drift DAO will have the opportunity to terminate the relationship if it finds Artemis Labs' deliverables unsatisfactory (outlined above).
+- $50k USD value in Drift Tokens paid out linearly over 12 months.
+  - Drift token price would be a trailing 7-d average based on coingecko prices
+  - So at time of proposal that would be roughly **115,000 tokens** distributed out from a multisig where Drift Labs + Artemis Labs will be the signer over a 12 month period.
+- Start of engagement will begin once proposal is passed
+
+### Special Thanks
+
+- Big Z for reviewing and giving feedback!
+
+### On why Artemis think this is valuable
+
+- Artemis serves as a direct link to major capital allocators like Grayscale and Fidelity.
+  - Ex: A liquid token fund manager managing (8-9 million dollar) asked Artemis about Drift specific metrics. They can't find any deep metrics about Drift on Artemis and do not feel comfortable with other sources or frankly does not know where to look. Other platforms like the ones mentioned above are too complicated for them to navigate and do not allow them to digest data in their favorite platform where they do all their work: excel / google sheets.
+- Traders from platforms like dYdX, Hyperliquid, etc rely on Artemis for critical trading data and insights to determine where they should trade.
+  - Ex: a dYdX engineer came into the Artemis discord looking to confirm dYdX unique traders because traders were pinging them. These traders were using Artemis to determine what platform to allocate capital.
+
+### In terms of the coverage of metrics we expect to surface in addition to liquidity metrics
+
+- Granular insights on user behavior across Drift's products (e.g., insurance fund, lending, perp trading).
+  1. top users across drift's many products such as the insurance fund, lending, perp trading every week historically
+     - Answering questions like why Drift usage is going up or who makes up the user base of Drift
+  2. Break out exchange volume, deposits, and fees paid by users.
+     - Answering questions such as how much volume is done by 10, 100, 1000 traders etc.
+  3. Liquidity and averages fees historically
+     - Answering questions such as how much does it cost to use Drift as a trader
+  4. Revenue across all of Drift product lines
+     - Answering questions like how much money does Drift make and which revenue driver is growing the fastest
+     - Providing sensible multiples for capital allocators (P/S, P/E)
+- Higher fidelity refresh rates for order book data / on chain data
+  1. Currently, Drift refreshes its public S3 datalake every 24hours, we can do it every 6 hours (so 4 times a day)
+  2. This would be shared to the Drift Labs team and public for free consumptions
+
+### Compensation and Implementation Questions
+
+- We would need to manually integrate new data pipelines, process the data into metrics and then build + design intuitive dashboards on our terminal which requires weeks of data science, engineering, product, and design hours.
+- These dashboard have always been and continue to be free to use. The rest of our product is also free to use with very generous restrictions and the vast majority of our users are NOT paying customers.
+- **Propose compensation Changes:** 115k DRIFT or $50k USD (whichever is lower) over 12 months.
+  - We believe this is a fair value for the work we plan to do for Drift and the value add we bring to the community.
+
+We ultimately think that we are providing a unique service and we want to build a long term relationship with the Drift Community. If the DAO feels like we did not bring in enough value it has the power to cancel the contract after 6 months.

decisions/internet-finance/drift-fund-the-drift-superteam-earn-creator-competition.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/AKMnVnSC8DzoZJktErtzR2QNt1ESoN8i2DdHPYuQTMGY"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/drift/trade/AKMnVnSC8DzoZJktErtzR2QNt1ESoN8i2DdHPYuQTMGY"
 proposal_date: 2024-08-27
 resolution_date: 2024-08-31
 category: "grants"
@@ -36,3 +36,29 @@ Represents an early futarchy-governed marketing/grants decision where a protocol
 - [[drift]] - parent protocol governance decision
 - [[futardio]] - governance platform used
 - [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] - may relate to why this failed
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+[Drift](https://docs.drift.trade/) is the largest open-sourced perpetual futures exchange built on Solana. Recently, Drift announced B.E.T, Solana's first capital efficient prediction market.
+
+To celebrate the launch of B.E.T. this proposal would fund a collection of bounties called "Drift Protocol Creator Competition".
+
+- The Drift Foundation Grants Program would fund a total prize pool of $8,250.
+- The outcome of the competition will serve in educating the community on and accelerating growth of B.E.T. through community engagement and creative content generation.
+
+If the proposal passes the competition would be run through [Superteam Earn](https://earn.superteam.fun/) and funded in DRIFT token distributed by the Drift Foundation Grants Program.
+
+This proposed competition offers three distinct bounty tracks as well as a grand prize, each with its own rewards:
+
+* Grand prize ($3,000)
+* Make an engaging video on B.E.T ($1,750)
+* Twitter thread on B.E.T ($1,750)
+* Share Trade Ideas on B.E.T ($1,750)
+
+Each individual contest will have a prize structure of:
+
+- 1st place: $1000
+- 2nd place: $500
+- 3rd place: $250
+
+Link to campaign details and evaluation criteria: [Link](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QB0hPT0R_NvVqYh9UcNwRnf9ZE_ElWpDOjBLc8XgBAc/edit?usp=sharing)

decisions/internet-finance/drift-fund-the-drift-working-group.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/6TkkCy26HCqxWGt1QgfhFHc6ASikRjk74Gkk4Wfyd7wR"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/drift/trade/6TkkCy26HCqxWGt1QgfhFHc6ASikRjk74Gkk4Wfyd7wR"
 proposal_date: 2025-02-13
 resolution_date: 2025-02-16
 category: "grants"
@@ -54,3 +54,54 @@ Demonstrates futarchy-governed community grants for ecosystem development. The w
 - [[drift]] - parent entity receiving governance decision
 - [[futardio]] - platform hosting the futarchy decision
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - governance mechanism used
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+**Success guidelines:**
+
+* Creation of new and engaging community initiatives
+* Increased level of engagement with Drift across various channels
+  * Higher engagement across X (i.e impressions, replies, etc.)
+  * Increase community participation in Discord
+
+**Proposal:** This proposal is to fund a community-run Working Group. The proposal requests 50,000 DRIFT for funding the initial set-up and 3 months of operation.
+
+### Proposal Overview
+
+Drift would like to establish a working group called the Drift Working Group, following successful models in the Solana ecosystem. The working group model is designed to create a **self-sustaining ecosystem** of engagement, education, and growth for Drift. The working group will operate independently, with initial collaboration with the Drift core team during formation.
+
+This is an experimental initiative with plans to growth based on the program's success. The DWG will be led by a community member with a proven track record. The DWG will undergo a 3-month trial period before we build up learnings and next steps.
+
+### Key Activities
+
+* **Content Creation:** Develop high-quality content through different mediums like tweets and videos, to inform and engage the community about Drift's offerings.
+* **Community Activation:** Implement initiatives ("Community Rituals") to boost community participation, such as live-streamed trading sessions and community takeovers.
+* **Education Development:** Create comprehensive educational materials to guide new users and breakdown more complex features of Drift.
+
+### Leadership & Structure
+
+The DWG will be led by Socrates, bringing 3+ years of crypto marketing expertise and technical background. His focus spans user acquisition, content strategy, and brand awareness. He has supported notable brands such as Brave, Sui, Helio, Shaga, and Streamflow. The initial team will be composed of Anay and 4 working group members, with a total monthly budget of 15,400 DRIFT.
+
+**Budget**
+
+* The total budget for the working group is 50,000 DRIFT tokens. This amounts to 15,400 per month for three consecutive months as trial, with 3,800 DRIFT allocated for additional initiatives.
+* Any unused budget will be returned to the DAO.
+
+**Monthly Budget Breakdown**
+
+* Working Group Lead: 5,000 DRIFT
+* Team Members: 2,600 DRIFT
+* Initial team size: Lead + 4 members
+* **Additional Sponsorship**: Allocated budget for community initiatives
+
+### Timeline & Urgency
+
+* Launch Target: End of February 2024
+* Market Context: The current competitive landscape necessitates swift action to attract and retain talent, as similar initiatives are emerging.
+* Governance: DAO approval is required prior to the formation of the DWG.
+
+### Operational Framework
+
+* **Weekly Reporting**: The working group lead will provide regular updates to the Drift team.
+* **Performance Tracking**: Metrics will include individual KOL deliverables, community sentiment analysis, and internal feedback collection.
+* **Fund Management**: Funds will be managed through a 2/3 multisig wallet, comprising the working group lead and two members of the Drift team.

decisions/internet-finance/drift-futarchy-proposal-welcome-the-futarchs.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/9jAnAupCdPQCFvuAMr5ZkmxDdEKqsneurgvUnx7Az9zS"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/drift/trade/9jAnAupCdPQCFvuAMr5ZkmxDdEKqsneurgvUnx7Az9zS"
 proposal_date: 2024-05-30
 resolution_date: 2024-06-02
 category: "grants"
@@ -43,3 +43,65 @@ This proposal demonstrates that futarchy implementations require explicit incent
 - [[metadao]] - source of participant data via Dune dashboard
 - MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-implements-futarchy-through-conditional-token-markets-where-proposals-create-parallel-pass-and-fail-universes-settled-by-time-weighted-average-price-over-a-three-day-window - mechanism context
 - MetaDAOs-futarchy-implementation-shows-limited-trading-volume-in-uncontested-decisions - participation bootstrapping challenge
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+### Overview
+
+This proposal requests **50,000 DRIFT** to carry out an early Drift Futarchy incentive program (max of 10 proposals / 3 months).
+
+This proposal is meant to signal rewards for strong forecasters in futarchic markets by:
+- Rewarding early and active participants of MetaDAO with tokens to participate in Drift Futarchy (via the ["endowment effect"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect))
+- Incentivizing future well-formulated proposals and activity for Drift Futarchy
+
+This proposal's outline is fulfilled over months by the executor group, acting as a 2/3 multisig, defined below.
+
+### Implementation
+
+#### Retroactive Reward:
+
+Using the following dune dashboard data as reference: https://dune.com/metadaohogs/themetadao (with May 19th, 2024 UTC as a cutoff date)
+- [METADAO activity](https://gist.github.com/0xbigz/3ddbe2a21e721326d151ac957f96da20)
+- [META token holdings](https://gist.github.com/0xbigz/f461ed8accc6f86181d3e9a2c164f810)
+
+Among those who interacted with metadao's conditional vaults on at least 5 occassions over more period of 30 days, will recieve a retroactive reward as follows:
+
+- < 1 META, 100 DRIFT
+- >= 1 META, 200 DRIFT
+- >= 10 META, 400 DRIFT
+
+This [code](https://gist.github.com/0xbigz/a67d75f138c1c656353ab034936108fe) produces the following list of 32 MetaDAO participants who are qualified:
+https://gist.github.com/0xbigz/056d3f7780532ffa5662410bc49f7215
+
+**(9,600 DRIFT)**
+
+Additionally, all MetaDAO AMM swapers interacters https://dune.com/queries/3782545 who aren't included above should split remaining.
+
+crude snapshot: https://gist.github.com/0xbigz/adb2020af9ef0420b9026514bcb82eab
+
+**(2,400 DRIFT)**
+
+---
+
+#### Future Incentive:
+*The following applies to the lengthlier of next 10 proposals or 3 month time frame*
+
+Additionally, excluding this instance, passing proposal that are honored by security council can earn up to 5000 DRIFT for the proposer(s), each claimable after 3 months after.
+(*if successful proposals exceed two, executor group can decide top N proposals to split*)
+**(10,000 DRIFT)**
+
+For accounts sufficiently active during the period, a pool of 20,000 DRIFT will be split and claimable after 3 months. To filter for non organic activity, the exact criteria for this shall be finalized by the execution group.
+**(25,000 DRIFT)**
+
+---
+
+#### Execution Group:
+
+A 2/3 multisig to escrow and distribute funds based on outline. After successful completion of this proposal, they can distribute their allocation as they see fit.
+
+In the event of uncertainty or excess budget, funds shall be returned to originating wallet or Drift Futarchy DAO treasury.
+**(3,000 DRIFT)**
+
+- [metaprophet](https://x.com/metaproph3t)
+- [Sumatt](https://x.com/quantrarianism)
+- [Lmvdzande](https://x.com/Lmvdzande)

decisions/internet-finance/drift-initialize-foundation-grant-program.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/xU6tQoDh3Py4MfAY3YPwKnNLt7zYDiNHv8nA1qKnxVM"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/drift/trade/xU6tQoDh3Py4MfAY3YPwKnNLt7zYDiNHv8nA1qKnxVM"
 proposal_date: 2024-07-09
 resolution_date: 2024-07-13
 category: "grants"
@@ -45,3 +45,94 @@ The program's design addresses a common DAO challenge: how to efficiently alloca
 - [[drift]] - governance decision establishing grants infrastructure
 - [[futardio]] - platform hosting the proposal and larger grant decisions
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - mechanism used for large grant approvals
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+### Summary
+
+This proposal requests 100,000 DRIFT to carry out the initial iteration of the Drift Grants Program.
+
+The funds will be managed by 2/3 multi sig governed by the Decision Council.
+
+The proposal is designed to kickstart the foundation grants program with the goal of helping efficiently allocate capital and figure out the best process and structure for a more robust grants program going forward.
+
+### Overview
+
+A robust ecosystem can serve as a key competitive advantage in the DeFi space. Given the relatively undifferentiated products and open-source culture, a strong community and ecosystem are both crucial for a protocol's sustained success. The launch of DRIFT token will enable the foundation to accelerate ecosystem growth and fortify the Drift community through grants. The purpose of this proposal is to initialise the process of creating a grants system that effectively aligns and supports Drift's community and ecosystem.
+
+### Objectives
+
+#### Supporting Community Initiatives
+
+- Short-term: Short term the objective is to increase community engagement and help grow the size of the community by providing easy and open access to community members to lead community initiatives.
+- Vision: Long term it is about aligning incentives in a way fosters a robust and active community.
+
+#### Developing Ecosystem
+
+- Short-term: Over the next two months we want to start to push integration and figure out a process to source and support teams building on top of drift. We want this proposal to serve to help support people looking to build on Drift.
+- Vision: The long-term vision is to have Drift become a foundational layer that supports a flourishing ecosystem of projects.
+
+#### Answer key questions about the Grants program
+
+- Do people want small grants?
+  - Figuring out if there is demand for smaller grant sizes that may not make sense for Futarchic markets and figure out if the proposed proposal structure makes sense to handle them.
+- Do we need to source?
+  - The current structure is passive/supporting, is there enough quality inbound where this model works, or do we need to scale up the grant program to support sourcing.
+
+#### What does success look like?
+
+- Supporting Community initiatives: Figure out a system to evaluate and support initiatives.
+- Developing Ecosystem: Figure out the best way to support projects going through the futarchic system.
+- Testing Grants program: Answer the two objective questions.
+- Overall: Have a clearer vision for direction of the Foundation Grants Program and have confidence drafting and supporting a more substantial future proposal.
+
+#### Review
+
+At the end of the 2 month period the analyst will put together a comprehensive report reviewing all activities done by the team, all grants funded/proposed and come up with a recommendation for the program moving forward. The report will include an evaluation of how the grants program completed all objectives, where it fell short and how it should be changed. Ultimate goal is to be able to use learnings from the initial program to draft a more substantial follow up proposal.
+
+### Details
+
+**Timeframe:** 2 months, starting on July 1st ending on August 31st.
+
+Looking at other protocols grants programs, we believe it is important to commit heavily in effort and capital. The goal of the initial program is to quickly get started and experiment in design, operations, and best practices so that we can figure out what works best in order to iterate and commit with conviction for v2.
+
+**Initiation:** This proposal will be decided on through the Futarchic markets.
+
+**Team:** 4 People
+
+Ultimately, to have a successful grant program you need a strong and representative team to drive it. Part of the goal for the initial proposal is to figure out the workload/workflow for team members.
+
+- Decision Council: The decision council consists of 3 people and votes on the approval of small proposals. Expectations for the council include voting on each proposal, describing their reasoning behind their vote and working with the analyst to help create a brief summary report analysing each proposal. Expected commitment 0-6hrs per week. The members of the decision council will not be able to vote on proposals in which they are direct beneficiaries from in order to prevent conflicts of interest.
+  - Members: Personal info is hidden for privacy, all members are active community members that the team has vetted.
+    - Spidey
+    - Maskara
+    - James
+- Analyst: The analyst will be a team member responsible for managing inbound, helping teams draft proposals, supporting throughout the proposal process. The analyst will also be responsible for creating a summary report for each proposal and a final report reviewing success of the initial grants program along with recommendations for the next iteration. To start, Squid from the Drift ecosystem team will do the analyst role to help better explore what are the requirements for the role and the next steps program overall.
+- There will be 1 analyst initially. Depending on how the initial proposal goes there may need to be more analysts for future iterations of the grant program depending on the amount of work and the importance of sourcing.
+
+The initial member selection for this proposal was done by looking for contributors and core community members who are motivated and have the skills to excel in their respective positions. Part of the reason for doing a shorter trial grant period was to test run the team and help us figure out what to select for going forward.
+
+#### Compensation
+The majority of the work will fall onto the analyst and since Squid already works with Drift no compensation is necessary. Given the initial iteration of the grants program is designed to test requirements demand and workflows, the initial workload for the Decision Council is uncertain. For the initial grants program there will be no compensation for the Decision Council.
+
+- Note: We expect the initial grants program to give clarity on workload and flush out expectations for roles. If the grants program is continued or scaled up it is expected that both Analyst and Decision Council roles will be compensated.
+
+**Amount:** 100,000 DRIFT
+
+We believe 100,000 DRIFT (~$40,000) will be enough to support the upside scenario of grant interest in the next two months. Any Drift not distributed will be returned to the DAO.
+
+#### Use of funds
+
+- Up to 100,000 Drift will be used to fund proposals supporting the community and ecosystem.
+
+#### Process
+
+The initial creation of the grants program will be decided upon in the futarchal markets. If passed, the process of approving grants will depend on the size of the grant.
+
+- Community Initiative (Defined as <10,000 DRIFT)
+  - The approval will be fully decided by the Decision Council to retain operational efficiency.
+- Project (Defined as >10,000 DRIFT)
+  - The approval will be decided by pushing the grant as a proposal in the futarchic markets.
+    - The Decision Council will vote to support these proposals. If supported the Analyst will work to help draft, market and support the proposal through the futarchic markets.
+
+In both scenarios the team would be responsible for fulfilling the grant commitment and would be expected to support the grantee post approval.

decisions/internet-finance/drift-prioritize-listing-meta.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Nallok, Divide"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/FXkyJpCVADXS6YZcz1Kppax8Kgih23t6yvze7ehELJpp"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/drift/trade/FXkyJpCVADXS6YZcz1Kppax8Kgih23t6yvze7ehELJpp"
 proposal_date: 2024-11-25
 resolution_date: 2024-11-28
 category: "strategy"
@@ -49,3 +49,51 @@ This represents Drift's first documented use of futarchy for token listing decis
 - [[futardio]] - platform hosting the decision market
 - [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] - this proposal passed with minimal market activity
 - [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] - liquidity concerns explicitly noted as risk factor
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+**Proposal Type**
+Token Listing Application
+
+**Author(s)**
+Nallok, Divide
+
+**Preamble**
+Drift is evaluating the use of futarchy for token listing. Futarchy is a process by which speculative markets make decisions, because markets aggregate information better, reduce bias, and incentivize accuracy versus a standard voting process. Or simply - markets make better decisions.
+
+The goals of the futarchic listing process are i/ to empower the community to surface listings for Drift, ii/ better utilize governance, and iii/ to create a repeatable, lightweight process that will lead to more optimal use of Drift's development and listing resources.
+
+Should this proposal pass, the META token will be prioritised to be listed on Drift for Spot and Perp trading. It will also serve as an experiment to help develop a decentralised listing process using futarchy.
+
+**Overview**
+META is the tokenized representation of MetaDAO, the world's first market-governed organization. This mechanism is called Futarchy and was first created by George Mason University Economist Robin Hanson in 2001. Futarchy, which was first implemented onchain by MetaDAO, is designed to improve governance participation and incentivize more optimal decision-making, leading to better outcomes. The basic idea at the core of futarchy is that speculative markets are better decision-makers than voters. The advantage of using markets compared to traditional voting is that markets aggregate information better, reduce bias, and incentivize accuracy
+
+**Token Utility**
+META is traded in conditional markets for decision making of the DAO. For every proposal, there's a pass market, where people speculate on what the value of the DAO would be if the proposal passed, and a fail market, where people speculate on what the value of the DAO would be if the proposal failed. Decisions are made based on the prices of these two markets. If the value of META is higher in the pass market than in the fail market, it means the market thinks that the proposal adds value. So it should pass. If the pass market is lower than the fail market, it means the market believes it destroys value. So it should fail.
+
+**Why Prioritize This Listing**
+Historically, governance participation among token holders has been low and the processes to govern have not been user-friendly. To overcome these challenges, MetaDAO uses markets to make decisions, anything that can improve market utilization such as higher liquidity and perpetuals will allow for more information to be encoded into the decision making process. If traders have the ability to go long or short META they will have more capacity to trade the decision markets creating a flywheel between Drift Perps Markets and MetaDAO Decision Markets, ultimately creating more volume, more trades, new users, and better user retention.
+
+**Risks**
+This token has low onchain liquidity and low trading volume. It has limited CEX exposure (only on CoinEX) and it is uncertain if there will be any increase in volume. Therefore, it can be highly volatile and susceptible to price manipulation, which poses a significant risk when offering futures or when used as collateral.
+
+**Liquidity Incentives or Programs**
+If passed and listed, Drift would commit to a 1x multiplier for FUEL in the markets for spot deposits.
+
+**Additional Information**
+MetaDAO is a novel approach to governance that has the potential to reshape how decisions are made on and off chain.
+
+**Details**
+
+| Token Name | META |
+| :---- | :---- |
+| Token Address | METADDFL6wWMWEoKTFJwcThTbUmtarRJZjRpzUvkxhr |
+| Website | https://metadao.fi |
+| X Account | MetaDAOProject |
+| 7d Average Daily Trade Volume | $199.7k |
+| 30D Volume | $7.4M |
+| Fully Diluted Value (FDV) | $79.9M |
+| Markets Requested | Spot, Perps |
+| Team Doxed | Partially |
+| Token Launch Date | 2023-11-07 (past) |
+| Mint Authority Revoked | Yes |

decisions/internet-finance/futardio-approve-budget-pre-governance-hackathon.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[futardio]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "E2BjNZBAnT6yM52AANm2zDJ1ZLRQqEF6gbPqFZ51AJQh"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/2LKqzegdHrcrrRCHSuTS2fMjjJuZDfzuRKMnzPhzeD42"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/futuredao/trade/2LKqzegdHrcrrRCHSuTS2fMjjJuZDfzuRKMnzPhzeD42"
 proposal_date: 2024-08-30
 resolution_date: 2024-09-02
 category: "grants"
@@ -44,3 +44,24 @@ The proposal explicitly deferred monetization strategy, listing potential models
 ## Relationship to KB
 - [[futardio]] - product development funding
 - [[metadao]] - mentioned as complementary governance infrastructure
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-08-30*
+
+Approve $25,000 budget for developing Future's Pre-Governance Mandates tool and entry into Solana Radar Hackathon (September 1 - October 8, 2024).
+
+**Problem:** Low engagement and problematic outcomes from traditional DAO decision-making. Governance is so much more than voting.
+
+**Solution:** Tool combining decision-making engines with customizable surveys to gather community input, analyze issues, and refine proposals before formal governance votes. Complements (not competes with) MetaDAO, Realms, Squads, Align.
+
+**Budget Breakdown ($25,000):**
+- Decision-Making Engine & API Upgrades: $5,000
+- Mandates Wizard Upgrades: $3,000
+- dApp Build (Frontend): $7,000
+- dApp Build (Backend): $5,000
+- Documentation & Graphics: $5,000
+
+**Key Features:** Multi-criteria decision engine, customizable surveys, Web3 integration (wallet connect, Blinks), AI-powered analysis, mandates dashboard.
+
+**Monetization (deferred):** $FUTURE staking for unlimited access, one-time payments (70% to stakers, 30% to treasury), subscription model, consultancy.

decisions/internet-finance/futardio-cult-launch.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Futardio Cult: Futardio Launch"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[futardio-cult]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Futardio cult team"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/futardio-cult/trade/3EZBeQPQNHYkxnbrMRXG56DK1QRG8DR7VhYAUyvUFBzK"
+proposal_date: 2026-03-03
+resolution_date: 2026-03-04
+category: "launch"
+summary: "Futardio cult raised via MetaDAO ICO — funds for fan merch, token listings, private events/parties for futards"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Futardio Cult: Futardio Launch
+
+## Summary
+Futardio cult, a community meme project, launched via MetaDAO's futarchy-governed ICO. Funds allocated for fan merch, token listings, and private events/parties for futards.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Complete
+- **Duration:** 2026-03-03 to 2026-03-04
+
+## Significance
+Community/meme project using futarchy governance. Demonstrates MetaDAO's permissionless launch platform serving the full spectrum from infrastructure (Solomon) to pure community plays.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[futardio-cult]] — parent entity
+- [[metadao]] — ICO platform
+- [[futardio-cult-raised-11-4-million-in-one-day-through-futarchy-governed-meme-coin-launch]] — existing claim
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-03-03*
+
+**Project:** Futardio cult
+
+**Description:** The first futarchy governed meme coin.
+We will make tokens great again
+
+**Funding target:** $50,000.00
+**Total committed:** $11,402,898.00
+**Status:** Complete
+**Launch date:** 2026-03-03
+**URL:** https://www.futard.io/launch/3EZBeQPQNHYkxnbrMRXG56DK1QRG8DR7VhYAUyvUFBzK
+
+### Team / Description
+
+Funds will be used for a variety of different things incuding fan merch, token listings, private events/partys for futards
+
+### Raw Data
+
+- Launch address: `3EZBeQPQNHYkxnbrMRXG56DK1QRG8DR7VhYAUyvUFBzK`
+- Token: Futardio cult (FUTARDIO)
+- Token mint: `Cbjr1Nvcay3QWDriyRKtokJ7V4PMknesGxeK8z7Zmeta`
+- Version: v0.7
+- Total approved: $50,000.00
+- Closed: 2026-03-04
+- Completed: 2026-03-04

decisions/internet-finance/futardio-cult-meteora-liquidity-pool.md

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Futardio Cult: Allocate $10K for FUTARDIO-USDC Meteora DLMM Liquidity Pool"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[futardio-cult]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Community"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/futardio-cult/proposal/HiihSh8H6D1JAPpDeD8oNwqQ8AkTmYA9QS82p5NPSRhN"
+proposal_date: 2026-03-17
+resolution_date: 2026-03-20
+category: "treasury"
+summary: "Allocate $10K from treasury to create FUTARDIO-USDC Meteora DLMM pool: $7K for token purchases via Jupiter DCA, $3K USDC paired as liquidity"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Futardio Cult: Allocate $10K for FUTARDIO-USDC Meteora DLMM Liquidity Pool
+
+## Summary
+Community proposal to create a FUTARDIO-USDC liquidity pool on Meteora DLMM. $7,000 used to purchase FUTARDIO via Jupiter recurring orders (140 orders, every 30 minutes), $3,000 USDC paired to create liquidity. Pool configured with 1% fee tier, bin step 200, spot distribution. All trading fees flow to DAO treasury.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** HiihSh8H6D1JAPpDeD8oNwqQ8AkTmYA9QS82p5NPSRhN
+- **Duration:** 2026-03-17 to ~2026-03-20
+
+## Significance
+Demonstrates community-driven liquidity provisioning through futarchy, with specific operational details (Jupiter DCA parameters, Meteora DLMM configuration). The treasury earns trading fees, creating sustainable revenue from the liquidity position.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[futardio-cult]] — parent entity
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-03-17*
+
+**Proposal:** Allocate $10,000 to Create a FUTARDIO–USDC Meteora DLMM Liquidity Pool
+**Status:** Draft
+**URL:** https://www.metadao.fi/projects/futardio-cult/proposal/HiihSh8H6D1JAPpDeD8oNwqQ8AkTmYA9QS82p5NPSRhN
+
+### Summary
+
+This proposal requests $10,000 from the treasury to establish a FUTARDIO–USDC liquidity pool on Meteora DLMM.
+
+The allocation will be structured as follows:
+- $7,000 used to purchase FUTARDIO tokens from the open market using a time-distributed strategy.
+- $3,000 USDC paired with the acquired FUTARDIO to create liquidity.
+
+All fees generated by the liquidity pool will be sent directly to the DAO treasury, allowing the treasury to grow through trading activity.
+
+### Motivation
+
+**Improve Market Liquidity**
+
+Increasing liquidity will reduce slippage, improve trading conditions, and make FUTARDIO more accessible to new participants.
+
+**Generate Sustainable Treasury Revenue**
+
+The DLMM pool will generate trading fees, which will accumulate in the DAO treasury in USDC and FUTARDIO, creating a sustainable revenue stream.
+
+**Strategic Token Accumulation**
+
+Accumulated FUTARDIO from trading fees can later be deployed for:
+- Community incentives
+- Marketing campaigns
+- Strategic partnerships
+- Liquidity expansion
+
+All future uses will require separate governance proposals.
+
+### Execution Plan
+
+**FUTARDIO Purchase Strategy**
+
+To reduce price impact, the FUTARDIO purchase will be executed gradually using Jupiter recurring orders.
+
+Amount: $7,000
+Platform: Jupiter
+Token: Cbjr1Nvcay3QWDriyRKtokJ7V4PMknesGxeK8z7Zmeta (FUTARDIO)
+
+**Order Parameters**
+- Order Type: Recurring
+- Order quantity: 140
+- Order Frequency: Every 30 minutes
+
+This approach distributes purchases over time and minimizes market disruption.
+
+### Liquidity Pool Configuration
+
+Once the purchases are completed, the tokens will be paired with $3,000 USDC to initialize the liquidity pool.
+
+Platform: Meteora DLMM
+
+**Pool Parameters**
+
+- Pair: FUTARDIO – USDC
+- Fee Tier: 1.00%
+- Bin Step: 200
+- Distribution Strategy: Spot
+- Minimum Price Range: $0.001
+- Maximum Price Range: $1.00
+
+### Success Metrics
+
+The proposal will be considered successful if it achieves the following outcomes:
+- Increased trading liquidity for FUTARDIO
+- Consistent fee generation for the treasury
+- Improved market stability and reduced slippage
+
+Performance can be evaluated through:
+- Liquidity depth of the FUTARDIO–USDC market
+- Total trading volume through the pool
+- Fees accumulated in the treasury
+
+### Raw Data
+
+- Proposal account: `HiihSh8H6D1JAPpDeD8oNwqQ8AkTmYA9QS82p5NPSRhN`
+- Proposal number: 2
+- DAO account: `CkEUCAooQi64UFhPFS5MWpZw6LQqjsDQBj3Z5uiXS1eN`
+- Proposer: `tSTp6B6kE9o6ZaTmHm2ZwnJBBtgd3x112tapxFhmBEQ`
+- Autocrat version: 0.6

decisions/internet-finance/futardio-cult-omnibus-proposal.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Futardio Cult: FUTARDIO-001 — Omnibus Proposal"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[futardio-cult]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Futardio cult team"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/futardio-cult/proposal/Hw4KF6uZxdu8demt2z1Z9ePSF9Bxuyqtt3nFgoLK9EHu"
+proposal_date: 2026-03-04
+resolution_date: 2026-03-07
+category: "operations"
+summary: "Reduce team spending to $50/mo (X Premium only), burn 4.5M of 5M performance tokens, allocate $550 for Dexscreener/Jupiter verification"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Futardio Cult: FUTARDIO-001 — Omnibus Proposal
+
+## Summary
+Three-part omnibus proposal: (1) Reduce team spending to $50/month for X Premium subscription only, (2) burn 4.5M of 5M performance package tokens with remaining 500K locked 18 months, (3) allocate $550 from treasury for Dexscreener Enhanced Token Info and Jupiter verification. The massive token burn (90% of team allocation) signals rejection of the extractive creator pattern.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** Hw4KF6uZxdu8demt2z1Z9ePSF9Bxuyqtt3nFgoLK9EHu
+- **Duration:** 2026-03-04 to ~2026-03-07
+
+## Significance
+The 90% team token burn is the most aggressive alignment signal observed in FaaS-launched projects. Combined with reducing spending to $50/month, this positions the project as purely community-owned. The explicit framing — "Traders have grown accustomed to creators who extract value while delivering nothing back. We aim to break that pattern" — directly addresses the key criticism of memecoin launches.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[futardio-cult]] — parent entity
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-03-04*
+
+Three actions:
+
+1. Reduce team spending to $50/month for X Premium subscription only. X Premium adds legitimacy and increases reach.
+
+2. Burn 4.5 million performance package tokens, with remaining 500,000 locked for 18 months. "Traders have grown accustomed to creators who extract value from projects while delivering little or nothing back to investors. We aim to break that pattern."
+
+3. Allocate $550 from treasury for DEXScreener token upgrade (Enhanced Token Info) and Jupiter verification — accurate pictures (logo and banner) and properly linked social channels.

decisions/internet-finance/futardio-fund-rug-bounty-program.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[futardio]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/4ztwWkz9TD5Ni9Ze6XEEj6qrPBhzdTQMfpXzZ6A8bGzt"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/futuredao/trade/4ztwWkz9TD5Ni9Ze6XEEj6qrPBhzdTQMfpXzZ6A8bGzt"
 proposal_date: 2024-06-14
 resolution_date: 2024-06-19
 category: "grants"
@@ -53,3 +53,29 @@ This proposal represents FutureDAO's expansion from pure infrastructure provider
 ## Timeline
 
 - **2024-06-14** — [[futardio-fund-rug-bounty-program]] passed: Approved $5K USDC funding for RugBounty.xyz platform development to incentivize community recovery from rug pulls
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-06-14*
+
+Fund FutureDAO's Rug Bounty Program (RugBounty.xyz) — a novel product to protect and empower communities affected by rug pulls.
+
+**Budget:** $5,000 USDC from FutureDAO treasury.
+- Platform Development: $3,000
+- Website: $1,000
+- QA: $1,000
+- API & Hosting: $1,000+
+- $FUTURE bounties: TBD
+
+**Mechanism:** Incentivizes individuals to onboard rugged project communities to FutureDAO's Token Migration tool.
+
+**Process:**
+1. Bounty creation with project details and rewards
+2. Community onboarding via Telegram, Discord, Twitter Spaces
+3. Multi-sig setup for trust
+4. Success threshold: 60% of presale target raised in SOL
+5. Bounty claim awarded to facilitators
+
+**Financial Projections:** If 8 project migrations in first year: 3 projects <$1M at 2% fee ($60K), 4 projects <$5M at 1.5% fee ($120K), 1 project <$20M at 1% fee ($50K) = $270K total.
+
+**Positioning:** FutureDAO as "S.E.R.T." (Solana Emergency Response Team).

decisions/internet-finance/futardio-proposal-1.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[futardio]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/iPzWdGBZiHMT5YhR2m4WtTNbFW3KgExH2dRAsgWydPf"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/futuredao/trade/iPzWdGBZiHMT5YhR2m4WtTNbFW3KgExH2dRAsgWydPf"
 proposal_date: 2024-05-27
 resolution_date: 2024-05-31
 category: "mechanism"
@@ -39,3 +39,11 @@ The 4-day voting window differs from the 3-day TWAP settlement window documented
 - [[futardio]] - first governance decision on platform
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - operational confirmation of mechanism
 - [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] - failed proposal with no volume data supports this pattern
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-05-27*
+
+Minimal proposal — first test of Futardio platform using Autocrat v0.3. No substantive proposal content. Proposal #1 on the FutureDAO, testing the futarchy governance infrastructure.
+
+Raw data: Proposal account iPzWdGBZiHMT5YhR2m4WtTNbFW3KgExH2dRAsgWydPf, DAO account CNMZgxYsQpygk8CLN9Su1igwXX2kHtcawaNAGuBPv3G9, 4-day voting window (2024-05-27 to 2024-05-31). Failed.

decisions/internet-finance/futuredao-initiate-liquidity-farming-raydium.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[futardio]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/HiNWH2uKxjrmqZjn9mr8vWu5ytp2Nsz6qLsHWa5XQ1Vm"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/futuredao/trade/HiNWH2uKxjrmqZjn9mr8vWu5ytp2Nsz6qLsHWa5XQ1Vm"
 proposal_date: 2024-11-08
 resolution_date: 2024-11-11
 category: "treasury"
@@ -40,3 +40,23 @@ Also extends MetaDAO's role beyond launch platform to ongoing operational govern
 - [[futardio]] - parent entity, governance platform
 - [[raydium]] - DeFi infrastructure provider
 - [[futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance]] - confirms this pattern
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-11-08*
+
+Kick off liquidity farming for $FUTURE via Raydium farm. Allocate 1% of total token supply as rewards for liquidity providers.
+
+**Objective:** Enhance $FUTURE token liquidity, improve trading experiences, drive community engagement.
+
+**Implementation:**
+- Allocation: 1% of total $FUTURE supply as farm rewards
+- Pool: FUTURE-USDC CLMM pair on Raydium
+- Fee tier selection: 0.01%-1% based on token volatility
+- Duration: 7-90 days
+- Transaction fees: ~0.1 SOL for pool/farm creation
+
+**Expected Outcomes:**
+- Enhanced liquidity with reduced slippage
+- Community engagement through LP incentives
+- Increased token visibility on Raydium

decisions/internet-finance/git3-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ domain: internet-finance
 status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[git3]]"
 platform: "futardio"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/HKRDmghovXSCMobiRCZ7BBdHopEizyKmnhJKywjk3vUa"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/git3/trade/HKRDmghovXSCMobiRCZ7BBdHopEizyKmnhJKywjk3vUa"
 proposal_date: 2026-03-05
 resolution_date: 2026-03-06
 category: "fundraise"
@@ -49,3 +49,17 @@ The refunding outcome is notable because Git3 had a live MVP, clear technical ar
 - [[futardio]] — fundraising platform
 - [[MetaDAO]] — futarchy infrastructure provider
 - Demonstrates futarchy-governed fundraise failure despite live MVP and technical merit
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-03-05*
+
+Git3: Bringing Git on-chain for true ownership and x402 monetization, backed by Irys Chain.
+
+**Core Features:** Git repositories stored on-chain as NFTs on Irys blockchain. Code ownership, censorship resistance, monetization through x402 protocol. GitHub Actions integration for seamless workflow. Agent interoperability via MCP.
+
+**Raise:** Target $100,000. Total committed: $28,266 (28.3%). Status: Refunding. Closed 2026-03-06.
+
+**Revenue Model:** Creator fees on NFT sales, protocol fees on x402 transactions, agent royalties. Monthly burn: ~$8,000. MVP live at git3.io.
+
+**Roadmap:** Phase 1 (core infrastructure & GitHub integration), Phase 2 (NFT marketplace & x402 integration), Phase 3 (ecosystem expansion & $GIT3 token).

decisions/internet-finance/hurupay-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ domain: internet-finance
 status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[hurupay]]"
 platform: futardio
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/HT3ScC7gyo3zTn95s9jR7J3ez5u8HrRfFwD33YjMHLy3"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/hurupay/trade/HT3ScC7gyo3zTn95s9jR7J3ez5u8HrRfFwD33YjMHLy3"
 proposal_date: 2026-02-03
 resolution_date: 2026-02-07
 category: fundraise
@@ -55,3 +55,19 @@ The case contrasts with both obvious successes (substantial oversubscription) an
 - hurupay-raised-2m-of-3m-target-on-futardio-before-refunding-suggesting-futarchy-governed-launches-face-liquidity-or-conviction-gaps — primary claim
 - [[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]] — platform context
 - [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] — mechanism friction
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-02-03*
+
+Hurupay: Global FX and payroll platform focused on the last mile of on-chain FX. Loved by 20K+ remote workers, freelancers & businesses.
+
+**Traction (12 months):** $36M+ transaction volume, $500K+ revenue, 30,000+ users, 15 high-volume business customers. 4x transaction volume growth (32% month-over-month), scaled from $1.8M to $7.2M monthly volume.
+
+**Team:** Philip Mburu (CEO), Allan Okoth (CTO), James Mugambi (COO), Maxwel Ochieng (Founding Engineer), Collins Wanga (Compliance Lead).
+
+**Raise:** Target $3,000,000. Total committed: $2,003,593 (66.8%). Status: Refunding. Closed 2026-02-07.
+
+**Token Allocation:** ICO 39.02%, liquidity 11.31%, team 42.66% (3-year lockup), previous investors 7% (2-year vest).
+
+**Use of Funds:** Scale distribution/sales, expand sales/customer success, compliance/licensing (MTL, EU VASP), liquidity/FX depth, product expansion (cards, on-chain FX). Monthly spend: $250K. Revenue: ~0.5-2% fees on deposits/FX. Website: hurupay.com

decisions/internet-finance/insert-coin-labs-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ domain: internet-finance
 status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[insert-coin-labs]]"
 platform: futardio
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/62Yxd8gLQ2YYmY2TifhChJG4tVdf4b1oAHcMfwTL2WUu"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/insert-coin-labs/trade/62Yxd8gLQ2YYmY2TifhChJG4tVdf4b1oAHcMfwTL2WUu"
 proposal_date: 2026-03-05
 resolution_date: 2026-03-06
 category: fundraise
@@ -44,3 +44,17 @@ Demonstrates market skepticism toward gaming studio fundraises even with live pr
 - [[insert-coin-labs]] — parent entity
 - [[MetaDAO]] — underlying futarchy infrastructure
 - Contrasts with [[futardio-cult-raised-11-4-million-in-one-day-through-futarchy-governed-meme-coin-launch]] showing market selectivity
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-03-05*
+
+Insert Coin Labs: Web3 PVP gaming studio on Solana. Own a piece. Share the revenue.
+
+**Live Product:** Domin8 on mainnet — 232 games played, 55.1 SOL volume, +2.7 SOL net gain. Smart contracts audited by Excalead (Honorable Mention at Solana Breakpoint 2025).
+
+**Raise:** Target $50,000. Total committed: $2,508 (5%). Status: Refunding. Closed 2026-03-06.
+
+**Use of Funds:** 80% team ($40K — devs, game designer, concept artist), 20% liquidity ($10K — $INSERT LP). Monthly burn: $4K. Runway: ~10 months.
+
+**Roadmap:** Domin8 (live), 1v1 game (ready), casino hub (Q2 2026), Rabbit Royal (Q2 2026), Open API (Q3 2026), hackathon (Q4 2026). Website: iclabs.fun

decisions/internet-finance/island-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[island]]"
 platform: futardio
 proposer: "xpmaxxer"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/FpFytak8JZwVntqDh9G95zqXXVJNXMxRFUYY959AXeZj"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/island/trade/FpFytak8JZwVntqDh9G95zqXXVJNXMxRFUYY959AXeZj"
 proposal_date: 2026-03-04
 resolution_date: 2026-03-05
 category: fundraise
@@ -49,3 +49,19 @@ The failure provides a data point on what Futardio's permissionless launch model
 - [[futardio]] — fundraise platform
 - [[island]] — parent entity
 - [[MetaDAO]] — governance infrastructure provider
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-03-04*
+
+Island.ag: Discover the best DeFi yields. Earn Island Points. Travel in luxury for pennies.
+
+**Concept:** DeFi loyalty program + hotel booking platform for crypto travelers. Hotels have unsold inventory; crypto users are high-spending, globally mobile demographic. Secret sauce: direct hotel partnerships + gamified raffles for luxury stays.
+
+**Raise:** Target $50,000. Total committed: $250 (0.5%). Status: Refunding. Closed 2026-03-05.
+
+**Use of Funds:** ~80% marketing/distribution, ~10% infrastructure, ~10% operations. App developed via vibe coding with minimal costs.
+
+**Go-to-Market:** Shitposting on CT, travel-focused creators, UGC marketing, conferences. Participation raffle: anyone investing even $1 gets entered for $1,500 in tokens or all-paid luxury Alps holiday.
+
+**Founder:** xpmaxxer (hospitality industry background). Website: island.ag

decisions/internet-finance/islanddao-treasury-proposal.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[deans-list]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "futard.io"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/8SwPfzKhaZ2SQfgfJYfeVRTXALZs2qyFj7kX1dEkd29h"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/deans-list/trade/8SwPfzKhaZ2SQfgfJYfeVRTXALZs2qyFj7kX1dEkd29h"
 proposal_date: 2024-10-10
 resolution_date: 2024-10-14
 category: "treasury"
@@ -82,3 +82,26 @@ First futarchy-governed treasury management proposal with formalized risk scorin
 
 Topics:
 - [[domains/internet-finance/_map]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-10-10*
+
+Establish a reserve within the Dean's List treasury on Realms for financial stability and long-term growth. Funded by allocating 2.5% of all USDC payments received by the DAO.
+
+**Treasury Management:** Managed by Kai (@DeFi_Kai) with quarterly performance reviews. Reserved funds held in Mango Delegate Account via Realms. Diversification options: USDY (yield-bearing USD) and JLP (Jupiter Liquidity Pools).
+
+**Risk Scoring Framework:**
+Rs = (w1·Volatility) + (w2·Liquidity Risk) + (w3·Market Cap Risk) + (w4·Historical Drawdown Risk)
+- Volatility Weight: 0.4
+- Liquidity Risk: 0.2
+- Market Cap Risk: 0.3
+- Drawdown Risk: 0.1
+- Assets Rs ≤ 0.5 are risky; Rs ≥ 0.5 are safer
+- Portfolio: 80/20 split (80% safe, 20% risky)
+
+**Performance Fee:** 5% of quarterly profit with 3-month vesting.
+
+**TWAP Requirement:** Current MCAP 523K USDC → target 539K USDC (3% increase). $DEAN price: 0.005227 → 0.005383.
+
+**First Quarter Deliverables:** Define rainy day scenarios, produce initial treasury reports (growth, allocation, expected returns, Sharpe ratio, max drawdown, risk management summary).

decisions/internet-finance/jito-jto-vault-tiprouter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Jito DAO: Should JTO Vault Be Added To TipRouter NCN?"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[jito]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Jito community"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/jito/trade/CJW4iZPT14sVNzoc4Yibx1LbnY12sA75gZCP9HZk11UA"
+proposal_date: 2025-01-13
+resolution_date: 2025-01-16
+category: "strategy"
+summary: "Sanction adding JTO Vault to TipRouter NCN per JIP-10 specifications — Jito DAO's first use of futarchy for governance"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Jito DAO: Should JTO Vault Be Added To TipRouter NCN?
+
+## Summary
+Jito DAO used MetaDAO's futarchy mechanism to decide whether to add a JTO Vault to the TipRouter NCN (Node Consensus Network) per JIP-10 specifications. This represents Jito's first use of futarchy for a governance decision, extending futarchy adoption beyond the MetaDAO ecosystem into one of Solana's largest DeFi protocols.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** CJW4iZPT14sVNzoc4Yibx1LbnY12sA75gZCP9HZk11UA
+- **Duration:** 2025-01-13 to ~2025-01-16
+- **Reference:** JIP-10 on Jito governance forum
+
+## Significance
+First futarchy governance decision by Jito DAO, one of Solana's largest protocols. Demonstrates FaaS adoption for technical protocol decisions (NCN vault configuration) beyond the typical grants/treasury/hiring use cases. The decision was framed via an existing Jito Improvement Proposal (JIP-10), showing futarchy complementing rather than replacing traditional governance forums.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[jito]] — parent entity (new entity needed)
+- [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] — Jito adoption extends futarchy to major DeFi protocols
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-01-13*
+
+If approved, this proposal would sanction the addition of a JTO Vault to the TipRouter NCN according to the specifications laid out in JIP-10.
+
+Reference: https://forum.jito.network/t/jip-10-decision-market-on-whether-to-adopt-jto-in-the-tiprouter-ncn-protocol-development/463

decisions/internet-finance/kyros-burn-unclaimed-airdrop.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Kyros: Burn 4.42M Unclaimed KYROS Airdrop Allocation"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[kyros]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Kyros team"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/kyros/proposal/GH8DFQjiSd9VwCZxzb3kzU2Jpx5JFC9gn8JNGKHfjrYa"
+proposal_date: 2026-01-13
+resolution_date: 2026-01-16
+category: "treasury"
+summary: "Burn 4,421,077 unclaimed KYROS from initial airdrop (38.25% of airdrop allocation) — reduces total supply from 50M to 45.58M"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Kyros: Burn 4.42M Unclaimed KYROS Airdrop Allocation
+
+## Summary
+Three months after TGE (Oct 2025), 4,421,077 KYROS (38.25% of 12.5M airdrop allocation) remained unclaimed. Proposal to burn the entire unclaimed amount, reducing total supply from 50M to 45,578,923. Rationale: unclaimed users are unlikely to be long-term value-adding members. Mint authority fully delegated to MetaDAO futarchy, so future tokens can be minted under governance if needed.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** GH8DFQjiSd9VwCZxzb3kzU2Jpx5JFC9gn8JNGKHfjrYa
+- **Duration:** 2026-01-13 to ~2026-01-16
+- **Tokens Burned:** 4,421,077 KYROS (8.84% of total supply)
+- **New Total Supply:** 45,578,923 KYROS
+
+## Airdrop Context
+- Initial airdrop: 12.5M KYROS (25% of 50M total)
+- 64% — Linear points program ("Warchest")
+- 16% — Community quests ("The Village")
+- 20% — Early users
+- Unclaimed after 3 months: 4,421,077 (38.25%)
+
+## Significance
+Demonstrates futarchy governing supply management decisions. The argument for burning vs. treasury absorption is notable: mint authority delegated to futarchy means tokens can always be re-created under governance if needed, making burns less risky. This is a governance pattern enabled by futarchy's mintable governance model.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[kyros]] — parent entity
+- [[futarchy-daos-require-mintable-governance-tokens-because-fixed-supply-treasuries-exhaust-without-issuance-authority-forcing-disruptive-token-architecture-migrations]] — futarchy mint authority makes burns reversible
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-01-13*
+
+### TL;DR
+
+**Proposal:** Burn 4,421,077 unclaimed KYROS from the airdrop. We believe this will reinforces long-term alignment and avoids supply-leakage to disengaged users.
+
+**If this proposal passes:** The burn will be executed by burning the tokens through the DAO. It will be done transparently and verifiably on-chain within a maximum of two week after the end of the proposal voting window.
+
+**Discussion:** https://t.me/KyrosFi
+
+### Overview
+
+Burn **4,421,077** unclaimed KYROS from the initial airdrop allocation.
+
+### Background
+
+On 13/10/2025, Kyros launched its token KYROS.
+
+As part of the TGE, 12.5M KYROS (25% of total supply at launch) were allocated to a retroactive airdrop. Eligibility was based on three main categories:
+
+- 64% — Linear points program ("Warchest"): rewarded users for holding Kyros assets, with multipliers for participating in specific DeFi strategies.
+- 16% — Community quests ("The Village"): rewarded users who completed specific DeFi tasks within the Kyros ecosystem.
+- 20% — Early users: allocated to users who supported Kyros from day one (those that were the first to bring TVL to the project) and were instrumental to its growth.
+
+3 months after TGE, 4,379,383 kyKYROS (around 4.42M KYROS) remain unclaimed. This represents approximately 38.25% of the total airdrop allocation.
+
+This proposal seeks to burn the entire unclaimed amount.
+
+### Rationale
+
+If a user has not claimed its airdrop after this period, it's a strong signal that:
+
+- they do not follow Kyros closely,
+- the allocation was insignificant to them, or
+- they do not intend to be long-term holders.
+
+All in all, we believe this shows these users are unlikely to be long-term value-adding members to Kyros. Rewarding those type of users is misaligned with the purpose of the airdrop and does not benefit overall KYROS holders.
+
+**Why burn the tokens instead of keeping it in DAO Treasury?**
+
+Kyros already designed its tokenomics to meet its current and mid-term needs.
+
+Additionally, the mint authority has been fully delegated to MetaDAO Futarchy. This means that if Kyros ever needs more tokens in the future, they can be minted under transparent governance. So ultimately, there is no benefit in absorbing unclaimed tokens into treasury.
+
+For all of those reasons, we believe that burning those tokens is the best option to favor long term KYROS holders. This will reduce FDV with the goal of making KYROS more appealing to investors.
+
+### Rundown of Numbers
+
+- **Current total supply:** 50,000,000 KYROS
+- **Initial airdrop allocation:** 12,500,000 KYROS
+- **Unclaimed airdrop to burn:** 4,421,077 KYROS
+- **New total supply after burn:** 45,578,923 KYROS
+
+### Raw Data
+
+- Proposal account: `GH8DFQjiSd9VwCZxzb3kzU2Jpx5JFC9gn8JNGKHfjrYa`
+- Proposal number: 1
+- DAO account: `GE4TQSsX9hAuCeMuBJcbnzXEMueG3heUCg8UtNsBvPY2`
+- Proposer: `govMW5J778RSNyTcp3mEogfpqrpfrmDgRy2yWD2ohVr`
+- Autocrat version: 0.5

decisions/internet-finance/loyal-buyback-up-to-nav.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Loyal: Buyback LOYAL Up To NAV"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[loyal]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Loyal Team And Community Members"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/loyal/proposal/2VjKHNQdkLfHtoH1GtPVseJv1kP3VUoLGcZLc29SttgS"
+proposal_date: 2025-11-26
+resolution_date: 2025-11-29
+category: "treasury"
+summary: "Allocate $1.5M USDC for LOYAL buyback at max $0.238/token to protect treasury against liquidation arbitrage"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Loyal: Buyback LOYAL Up To NAV
+
+## Summary
+Loyal team and community members proposed $1.5M USDC buyback of LOYAL tokens at maximum $0.238/token (NAV minus two months operating expenses). Executed via Jupiter recurring orders (8,640 orders, every 5 minutes, 30 days). Motivated by LOYAL trading below NAV, exposing treasury to adversarial liquidation arbitrage. Includes 90-day cooldown on new buyback/redemption proposals. Team expects significant portion of allocated funds to remain unspent.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** 2VjKHNQdkLfHtoH1GtPVseJv1kP3VUoLGcZLc29SttgS
+- **Duration:** 2025-11-26 to ~2025-11-29
+- **Buyback Budget:** $1.5M USDC
+- **Max Price:** $0.238/token
+- **Estimated Purchase:** 6.3M LOYAL at max price
+
+## Significance
+Second instance (after Ranger) of MetaDAO-launched projects deploying treasury buybacks to defend NAV. The pattern is becoming standard: launch → token trades below NAV → buyback proposal to prevent adversarial liquidation. The 90-day cooldown clause is also becoming standard governance practice.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[loyal]] — parent entity, treasury defense
+- [[ownership coin treasuries should be actively managed through buybacks and token sales as continuous capital calibration not treated as static war chests]] — buyback pattern
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2025-11-26. Authors: Loyal Team And Community Members.*
+
+**Type:** Operations Direct Action
+**Author(s):** Loyal Team And Community Members
+
+If passed, $1.5M USDC of treasury funds will be used to purchase LOYAL tokens with a maximum price set as 0.238 per token.
+
+### Motivation
+
+While LOYAL is sitting below NAV, our treasury is an arbitrage opportunity for adversarial capital. We want to protect the treasury against liquidation and ensure we can continue building our vision.
+
+This allocation of capital would allow us:
+- Protect our holders who want to see us build our vision.
+- Accumulate tokens for OTC deals without increasing the supply.
+
+We raised more than our initial cap, and allocating this capital does not slow down our development. We expect a significant part of the allocated funds remain unspent. We'll pull them back with an additional proposal.
+
+### Logistics
+
+$1.5M of treasury funds will be used to purchase `LYLikzBQtpa9ZgVrJsqYGQpR3cC1WMJrBHaXGrQmeta` (LOYAL) tokens with a maximum price set as 0.238 per token. These orders will be placed every five minutes over a period of 30 days (for a total of 8640 orders).
+
+The price per token was established by taking the total funds raised minus two months of operating expenses. It does not account for any trading fees accrued from liquidity.
+
+### Specifications
+
+- Amount: $1.5M
+- Order Type: Recurring
+- Order Quantity: 8640
+- Order Frequency: 5 minutes
+- Maximum Order Price: 0.238
+- Effective Time Horizon: 30 days
+- Estimated Loyal Purchased: 6.3M assuming full use of buyback facility at maximum order price
+
+### Process
+
+This proposal includes instructions to execute a Jupiter recurring order as stated above.
+
+NOTE:
+
+- Any funds remaining in the order (should it fail to complete its total number of orders in quantity) will remain in the DCA account until there is another proposal to cancel the order.
+- All LOYAL tokens will be transferred to the DAO's treasury: AQyyTwCKemeeMu8ZPZFxrXMbVwAYTSbBhi1w4PBrhvYE
+
+### Redemption/Buyback cooldown period
+
+No new buyback or redemption proposals shall be submitted or executed for 90 days following the end of this buyback program
+
+### Raw Data
+
+- Proposal account: `2VjKHNQdkLfHtoH1GtPVseJv1kP3VUoLGcZLc29SttgS`
+- Proposal number: 1
+- DAO account: `GxpJkPEsPmuRCCTNnfZaDKg4X3gf4ZPgmqgFqtibaPtK`
+- Proposer: `tSTp6B6kE9o6ZaTmHm2ZwnJBBtgd3x112tapxFhmBEQ`
+- Autocrat version: 0.6

decisions/internet-finance/loyal-futardio-launch.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Loyal: Futardio ICO Launch"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[loyal]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Loyal team"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/loyal/trade/E7kXdSdZrjVFDkLb6V7S8VihKookPviRJ7tXVik9qbdu"
+proposal_date: 2025-10-18
+resolution_date: 2025-10-22
+category: "launch"
+summary: "Loyal raised via MetaDAO ICO for decentralized private intelligence protocol — $75.9M committed against $500K target"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Loyal: Futardio ICO Launch
+
+## Summary
+Loyal, an open-source decentralized censorship-resistant intelligence protocol powered by MagicBlock and Arcium, raised via MetaDAO ICO. $75.9M committed against $500K target. Protocol features: confidential oracles for computations, confidential rollups for key derivation with granular read controls, encrypted chats on decentralized storage. First permissionless protocol of its kind with no single point of failure.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Complete
+- **Total Committed:** $75,898,233
+- **Funding Target:** $500,000
+- **Duration:** 2025-10-18 to 2025-10-22
+- **Token:** LOYAL (LYLikzBQtpa9ZgVrJsqYGQpR3cC1WMJrBHaXGrQmeta)
+
+## Significance
+One of the largest MetaDAO ICO raises, demonstrating massive demand for privacy-focused infrastructure. The "fight against mass surveillance" positioning attracted significant capital commitment.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[loyal]] — parent entity
+- [[metadao]] — ICO platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2025-10-18*
+
+**Project:** Loyal
+**Description:** Solana-based private decentralized intelligence protocol.
+**Funding target:** $500,000.00
+**Total committed:** $75,898,233.00
+**Status:** Complete
+**Launch date:** 2025-10-18
+**URL:** https://www.futard.io/launch/E7kXdSdZrjVFDkLb6V7S8VihKookPviRJ7tXVik9qbdu
+
+### Team / Description
+
+Fight against mass surveillance with us.
+
+Your chats with AI have no protection. They're used to put people behind bars, to launch targeted ads and in model training. Every question you ask can and will be used against you. We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any.
+
+Loyal is an open source, decentralized, censorship-resistant and auditable intelligence protocol, powered by [MagicBlock](https://x.com/magicblock) & [Arcium](https://x.com/ArciumHQ). It's the first permissionless protocol of its kind designed with no single point of failure. Computations are run by confidential oracles. Key derivation happens within confidential rollups with granular read controls. Encrypted chats are stored on decentralized storage.
+
+This is the fight against those who'll spend billions to see privacy lose. We can't win it alone. We'll need as much help as we can get to see our mission through. We'll need all of you.
+
+If you resonate with this mission, the best way to support us is through this ICO.
+
+You can read more about Loyal here: [https://docs.askloyal.com](https://docs.askloyal.com)
+
+You can read the lightpaper here: [https://docs.askloyal.com/resources/links](https://docs.askloyal.com/resources/links)
+
+Token CA: [`LYLikzBQtpa9ZgVrJsqYGQpR3cC1WMJrBHaXGrQmeta`](https://jup.ag/tokens/LYLikzBQtpa9ZgVrJsqYGQpR3cC1WMJrBHaXGrQmeta)
+
+[Telegram community](https://tg.askloyal.com)
+[Website](https://askloyal.com)
+[Github](https://github.com/loyal-labs)
+[X](https://x.com/loyal_hq)
+
+### Links
+
+- Website: https://askloyal.com
+- Twitter: https://askloyal.com/tos
+
+### Raw Data
+
+- Launch address: `E7kXdSdZrjVFDkLb6V7S8VihKookPviRJ7tXVik9qbdu`
+- Token: Loyal (LOYAL)
+- Token mint: `LYLikzBQtpa9ZgVrJsqYGQpR3cC1WMJrBHaXGrQmeta`
+- Version: v0.6
+- Final raise: $2,500,000.00
+- Closed: 2025-10-22

decisions/internet-finance/loyal-liquidity-adjustment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Loyal: Liquidity Adjustment — Withdraw and Burn Meteora Pool Tokens"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[loyal]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Community members"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/loyal/proposal/GXdWao4Cy6EsvvS9atMb1kCPEAFwPXBe5kKCeLDtRJNm"
+proposal_date: 2025-12-23
+resolution_date: 2025-12-26
+category: "treasury"
+summary: "Withdraw 90% of tokens from single-sided Meteora DAMM v2 pool and burn them to reduce circulating supply and selling pressure"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Loyal: Liquidity Adjustment — Withdraw and Burn Meteora Pool Tokens
+
+## Summary
+Community-initiated proposal to withdraw 90% of LOYAL tokens (809,995) from the single-sided Meteora DAMM v2 pool and burn them. The pool created selling pressure without providing price support. Withdrew 90% (not 100%) to avoid visibility issues with Dexscreener and other apps that don't index the futarchyAMM pool. USDC withdrawn remains in treasury.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** GXdWao4Cy6EsvvS9atMb1kCPEAFwPXBe5kKCeLDtRJNm
+- **Duration:** 2025-12-23 to ~2025-12-26
+- **Tokens Burned:** 809,995 LOYAL
+
+## Significance
+Demonstrates community-driven supply management through futarchy. The 90% withdrawal (not 100%) due to Dexscreener indexing limitations shows the practical constraints FaaS projects face when their primary liquidity is in futarchyAMM pools that aggregators don't yet support.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[loyal]] — parent entity, supply management
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2025-12-23. Authors: community members.*
+
+**Type:**
+**Author(s): community members.**
+
+If passed, 90% of tokens remaining in the [single-sided Meteora DAMM v2 pool](https://www.meteora.ag/dammv2/BGg7WsK98rhqtTp2uSKMa2yETqgwShFAjyf1RmYqCF7n) will be withdrawn and burned. USDC withdrawn will remain in the project's treasury.
+
+### Motivation
+
+As stated by the community members: The single-sided DAMM pool does not provide price support and creates unnecessary selling pressure. Withdrawing and burning the tokens would reduce the circulating supply and result in a better price.
+
+Withdrawing the full liquidity and closing the position would cause visibility issues with some apps and Dexscreener as they don't index Futarchy AMM pool at the moment of writing. Therefore, we propose to withdraw 90% of the tokens in the pool.
+
+**Note from the MetaDAO team:** If, at the time of execution, fewer than 809,995 LOYAL tokens are withdrawn from the Meteora pool, the SPL burn instruction will fail. To prevent that, 50% of the withdrawn tokens will be burned, and the remaining 50% will be held to be burned under a subsequent proposal.
+
+### Specification
+
+- Pool address: *BGg7WsK98rhqtTp2uSKMa2yETqgwShFAjyf1RmYqCF7n*
+- Total LOYAL amount: 809,995
+
+### Process
+
+1. Withdraw 809,995 LOYAL tokens remaining in the single-sided Meteora DAMM v2 pool.
+2. Execute SPL *burn* instruction.
+
+### Raw Data
+
+- Proposal account: `GXdWao4Cy6EsvvS9atMb1kCPEAFwPXBe5kKCeLDtRJNm`
+- Proposal number: 2
+- DAO account: `GxpJkPEsPmuRCCTNnfZaDKg4X3gf4ZPgmqgFqtibaPtK`
+- Proposer: `ELT1uRmtFvYP6WSrc4mCZaW7VVbcdkcKAj39aHSVCmwH`
+- Autocrat version: 0.6

decisions/internet-finance/manna-finance-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[manna-finance]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Manna Finance team"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/5whxoTjxW4oKeSN4C8yf5JUur7pcSChkPWgmhSZQ8oD5"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/manna-finance/trade/5whxoTjxW4oKeSN4C8yf5JUur7pcSChkPWgmhSZQ8oD5"
 proposal_date: 2026-03-03
 resolution_date: 2026-03-04
 category: "fundraise"
@@ -44,3 +44,19 @@ The rapid closure (1 day) and refunding status suggests either lack of market in
 - [[futardio]] — fundraising platform
 - [[metadao]] — planned governance mechanism
 - Attempted implementation of [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-03-03*
+
+Manna Finance: Lock SOL to mint solUSD at 0% interest rate. Liquity V1-style CDP protocol on Solana.
+
+**Mechanism:** Users deposit SOL, mint solUSD (pegged to $1), pay one-time borrowing fee (~0.5% base), no ongoing interest. Peg maintained via: (1) redemptions — solUSD always redeemable for $1 worth of SOL, (2) liquidations via Stability Pool where stakers earn SOL at discount. Governed via MetaDAO futarchy.
+
+**Raise:** Target $120,000. Total committed: $205 (0.17%). Status: Refunding. Closed 2026-03-04. Most severe fundraise failure on Futardio.
+
+**Competitive Advantage:** Only zero-interest CDP on Solana. Competitors: USX, USDv, jupUSD, USDGO.
+
+**Budget:** Monthly burn $10K ($7K team, $1K infrastructure, $1.5K marketing, $500 legal). Runway: 12 months. Audit: $15-25K.
+
+**Roadmap:** Month 1 (audit prep), Months 2-3 (audit & fixes), Month 4 (mainnet with $1M TVL cap), Months 5-6 (growth, token launch prep), Months 7-12 (DAO transition, V2 planning). Website: manna.finance

decisions/internet-finance/marinade-sam-bids-mnde-stakers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Marinade: Should A Percentage of SAM Bids Route To MNDE Stakers?"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[marinade]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Marinade community"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/marinade/trade/DnDiyjAcmS3BNmNEJa2ydEbd6DgnddpkyVXJfngdRTzF"
+proposal_date: 2025-02-04
+resolution_date: 2025-02-07
+category: "mechanism"
+summary: "Adopt performance fee routing from SAM bids to MNDE-Enhanced Stakers per MIP.5 — Marinade's first use of futarchy"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Marinade: Should A Percentage of SAM Bids Route To MNDE Stakers?
+
+## Summary
+Marinade used MetaDAO's futarchy mechanism to decide whether to implement MIP.5 — routing a percentage of SAM (Stake Auction Marketplace) bids to MNDE-Enhanced Stakers who actively stake to validators with winning bids. This creates a direct revenue share between Marinade's staking marketplace and MNDE governance token holders.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** DnDiyjAcmS3BNmNEJa2ydEbd6DgnddpkyVXJfngdRTzF
+- **Duration:** 2025-02-04 to ~2025-02-07
+- **Reference:** MIP.5 on Marinade governance forum
+
+## Significance
+Marinade is one of Solana's largest liquid staking protocols. Using futarchy for a revenue-sharing mechanism decision demonstrates FaaS adoption for consequential economic design choices, not just operational governance. The proposal creates a direct link between staking behavior and governance token value — exactly the kind of incentive alignment futarchy is designed to optimize.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[marinade]] — parent entity (new entity needed)
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-02-04*
+
+If approved, this proposal would sanction the development and implementation of performance fee routing to MNDE-Enhanced Stakers according to the specifications laid out in MIP.5.
+
+Reference: https://forum.marinade.finance/t/mip-5-sam-bid-routing-to-mnde-stakers/1700

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-appoint-nallok-proph3t-benevolent-dictators.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/BqMrwwZYdpbXNsfpcxxG2DyiQ7uuKB69PznPWZ33GrZW"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/BqMrwwZYdpbXNsfpcxxG2DyiQ7uuKB69PznPWZ33GrZW"
 proposal_date: 2024-03-26
 resolution_date: 2024-03-31
 category: "strategy"
@@ -62,3 +62,49 @@ This proposal represented a critical governance transition where MetaDAO tempora
 - [[proph3t]] - appointed as BDF3M
 - [[nallok]] - appointed as BDF3M
 - [[futardio]] - platform where proposal was executed
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-03-26*
+
+#### Entrepreneur(s)
+
+Proph3t, Nallok
+
+## Overview
+
+Today, MetaDAO is not executing as fast as a normal startup would. At the crux of this is that *the current proposal process is too slow and costly*. We can and will fix that, but in the short-term we need some of MetaDAO's key decisions to be made outside of the proposal process.
+
+This proposal would appoint Proph3t and Nallok to be Benevolent Dictators For 3 Months (BDF3M). Their term would be from the finalization of this proposal to June 30th. At that point, either the futarchy will be able to function autonomously or another proposal will need to be raised.
+
+We are requesting 1015 META and 100,000 USDC to handle 4 months of retroactive compensation (December - March) and 3 months of forward-looking compensation (April - June). So an average of 145 META and $14,000 per month.
+
+Given that this is a critical juncture in MetaDAO's timeline, we believe that this proposal failing would decrease the probability of MetaDAO's success by more than 20%.
+
+## OKRs
+
+#### Execute faster
+- Complete 10 issues on GitHub per week
+
+#### Handle business operations
+- Perform retroactive compensation for the months of December, January, February, and March within 1 week of the proposal passing
+- Perform operations compensation for April, May, and June
+- Oversee the creation of a new kickass landing page
+
+## Project
+
+If passed, this proposal would appoint Proph3t and Nallok as interim leaders. The following would fall under their domain:
+- Retroactive compensation for all contributions to MetaDAO prior to this proposal
+- Managing ongoing business operations, including:
+  - Steering the off-chain proposal process, including providing proposal and communication guidelines for proposers and compensating proposers when appropriate
+  - Steering MetaDAO-wide project management
+  - Handling any expenses or required activities required to operate effectively
+  - Improving the security and efficacy of the core futarchy mechanism
+  - Providing monthly updates to the MetaDAO community
+- Compensation for current contributors, including the incentive-based part
+
+The proposal would also allow Nallok or Proph3t to make exceptional use grants for MetaDAO's code licenses.
+
+For technical reasons, no META nor USDC would come directly from the DAO's treasury. It would instead come from various multisigs.
+
+Although we make no hard commitments, the META would likely be issued in 5-year locked form, as described [here](https://medium.com/@metaproph3t/-6d9ca555363e).

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-approve-q3-roadmap.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "65U66fcYuNfqN12vzateJhZ4bgDuxFWN9gMwraeQKByg"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/7AbivixQZTrgnqpmyxW2j1dd4Jyy15K3T2T7MEgfg8DZ"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/7AbivixQZTrgnqpmyxW2j1dd4Jyy15K3T2T7MEgfg8DZ"
 proposal_date: 2024-08-03
 resolution_date: 2024-08-07
 category: "strategy"
@@ -36,3 +36,26 @@ This roadmap represents MetaDAO's strategic pivot toward productizing futarchy g
 - [[metadao]] - quarterly strategic planning decision
 - [[futardio]] - platform where this proposal was decided
 - Related to [[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]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-08-03*
+
+Subject to the DAO's approval, this is what we'll be working on for the remainder of Q3:
+### Launch market-based grants decisions
+- Design a compelling market-based grants product
+	- Research and document existing grants programs across both SVM and EVM ecosystem
+	- Gather requirements and feedback from prospective users (DAOs)
+	- Gather requirements and feedback from decision market traders
+	- Create a 'cardboard cutout' design of what the UI will look like
+- Implement the product
+	- Write requisite smart contracts
+	- Get smart contracts audited, either by a firm or by individuals
+- Launch 5 organizations on the product
+- Process 8 proposals through the product
+### Start building the full-time team
+- Secure an office space in San Francisco
+- Interview 40 candidates for the engineering roles
+- Hire a Twitter intern
+### Improve the performance of the user interface
+- Reduce page load times from 14.6s to 1s

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-burn-993-percent-meta.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "doctor.sol & rar3"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/ELwCkHt1U9VBpUFJ7qGoVMatEwLSr1HYj9q9t8JQ1NcU"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/ELwCkHt1U9VBpUFJ7qGoVMatEwLSr1HYj9q9t8JQ1NcU"
 proposal_date: 2024-03-03
 resolution_date: 2024-03-08
 category: treasury
@@ -47,3 +47,48 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-03-03*
+
+#### Authors
+doctor.sol & rar3
+
+### Overview
+Burn ~99.3% `979,000` of treasury-held META tokens to significantly reduce the FDV, with the goal of making META more appealing to investors and enhancing community engagement.
+
+### Background
+The META DAO is currently perceived to have a **high Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV)** due to the substantial amount of META tokens in the treasury, approximately `985,000 tokens`. This high FDV often **discourages potential investors and participants** from engaging with META, as they may perceive the investment as less attractive right from the start.
+
+### Issue at Hand
+The primary concern is that the high FDV and treasury leads to the following problems:
+
+1. **It encourages the use of META for expenses.**
+2. **It lowers the attractiveness of META as an investment opportunity** at face value.
+3. **It reduces the number of individuals willing to participate** in this futuarchy experiment.
+
+While a high FDV can deter less informed community members, which has its benefits, it also potentially wards off highly valuable community members who could contribute positively.
+
+#### Examples
+- https://imgur.com/a/KHMjJqo
+- https://imgur.com/a/3DH2jcO
+
+### Proposed Solution
+We propose **burning approximately ~99.3%** of the META tokens -`99,000 tokens` - currently held in the DAO's treasury. This action is aimed at achieving the following outcomes:
+
+- **Elimination of Treasury META Payments**: Reduces the propensity to utilize $META from the treasury for proposal payments, promoting a healthier economic framework.
+- **Market-Based Token Acquisition**: Future requirements for $META tokens will necessitate market purchases, fostering demand and enhancing token value.
+- **Prioritization of $USDC and Revenue**: Shifting towards $USDC payments and focusing on revenue generation marks a move towards financial sustainability and robustness.
+- **Confidence Boost in META**: By significantly reducing the supply of META tokens, we signal a strong commitment to the token's value, **potentially leading to increased interest and participation in prop 10 execution.**
+- **Attracting a Broader Community**: Lowering the FDV makes META more attractive at face value, inviting a wider range of participants, including those who conduct thorough research and those attracted by the token's perceived tokenomics.
+
+### Rundown of Numbers:
+- **Current Treasury:** `982,464 META tokens`
+- **After Burning:** `3,464 META tokens`
+- **Post-Proposition 10:** An expected `1,000 META tokens` should be added back from multisig after prop 10, ranging anywhere from `0 to 3,000 META`.
+- **Final Treasury:** After burning, the treasury would have around `4,500 META`, valued at `$4 million`, plus `$2 million in META-USDC LP` at todays price `$880 / META`.
+- **Total META supply:** `20,885`
+
+#### Note
+Adopting this proposal does **not permanently cap our token supply.** The community is currently discussing the possibility of transitioning to a **mintable token model**, which would provide the flexibility to issue more tokens if the need arises.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-compensation-proph3t-nallok.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Proph3t & Nallok"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/BgHv9GutbnsXZLZQHqPL8BbGWwtcaRDWx82aeRMNmJbG"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/BgHv9GutbnsXZLZQHqPL8BbGWwtcaRDWx82aeRMNmJbG"
 proposal_date: 2024-05-27
 resolution_date: 2024-05-31
 category: hiring
@@ -52,3 +52,118 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-05-27*
+
+#### Type
+
+Operations Direct Action
+
+#### Author(s)
+
+Proph3t, Nallok
+
+#### Objective
+
+Align the incentives of key insiders, Proph3t and Nallok, with the long-term success and growth of MetaDAO.
+
+## Overview
+
+We propose that MetaDAO adopt a [convex payout system](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16W7o-kEVbRPIm3i2zpEVQar6z_vlt0qgiHEdYV1TAPU/edit#heading=h.rlnpkfo7evkj).
+Specifically, Proph3t and Nallok would receive 2% of the token supply for every \$1 billion increase in META's market capitalization, up to a maximum of 10% at a \$5 billion market cap. Additionally, we propose a salary of \$90,000 per year for each.
+
+## Details
+
+- **Fixed Token Allocation**: 10% of supply equals **1,975 META per person**. This number remains fixed regardless of further META dilution.
+- **Linear Unlocks**: For example, a \$100M market cap would release 0.2% of the supply, or 39.5 META (~\$200k at a \$100M market cap), to each person.
+- **Unlock Criteria**: Decided at a later date, potentially using a simple moving average (SMA) over a month or an option-based system.
+- **Start Date**: April 2024 for the purposes of vesting & retroactive salary.
+- **Vesting Period**: No tokens unlock before April 2028, no matter what milestones are hit. This signals long-term commitment to building the business.
+- **Illiquid Vest**: The DAO can claw back all tokens until December 2024 (8 months from start). Thereafter, tokens vest into a smart contract / multisig that can't be accessed by Proph3t or Nallok.
+- **Market Cap Definition**: \$1B market cap is defined as a price of \$42,198 per META. This allows for 20% dilution post-proposal. Payouts are based on the value per META, not total market capitalization.
+
+## Q&A
+
+### Why do we need founder incentives at all? I thought MetaDAO was supposed to be decentralized?![image](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/B1wgI0ZV0.png)
+Whether we like it or not, MetaDAO is not fully decentralized today. If Nallok and I walk away, its probability of success drops by at least 50%. This proposal creates financial incentives to help us build MetaDAO into a truly decentralized entity.This proposal does not grant us decision-making authority. Ultimate power remains with the market. We can be replaced at any time and must follow the market's direction to keep our roles.
+
+### What exactly would this proposal execute on the blockchain?
+Nothing directly. It involves a call to the [Solana memo program](https://spl.solana.com/memo).
+The purpose is to gauge market receptiveness to this structure. A future proposal would handle the transfer of the required META, possibly from a [BDF3M](https://hackmd.io/@metaproph3t/SJfHhnkJC) multisig.
+
+### What would be our roles?
+
+**Nallok**
+- Firefighter
+- Problem-Solver
+- Operations Manager
+
+**Proph3t**
+- Architect
+- Mechanism Designer
+- Smart Contract Engineer
+
+### What would be our focus areas?
+
+Frankly, we don't know. When we started work on MetaDAO, [Vota](https://vota.fi/) looked like the most viable business for bootstrapping MetaDAO's legitimacy.
+Now it looks like [offering futarchy to other DAOs](https://futarchy.metadao.fi/browse).
+MetaDAO LLC, the Marshall Islands DAO LLC controlled by MetaDAO, states our business purpose as "Solana-based products and services."
+We expect this to hold true for several years.
+
+## Appendix
+- How we picked 2% per \$1B To be successful, an incentive system needs to do two things: retain contributors and get them to exert maximum effort.So to be effective, the system must offer more utility than alternative opportunities and make exerting effort more beneficial than not.
+
+### Methodology
+
+We estimated our reservation wages (potential earnings elsewhere) and verified that the utility of those wages is less than our expected payout from MetaDAO. [This video](https://youtu.be/mM3SKjVpE7U?si=0fMazWyc0Tcab0TZ) explains the process.
+
+### Utility Calculation
+
+We used the square root of the payout in millions to define our utility function. For example:
+- \$100,000 payout gives a utility of 0.3162 (sqrt of 0.1).
+- \$1,000,000 payout gives a utility of 1 (sqrt of 1).
+- \$10,000,000 payout gives a utility of 3.162 (sqrt of 10).
+
+### Assumptions
+
+- **Earnings Elsewhere**: Estimated at \$250,000 per year.
+- **Timeline**: 6 years to achieve MetaDAO success.
+- **Failure Payout Utility**: 0.5 (including \$90k/year salary and lessons learned).
+- **Very low probability of success w/o maximum effort**: we both believe that MetaDAO will simply not come to be unless both of us pour our soul into it. This gives \$1.5M in foregone income, with a utility of 1.2 (sqrt of 1.5).
+
+### Expected Payout Calculation
+To estimate the utility of exerting maximum effort, we used the expected utility of success and failure, multiplied by their respective probabilities. Perceived probabilities are key, as they influence the incentivized person's decision-making.
+
+#### Nallok's Estimate
+- **His Estimated Probability of Success**: 20%.
+- **Effort Cost Utility**: 3 (equivalent to \$10M).
+
+Calculation:
+- $ 1.2 < 0.2 * (\sqrt{y} - 3) + 0.8 * (0.5 - 3) $
+- $ 1.2 < 0.2 * (\sqrt{y} - 3) - 2 $
+- $ 3.2 < 0.2 * (\sqrt{y} - 3) $
+- $ 16 < \sqrt{y} - 3 $
+- $ 19 < \sqrt{y} $
+- $ 361 < y $
+
+So Nallok needs a success payout of at least \$361M for it to be rational for him to stay and exert maximum effort.
+
+#### Proph3ts's Estimate
+- **His Estimated Probability of Success**: 10%.
+- **Effort Cost Utility**: 1.7 (equivalent to \$3M).
+
+Calculation:
+- $ 1.2 < 0.1 * (\sqrt{y} - 1.7) + 0.8 * (0.5 - 1.7) $
+- $ 1.2 < 0.1 * (\sqrt{y} - 1.7) + 0.8 * -1.2 $
+- $ 1.2 < 0.1 * (\sqrt{y} - 1.7) - 1 $
+- $ 2.2 < 0.1 * (\sqrt{y} - 1.7) $
+- $ 22 < \sqrt{y} - 1.7 $
+- $ 23.7 < \sqrt{y} $
+- $ 562 < y $
+
+So Proph3t needs a success payout of at least \$562M for it to be rational for him to stay and exert maximum effort.
+
+### 10%
+We believe MetaDAO can reach at least a \$5B market cap if executed correctly. Therefore, we decided on a 10% token allocation each, which would provide a ~\$500M payout in case of success. Future issuances may dilute this, but we expect the diluted payout to be within the same order of magnitude.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-create-futardio.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "unknown"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/zN9Uft1zEsh9h7Wspeg5bTNirBBvtBTaJ6i5KcEnbAb"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/zN9Uft1zEsh9h7Wspeg5bTNirBBvtBTaJ6i5KcEnbAb"
 proposal_date: 2024-11-21
 resolution_date: 2024-11-25
 category: strategy
@@ -48,3 +48,9 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-11-21*
+
+Futardio is a great idea and needs to happen

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-create-spot-market-meta.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/9ABv3Phb44BNF4VFteSi9qcWEyABdnRqkorNuNtzdh2b"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/9ABv3Phb44BNF4VFteSi9qcWEyABdnRqkorNuNtzdh2b"
 proposal_date: 2024-01-12
 resolution_date: 2024-01-18
 category: "fundraise"
@@ -39,3 +39,37 @@ This was MetaDAO's first public fundraising mechanism through futarchy governanc
 - [[metadao]] - first public fundraising proposal
 - [[futardio]] - platform hosting the decision market
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - mechanism used for this decision
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-01-12*
+
+### **Overview**
+
+The purpose of this proposal is to initiate the creation of a spot market for \$META tokens, allowing broader public access to the token and establishing liquidity. The proposed market will be funded through the sale of \$META tokens, and the pricing structure will be determined based on the Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) of the proposal that passes. The funds raised will be utilized to support the Meta-DAO's ongoing initiatives and operations.
+
+### **Key Components**
+
+#### **Token Sale Structure:**
+- The initial token sale will involve the Meta-DAO selling \$META tokens to the public. Anyone can participate.
+- The sale price per \$META token will be set at the TWAP of the last passing proposal.
+- In case of this proposal failing, the sale will not proceed and Meta-DAO can't raise from public markets till 12 March 2024.
+#### **Liquidity Pool Creation:**
+- A liquidity pool (LP) will be established to support the spot market.
+- Funding for the LP will come from the token sale, with approximately $35,000 allocated for this purpose.
+#### **Token Sale Details:**
+- Hard cap: 75,000usd
+- Sale Price: TWAP of this passing proposal
+- Sale Quantity: Hard cap / Sale Price
+- Spot Market Opening Price: To be determined, potentially higher than the initial public sale price.
+#### **Liquidity Pool Allocation:**
+- LP Token Pairing: \$META tokens from treasury paired with approximately \$35,000usd.
+- Any additional funds raised beyond the LP allocation will be reserved for operational funding in \$SOL tokens.
+
+### **Next Steps**
+1. If approved, initiate the token sale using the most convenient methodology to maximize the event. Proceed with the creation of the SMETA spot market.
+2. In case of failure, Meta-DAO will be unable to raise funds until March 12, 2024.
+
+### **Conclusion**
+This proposal aims to enhance the Meta-DAO ecosystem experience by introducing a spot market for \$META tokens.
+The proposal invites futards to actively participate in shaping the future of the \$META token.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-develop-amm-program-for-futarchy.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "joebuild"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/CF9QUBS251FnNGZHLJ4WbB2CVRi5BtqJbCqMi47NX1PG"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/CF9QUBS251FnNGZHLJ4WbB2CVRi5BtqJbCqMi47NX1PG"
 proposal_date: 2024-01-24
 resolution_date: 2024-01-29
 category: "mechanism"
@@ -58,3 +58,90 @@ The liquidity-weighted pricing mechanism is novel in futarchy implementations—
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] — mechanism evolution from TWAP to liquidity-weighted pricing
 - [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] — addresses liquidity barrier
 - [[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]] — implements explicit fee-based defender incentives
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-01-24*
+
+## Overview
+In the context of Futarchy, CLOBs have a couple of drawbacks:
+1. Lack of liquidity
+2. Somewhat susceptible to manipulation
+3. Pass/fail market pairs cost 3.75 SOL in state rent, which cannot currently be recouped
+
+### Lack of liquidity
+Estimating a fair price for the future value of MetaDao under pass/fail conditions is difficult, and most reasonable estimates will have a wide range. This uncertainty discourages people from risking their funds with limit orders near the midpoint price, and has the effect of reducing liquidity (and trading). This is the main reason for switching to AMMs.
+
+### Somewhat susceptible to manipulation
+With CLOBs there is always a bid/ask spread, and someone with 1 $META can push the midpoint towards the current best bid/ask. Though this could be countered with a defensive for-profit bot, and as Proph3t puts it: this is a 1/n problem.
+
+Still, users can selectively crank the market of their choosing. Defending against this (cranking markets all the time) would be a bit costly.
+
+Similarly, VWAP can be manipulated by wash trading. An exponential moving average has the same drawbacks in this context as the existing linear-time system.
+
+### State rent costs
+If we average 3-5 proposals per month, then annual costs for market creation is 135-225 SOL, or $11475-$19125 at current prices. AMMs cost almost nothing in state rent.
+
+### Solution
+An AMM would solve all of the above problems and is a move towards simplicity. We can use the metric: liquidity-weighted price over time. The more liquidity that is on the books, the more weight the current price of the pass or fail market is given. Every time there is a swap, these metrics are updated/aggregated. By setting a high fee (3-5%) we can both: encourage LPs, and aggressively discourage wash-trading and manipulation.
+
+These types of proposals would also require that the proposer lock-up some initial liquidity, and set the starting price for the pass/fail markets.
+
+With this setup, liquidity would start low when the proposal is launched, someone would swap and move the AMM price to their preferred price, and then provide liquidity at that price since the fee incentives are high. Liquidity would increase over the duration of the proposal.
+
+The current CLOB setup requires a minimum order size of 1 META, which is effectively a spam filter against manipulating the midpoint within a wide bid/ask spread. AMMs would not have this restriction, and META could be traded at any desired granularity.
+
+### Additional considerations
+> What if a user wants to provide one-sided liquidity?
+
+The most recent passing proposal will create spot markets outside of the pass/fail markets. There will be an AMM, and there is no reason not to create a CLOB as well. Most motivations for providing one-sided liquidity can be satisfied by regular spot-markets, or by arbitraging between spot markets and pass/fail markets. In the future, it may be possible to setup limit orders similarly to how Jupiter limit orders work with triggers and keepers.
+
+Switching to AMMs is not a perfect solution, but I do believe it is a major improvement over the current low-liquidity and somewhat noisy system that we have now.
+
+### Implementation
+1. Program + Review
+2. Frontend
+
+#### Program + Review
+Program changes:
+
+- Write a basic AMM, which tracks liquidity-weighted average price over its lifetime
+- Incorporate the AMM into autocrat + conditional vault
+- Get feedback to decide if the autocrat and conditional vault should be merged
+- Feature to permissionlessly pause AMM swaps and send back positions once there is a verdict (and the instructions have been run, in the case of the pass market)
+- Feature to permissionlessly close the AMMs and return the state rent SOL, once there are no positions
+Additional quality-of-life changes:
+
+- Loosen time restrictions on when a proposal can be created after the markets are created (currently set to 50 slots, which is very restrictive and has led to extra SOL costs to create redundant markets). Alternatively, bundle these commands in the same function call.
+- If a proposal instruction does not work, then revert to fail after X number of days (so that funds dont get stuck forever).
+
+#### Ownership:
+
+- joebuild will write the program changes
+- A review will be done by an expert in MetaDAO with availability
+
+#### Frontend
+The majority of the frontend integration changes will be completed by 0xNalloK.
+
+### Timeline
+Estimate is 3 weeks from passing proposal, with an additional week of review and minor changes.
+
+### Budget and Roles
+400 META on passing proposal, with an additional 800 META on completed migration.
+
+program changes (joebuild)
+program review (tbd)
+frontend work (0xNalloK)
+
+### Rollout & Risks
+The main program will be deployed before migration of assets. This should allow for some testing of the frontend and the contract on mainnet. We can use a temporary test subdomain.
+
+The risks here include:
+
+- Standard smart contract risk
+- Adoption/available liquidity: similar to an orderbook, available liquidity will be decided by LPs. AMMs will incentivize LP'ing, though adoption within the DAO is not a certainty.
+
+### Section for feedback changes
+Any important changes or feedback brought up during the proposal vote will be reflected here, while the text above will remain unchanged.
+
+- It was pointed out that there are ways to recoup openbook state rent costs, though it would require a migration of the current autocrat program.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-develop-faas.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "0xNallok"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/D9pGGmG2rCJ5BXzbDoct7EcQL6F6A57azqYHdpWJL9Cc"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/D9pGGmG2rCJ5BXzbDoct7EcQL6F6A57azqYHdpWJL9Cc"
 proposal_date: 2024-03-13
 resolution_date: 2024-03-19
 category: strategy
@@ -50,3 +50,183 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-03-13*
+
+![ecosystem](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/r1PShQkCa.png)
+
+Type: Business project
+
+Entrepreneur(s): 0xNallok
+
+*A note from 0xNallok: Special thanks are owed to the many parties who've supported the project thus far, to those who've taken massive risk on utilizing the systems and believing in a better crypto. It has been one of the most exciting things, not in attention, but seeing the "aha!" moments and expanding the understanding of what is possible with crypto.*
+
+See also: [A Vision for Futarchy as a Service](https://hackmd.io/@0xNallok/rJ5O9LwaT)
+
+## Overview
+
+The appetite for market-driven governance is palpable. We have a tremendous opportunity to take this labor of love and shape it into a prime-time product. Such a product would be a great boon to the Solana ecosystem and to the MetaDAO's bottom line.
+
+If passed, this proposal would fund two workstreams:
+
+- **Minimum viable product**: I would coordinate the creation of a minimum viable product: a Realms-like UI that allows people to create and participate in futarchic DAOs. This requires some modifications to the smart contract and UI to allow for more than one DAO.
+- **UI improvements**: I've already been working with engineers to add helpful functionality to the UI. This proposal would fund these features, including:
+  - historical charts
+  - improving UX around surfacing information (e.g., showing how much money you have deposited in each proposal)
+  - showing historical trades
+  - showing market volume
+
+The goal would be to onboard some early adopter DAOs to test alongside MetaDAO. A few teams have already expressed interest.
+
+## Problem
+
+Most people in crypto agree that the state of governance is abysmal. Teams can loot the treasury without repercussions[^1]. Decentralization theatre abounds[^2]. Even some projects that build DAO tooling don't feel comfortable keeping their money in a DAO[^3].
+
+The root cause of this issue is token-voting. One-token-one-vote systems have clear incentive traps[^4] that lead to uninformed and unengaged voters. Delegated voting systems ('liquid democracy') don't fare much better: most holders don't even do enough research to delegate.
+
+## Design
+![Screenshot 2024-03-07 at 1.40.37 PM](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/Hyg89FDTa.jpg)
+
+A possible solution that MetaDAO has been testing out is futarchy. In a futarchy, it's markets that make the decisions. Given that markets are empirically better than experts at predicting things, we expect futarchies to perform better than traditional DAOs.
+
+Our objective is to build a product that allows DAOs in the Solana ecosystem to harness the power of the market for their decision-making. This product would look and feel like [Realms](https://realms.today/), only with futarchy instead of voting.
+
+Our short-term goal is to create a minimum viable iteration of this. This iteration would support the following flows:
+- I, as a DAO creator, can come to a website and create a futarchic DAO
+- I, as a futarchic trader, can trade in multiple DAOs proposals' futarchic markets
+
+To monetize this in the long-term, we could:
+- Collect licensing fees
+- Collect taker/maker fees in the conditional markets
+- Provide ancillary consulting services to help DAOs manage their futarchies
+
+The minimum viable product wouldn't support these. We would instead work with a few select DAOs and sign agreements with them to migrate to a program with fee collection within 6 months of it being released if they wish to continue to use MetaDAO's offering.
+
+### Objectives and Key Results
+
+**Release a minimum viable product by May 21st, 2024**
+- Extend the smart contract to support multiple DAOs
+- Generalize the UI to support multiple DAOs
+- Create docs for interacting with the product
+- Partner with 3 DAOs to have them use the product at launch-time
+
+**Improve the overall UI/UX**
+- Create an indexer and APIs for order and trade history
+- Improve the user experience for creating proposals
+- Improve the user experience for trading proposals
+
+### Timeline
+
+**Phase 1**
+Initial discussions around implementation, services and visual components
+UI design for components
+Development of components in React
+Program development
+Data services / APIs construction
+
+**Phase 2**
+Program deployed on devnet
+Data services / APIs linked with devnet
+UI deployed on dev branch for use with devnet
+
+**Phase 3**
+Audit and revisions of program
+Testing UI, feedback and revisions mainnet with limited beta testers and on devent
+
+**Phase 4**
+Proposal for migration of program
+UI live on mainnet
+Create documentation and videos
+
+**Final**
+Migrate program
+
+## Budget
+
+This project is expected to have deliverables within 30 days with full deployment within two months.
+
+Below is the inclusion of estimated **MAXIMUM** _costs and hours_ for the following roles[^5]. **If costs do incur beyond this estimate the cost is to be borne by the Entrepreneur.**
+
+A fair estimate of `$96,000`[^6] for the two months including the following:
+- 1 smart contract engineer (\$15,000) (160 hours)
+- 1 auditor (\$10,000) (40 hours)
+- 2 UI / UX (\$32,000) (400 hours)
+- 1 data/services developer (\$13,000) (140 hours)
+- 1 project manager / research / outreach (\$26,000) (320 hours)
+
+The Entrepreneur (0xNallok) would fill in various roles, but primarily the project manager.
+
+This will be funded through:
+- Transfer of \$40,000 USDC from the existing funds in the multi-sig treasury.
+- Transfer of 342 META[^7] which will be used when payment is due to convert to USDC.
+- The funds will be transferred to a 2/3 mult-sig including 0xNallok, Proph3t and Nico.
+- Payments to the parties will be done weekly.
+
+> The reason for overallocation of META is due to the price fluctuation of the asset and necessity for payment in USDC. This takes the cost minus the \$40k USDC (\$56k) divided by the current price of 1 META (\$818.284) multiplied by a factor of 5.
+
+> Any remaining META once the project is completed will be transferred back to the MetaDAO treasury.
+
+MetaDAO Executor (`FpMnruqVCxh3o2oBFZ9uSQmshiyfMqzeJ3YfNQfP9tHy`)
+
+MetaDAO Treasury (`ADCCEAbH8eixGj5t73vb4sKecSKo7ndgDSuWGvER4Loy`)
+
+FaaS Multi-sig (`AHwsoL97vXFdvckVZdXw9rrvnUDcPANCLVQzJan9srWy`)
+>  0xNallok (`4LpE9Lxqb4jYYh8jA8oDhsGDKPNBNkcoXobbAJTa3pWw`)
+
+>  Proph3t (`65U66fcYuNfqN12vzateJhZ4bgDuxFWN9gMwraeQKByg`)
+
+>  Nico (`6kDGqrP4Wwqe5KBa9zTrgUFykVsv4YhZPDEX22kUsDMP`)
+
+This proposal includes the transfer instruction from the MetaDAO treasury, the additional funds will be transferred from the MetaDAO Executor.
+
+## Business
+
+Ultimately, the goal of the MetaDAO is to make money. There are a few ways to monetize FaaS all dependent on what appeals most to DAOs:
+- **Taker fees on markets**: we could take 5 - 25 basis points via a taker fee on markets.
+- **Monthly licensing fees**: because the code is BSL, we could charge a monthly fee for the code and the site
+- **Support and services**: we could also provide consultation services around futarchic governance, like a Gauntlet model.
+
+In general, we should aim for **vertical integration**. The goal is not to build this product as a primitive and then allow anyone to build front-ends for it: it's to own the whole stack.
+
+### Financial Projections
+
+Today, 293 DAOs use Realms. Realms is a free platform, so plenty of these DAOs are inactive and wouldn't be paying customers. So we estimate that we could acquire 5 - 100 DAOs as customers.
+
+As for estimating ARPU (average revenue per user), we can start by looking at the volume in the MetaDAO's markets:
+
+![Screenshot from 2024-02-26 19-52-03](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/H1HbnwcnT.png)
+
+Note that this only includes the volume in the finalized market, as all trades in the other market are reverted and thus wouldn't collect fees.
+
+So assuming that proposal 6 - 8 are an appropriate sample, we could earn ~\$50 - \$500 per proposal. If DAOs see between 1 - 2 proposals per month, that's \$100 - \$1,000 in taker fee ARPU.
+
+As for monthly licensing fees, Squads charges \$99 / month for SquadsX and \$399 / month for Squads Pro. I suspect that DAOs would be willing to pay a premium for governance. So we can estimate between \$50 - \$1,000 in monthly licensing fees.
+
+Putting these together:
+
+![Screenshot from 2024-02-26 19-54-59](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/BJvsnvc3p.png)
+
+The support & services business is different enough that it deserves its own model. This is because consulting / advisory businesses have non-zero marginal costs (you can't earn $25,000,000 in revenue from one consultant) and have lower defensibility. Both cause them to receive lower valuation multiples.
+
+Here's what we project:
+
+![Screenshot from 2024-02-26 19-29-19](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/B10c8vq3p.png)
+
+Of course, you can use your own numbers if you'd like to come up with your own estimates.
+
+## Footnotes
+[^1]: DeFi Project Parrot Holds Contentious Vote on Future of $70M Treasury. Danny Nelson. Jul 21, 2023. https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/07/21/defi-project-parrot-puts-fate-of-over-70m-treasury-prt-token-to-vote/.
+
+[^2]: Crypto's Theater Is Becoming More Surreal. Camila Russo. Aug 14, 2023. https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/08/14/cryptos-theater-is-becoming-more-surreal/.
+
+[^3]: Aragon Fires Back at Activist Investors in Early Stages of DAO Governance Fight. Danny Nelson. May 5, 2023. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/05/05/aragon-fires-back-at-activist-investors-in-early-stages-of-governance-fight/.
+
+[^4]: The Logic of Collective Action. Wikipedia. Mar 7, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action.
+
+[^5]: As this is an approximation and development and integration depends on a number of factors, inclusion of roles and estimates seems appropriate but may be in flux given changes which arise, however costs would not extend beyond the estimate.
+
+[^6]: This breaks down to an average estimate of ~$90/hour and 1060 (wo)man hours total.
+
+[^7]: $$(56,000/818.284) * 5 \approx 342$$

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-develop-multi-option-proposals.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "agrippa"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/J7dWFgSSuMg3BNZBAKYp3AD5D2yuaaLUmyKqvxBZgHht"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/J7dWFgSSuMg3BNZBAKYp3AD5D2yuaaLUmyKqvxBZgHht"
 proposal_date: 2024-02-20
 resolution_date: 2024-02-25
 category: "mechanism"
@@ -40,3 +40,69 @@ The proposal outlined a from-scratch multi-modal conditional vault program with
 - [[metadao]] - governance mechanism expansion
 - futarchy-implementations-must-simplify-theoretical-mechanisms-for-production-adoption-because-original-designs-include-impractical-elements-that-academics-tolerate-but-users-reject - demonstrates specific simplification need
 - MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-implements-futarchy-through-conditional-token-markets-where-proposals-create-parallel-pass-and-fail-universes-settled-by-time-weighted-average-price-over-a-three-day-window - architectural evolution
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-02-20*
+
+This is a proposal to pay me (agrippa) in META to create multi-modal proposal functionality.
+
+As it stands proposals have two outcomes: Pass or Fail.
+A multi-modal proposal is one with multiple mutually-exclusive outcomes, one of which is Fail and the rest of which are other things.
+
+For example, you can imagine a proposal to choose the first place prize of the Solana Scribes contest, where there's a conditional market on each applicant![^1] Without multi-modal proposals, a futarchic DAO has basically no mechanism for making choices like this, but multi-modal proposals solve it quite well.
+
+Architecturally speaking there is no need to hard-limit the number of conditions in a conditional vault / number of outcomes in a proposal.
+
+I believe even in the medium term it will prove to be a crucial feature that provides a huge amount of value to the DAO[^2], and I believe the futarchic DAO software is currently far and away the DAO's most important asset and worth investing in.
+
+### Protocol complexity and risk
+Unlike other potential expansions of DAO complexity, multi-modal proposals do not particularly introduce any new security / mechanism design considerations. If you can maliciously get through "proposal option 12", you could have also gotten through Pass in a binary proposal because conditional markets do not compete with eachother over liquidity.
+
+[^1]: You'd probably filter them down at least a little bit, though in principle you don't need to. Also, you could award the 2nd and 3rd place prizes to the 2nd and 3rd highest trading contestants... kinda neat.
+
+[^2]: Down the line, I think multi-modal proposals are really quite interesting. For example, for each proposal anyone makes, you could have a mandatory draft stage where before the conditional vault actually goes live anyone can add more alternatives to the same proposal. **I think this would be really effective at cutting out pork** and is the primary mechanism for doing so.
+
+## About me
+I have been leading development on https://github.com/solana-labs/governance-ui/ (aka the Realms frontend) for Solana Labs for the past year. Aside from smart contract dev, I'm an expert at making web3 frontends performant and developer-ergonomic (hint: it involves using react-query a lot). I started what was probably the very first high-school blockchain club in the world in 2014, with my then-Physics-teacher Jed who now works at Jito. In my undergrad I did research at Cornell's Initiative for Cryptocurrency and Contracts and in 2017 I was invited to a smart contract summit in China because of some Sybil resistance work I was doing at the time (Vitalik was there!).
+
+I developed the [first conditional tokens vault on Solana](https://github.com/Nimblefoot/precogparty/tree/main/programs/precog) as part of a prediction market reference implementation[^3] (grant-funded by FTX of all people, rest in peace). This has influenced changes to the existing metadao conditional vault, [referenced here](https://discord.com/channels/1155877543174475859/1174824703513342082/1194351565734170664), which I've been asked to help test and review.
+
+I met Proph3t in Greece this past December and we spent about 3 hours walking and talking in the pouring rain about the Meta-DAO and futarchy. During our conversation I told him what Hanson tells people: futarchy isn't used because organizations don't actually want it, they'd rather continue to get fat on organizational inefficiencies. But my thinking has changed!
+
+1. I've now seen how excited talented builders and teams are about implementing futarchy (as opposed to wanting to cling to control)
+2. I've realized just how fun futarchy is and I want it for myself regardless of anything else
+[^3]: I did actually came up with the design myself, but it's been invented multiple times including for example Gnosis conditional vaults on Ethereum.
+
+### Value
+To me these are the main points of value. I have included my own subjective estimates on how much more the DAO is worth if this feature was fully implemented. (Bare in mind we are "double dipping" here, these improvements include both the functioning of the Meta-DAO itself and the value of the Meta-DAO's best asset, the dao software)
+
+- Ability to weigh multiple exclusive alternatives at once literally exponentially increases the DAO's decision-making bandwidth in relevant cases (+5%)
+- Multi-modal proposals with a draft stage are the best solution to the deeply real game-theoretic problem of pork barrel (+5%)
+- Multi-modal proposals are cool and elegant. Selection among multiple alternatives is a very challenging problem in voting mechanism design, usually solved poorly (see: elections). Multi-modal futarchic proposals are innovative and exciting not just in the context of futarchy, but all of governance! That's hype (+2%)
+- A really kickass conditional vault implementation is useful for other protocols and this one would be the best. It could collect very modest fees for the DAO each time tokens are deposited into it. (yes, protocols can just fork it, but usually this doesn't happen: see Serum pre explosion, etc) (+0.1%)
+So that is (in my estimation) +12.1% value to the Meta-DAO.
+
+According to https://dune.com/metadaohogs/themetadao circulating supply is 14,416 META. `14416 * (100 + 12.1)% = 16160`, so this feature set would be worth a dilution of **+1744 META**. I am proposing you pay me much less than that.
+
+I also believe that I am uniquely positioned to do the work to a very high standard of competence. In particular, I think making the contract work without a limit on # of alternatives requires a deep level of understanding of Anchor and Solana smart contract design, but is necessary in order to future-proof and fully realize the feature's potential.
+
+### Compensation and Milestones
+I believe in this project and do not want cash. I am asking for 200 META disbursed in 50 META intervals across 4 milestones:
+
+1. Immediately upon passage of this proposal
+2. Upon completing the (new from scratch) multi-modal conditonal vault program
+3. Upon making futarch work with multi-modal conditional vaults
+4. Upon integrating all related features into the frontend
+I think this would take me quite a few weeks to do by myself. I think it's premature to establish any concrete timeline because other priorities may take precedence (for example spending some time refactoring querying and state in the FE). However, if that does happen, I won't allow this project to get stuck in limbo (if nothing else, consider my incentive to subcontract from my network of talented crypto devs).
+
+Milestone completion would be assessed by a (3/5) Squads multisig comprised of:
+
+- **Proph3t** (65U66fcYuNfqN12vzateJhZ4bgDuxFWN9gMwraeQKByg), who needs no explanation
+- **DeanMachine** (3PKhzE9wuEkGPHHu2sNCvG86xNtDJduAcyBPXpE6cSNt), who I believe is well known and trusted by both the Meta-DAO and the broader DAO community.
+- **0xNallok** (4LpE9Lxqb4jYYh8jA8oDhsGDKPNBNkcoXobbAJTa3pWw), who is supporting in operations and early organization within The Meta-DAO, and who has committed to being available for review of progress and work.
+- **LegalizeOnionFutures** (EyuaQkc2UtC4WveD6JjT37ke6xL2Cxz43jmdCC7QXZQE), who I believe is a sharp and invested member of the Meta-DAO who will hold my work to a high standard.
+- **sapphire** (9eJgizx2jWDLbyK7VMMUekRBKY3q5uVwv5LEXhf1jP3s), who has done impactful security related-work with Realms, informal security review of the Meta-DAO contracts, and is an active member of the Meta-DAO.
+I selected this council because I wanted to keep it lean to reduce overhead but also diverse and representative of the DAO's interests. I will pay each member 2.5 META upon passage as payment for representing the DAO.
+
+I would be very excited to join this futarchic society as a major techinical contributor. Thanks for your consideration :-)

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-develop-saber-vote-market.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Proph3t"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/GPT8dFcpHfssMuULYKT9qERPY3heMoxwZHxgKgPw3TYM"
 proposal_date: 2023-12-16
 resolution_date: 2023-12-22
 category: "mechanism"
@@ -44,3 +44,161 @@ The detailed execution plan (10-week timeline, $62k direct costs, 6 contributors
 - [[metadao]] - parent organization, governance decision
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - mechanism being used
 - futarchy-adoption-faces-friction-from-token-price-psychology-proposal-complexity-and-liquidity-requirements - demonstrates operational complexity
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2023-12-16*
+
+## Overview
+
+It looks like things are coming full circle. Here, I propose that we build a vote market as we proposed in [proposal 0](https://hackmd.io/ammvq88QRtayu7c9VLnHOA?view), only for Saber instead of Marinade. I'd recommend you read that proposal for the context, but I'll summarize briefly here:
+- I proposed to build a Marinade vote market
+- That proposal passed
+- We learned that Marinade was developing an internal solution, we pivoted to supporting them
+
+All of that is still in motion. But recently, I connected with [c2yptic](https://twitter.com/c2yptic) from Saber, who happens to be really excited about the Meta-DAO's vision. Saber was planning on creating a vote market, but he proposed that the Meta-DAO build it instead. I think that this would be a tremendous opportunity for both parties, which is why I'm proposing this.
+
+Here's the high-level:
+- The platform would be funded with $150,000 by various ecosystem teams that would benefit from the platform's existence including UXD, BlazeStake, LP Finance, and Saber.
+- veSBR holders would use the market to earn extra yield
+- Projects that want liquidity could easily pay for it, saving time and money relative to a bespoke campaign
+- The Meta-DAO would own the majority of the platform, with the remaining distributed to the ecosystem teams mentioned above and to users via liquidity mining.
+
+## Why a Saber Vote Market would be good for users and teams
+
+### Users
+
+Users would be able to earn extra yield on their SBR (or their veSBR, to be precise).
+
+### Teams
+
+Teams want liquidity in their tokens. Liquidity is both useful day-to-day - by giving users lower spreads - as well as a backstop against depeg events.
+
+This market would allow teams to more easily and cheaply pay for liquidity. Rather than a bespoke campaign, they would in effect just be placing limit orders in a central market.
+
+## Why a Saber Vote Market would be good for the Meta-DAO
+
+### Financial projections
+
+The Meta-DAO is governed by futarchy - an algorithm that optimizes for token-holder value. So it's worth looking at how much value this proposal could drive.
+
+Today, Saber has a TVL of $20M. Since votes are only useful insofar as they direct that TVL, trading volume through a vote market should be proportional to it.
+
+We estimate that there will be approximately **\$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$50 of Saber TVL.** We estimate this using Curve and Aura:
+- Today, Curve has a TVL of \$2B. This round of gauge votes - which happen every two weeks - [had \$1.25M in tokens exchanged for votes](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/59). This equates to a run rate of \$30M, or \$1 of vote trade volume for every \$67 in TVL.
+- Before the Luna depeg, Curve had \$20B in TVL and vote trade volume was averaging between [\$15M](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/10) and [\$20M](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/8), equivalent to \$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$48 in TVL.
+- In May, Aura has \$600M in TVL and [\$900k](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/hh/aura-bal/25) in vote trade volume, equivalent to \$1 in yearly vote trade volume for every \$56 of TVL
+
+The other factor in the model will be our take rate. Based on Convex's [7-10% take rate](https://docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/fees#convex-for-curve), [Votium's ~3% take rate](https://docs.votium.app/faq/fees#vlcvx-incentives), and [Hidden Hand's ~10% take rate](https://docs.redacted.finance/products/pirex/btrfly#is-there-a-fee-for-using-pirex-btrfly), I believe something between 5 and 15% is reasonable. Since we don't expect as much volume as those platforms but we still need to pay people, maybe we start at 15% but could shift down as scale economies kick in.
+
+Here's a model I put together to help analyze some potential scenarios:
+
+![Screenshot from 2023-12-14 15-18-26](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/B1vCn9d8p.png)
+
+The 65% owned by the Meta-DAO would be the case if we distributed an additional 10% of the supply in liquidity incentives / airdrop.
+
+### Legitimacy
+
+As [I've talked about](https://medium.com/@metaproph3t/an-update-on-the-first-proposal-0e9cdf6e7bfa), assuming futarchy works, the most important thing to the Meta-DAO's success will be acquiring legitimacy. Legitimacy is what leads people to invest their time + money into the Meta-DAO, which we can invest to generate financially-valuable outputs, which then generates more legitimacy.
+
+![image](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/BkPF69dL6.png)
+
+By partnering with well-known and reputable projects, we increase the Meta-DAO's legitimacy.
+
+## How we're going to execute
+
+### Who
+
+So far, the following people have committed to working on this project:
+- [Marie](https://twitter.com/swagy_marie) to build the UI/UX
+- [Matt / fzzyyti](https://x.com/fzzyyti?s=20) to build the smart contracts
+- [Durden](https://twitter.com/durdenwannabe) to design the platform & tokenomics
+- [Joe](https://twitter.com/joebuild) and [r0bre](https://twitter.com/r0bre) to audit the smart contracts
+- [me](https://twitter.com/metaproph3t) to be the [accountable party](https://discord.com/channels/1155877543174475859/1172275094639521792/1179750749228519534) / program manager
+
+UXD has also committed to review the contracts.
+
+### Timeline
+
+#### December 11th - December 15th
+
+Kickoff, initial discussions around platform design & tokenomics
+
+#### December 18th - December 22nd
+
+Lower-level platform design, Matt starts on programs, Marie starts on UI design
+
+#### December 25th - January 5th (2 weeks)
+
+Holiday break
+
+#### January 8th - January 12th
+
+Continued work on programs, start on UI code
+
+#### January 15th - January 19th
+
+Continued work on programs & UI
+
+Deliverables on Friday, January 19th:
+- Basic version of program deployed to devnet. You should be able to create pools and claim vote rewards. Fine if you can't claim $BRB tokens yet. Fine if tests aren't done, or some features aren't added yet.
+- Basic version of UI. It's okay if it's a Potemkin village and doesn't actually interact with the chain, but you should be able to create pools (as a vote buyer) and pick a pool to sell my vote to.
+
+#### January 22nd - 26th
+
+Continue work on programs & UI, Matt helps marie integrate devnet program into UI
+
+Deliverables on Friday, January 26th:
+- MVP of program
+- UI works with the program delivered on January 19th
+
+#### January 29th - Feburary 2nd
+
+Audit time! Joe and r0bre audit the program this week
+
+UI is updated to work for the MVP, where applicable changes are
+
+#### February 5th - Febuary 9th
+
+Any updates to the program in accordance with the audit findings
+
+UI done
+
+#### February 12th - February 16th
+
+GTM readiness week!
+
+Proph3t or Durden adds docs, teams make any final decisions, we collectively write copy to announce the platform
+
+#### February 19th
+
+Launch day!!!
+
+### Budget
+
+Based on their rates, I'm budgeting the following for each person:
+- $24,000 to Matt for the smart contracts
+- $12,000 to Marie for the UI
+- $7,000 to Durden for the platform design
+- $7,000 to Proph3t for program management
+- $5,000 to r0bre to audit the program
+- $5,000 to joe to audit the program
+- $1,000 deployment costs
+- $1,000 miscellaneous
+
+That's a total of \$62k. As mentioned, the consortium has pledged \$150k to make this happen. The remaining \$90k would be custodied by the Meta-DAO's treasury, partially to fund the management / operation / maintenance of the platform.
+
+### Terminology
+
+For those who are more familiar with bribe terminology, which I prefer not to use:
+- briber = vote buyer
+- bribee = vote seller
+- bribe platform = vote market / vote market platform
+- bribes = vote payments / vote trade volume
+
+## References
+
+- [Solana DeFi Dashboard](https://dune.com/summit/solana-defi)
+- [Hidden Hand Volume](https://dune.com/embeds/675784/1253758)
+- [Curve TVL](https://defillama.com/protocol/curve-finance)
+- [Llama Airforce](https://llama.airforce/#/incentives/rounds/votium/cvx-crv/59)

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-execute-creation-of-spot-market-for-meta.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "UuGEwN9aeh676ufphbavfssWVxH7BJCqacq1RYhco8e"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/HyA2h16uPQBFjezKf77wThNGsEoesUjeQf9rFvfAy4tF"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/HyA2h16uPQBFjezKf77wThNGsEoesUjeQf9rFvfAy4tF"
 proposal_date: 2024-02-05
 resolution_date: 2024-02-10
 category: "treasury"
@@ -60,3 +60,23 @@ The execution model shows futarchy DAOs using human-operated multisigs with soci
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - governance mechanism
 - [[futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance]] - operational pattern
 - [[meteora]] - liquidity pool platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-02-05*
+
+[Proposal 3](https://futarchy.metadao.fi/metadao/proposals/9ABv3Phb44BNF4VFteSi9qcWEyABdnRqkorNuNtzdh2b) passed, giving the DAO the remit to raise money and use some of that money to create an LP pool. Since then, Proph3t and Rar3 have ironed out the details and come up with this plan:
+
+1. People submit their demand into a Google form
+2. Proph3t decides how much allocation to give each person
+3. Proph3t reaches out on Monday, Feb 5th to people with allocations, telling them they have to transfer the USDC by Wednesday, Feb 7th
+4. Some people won't complete this step, so Proph3t will reach out to people who didn't get their full desired allocation on Thursday, Feb 8th to send more USDC until we reach the full 75,000
+5. On Friday, Feb 9th the multisig will send out META to all participants, create the liquidity pool (likely on Meteora), and disband
+
+We've created the multisig; it's a 4/6 containing Proph3t, Dean, Nallok, Durden, Rar3, and BlockchainFixesThis. This proposal will transfer 4,130 META to that multisig. This META will be allocated as follows:
+
+- 3100 META to send to participants of the sale
+- 1000 META to pair with 35,000 USDC to create the pool (this sets an initial spot price of 35 USDC / META)
+- 30 META to renumerate each multisig member with 5 META
+
+Obviously, there is no algorithmic guarantee that the multisig members will actually perform this, but it's unlikely that 4 or more of the multisig members would be willing to tarnish their reputation in order to do something different.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-fund-futarchy-research-hanson-gmu.md

@@ -101,3 +101,65 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-03-20*
+
+Author: Proph3t and Kollan
+
+Category: Operations Direct Action
+
+Proposed period: 6 Months: April – September 2026 (tentative on final grant agreement)
+
+Budget: $80,007 USDC
+
+---
+
+### Summary
+
+This proposal requests $80,007 USDC from the MetaDAO treasury to fund a six-month academic research engagement at George Mason University. Led by Dr. Robin Hanson — the economist who invented futarchy — this project will produce the first rigorous experimental evidence on the information-aggregation efficiency of decision-market governance, directly validating or challenging the theoretical basis on which MetaDAO operates.
+
+A positive market outcome will authorize treasury disbursement and delegate authority to the MetaDAO director to execute a contract with GMU to initiate the engagement.
+
+How and why this benefits MetaDAO and META token holders
+
+* Legitimacy
+  * Results will anchor MetaDAO's governance claims — a differentiator vs. competing platforms
+
+* Protocol improvement
+  * Experimental data will identify potential design weaknesses in current Futarchy mechanics, enabling targeted upgrades
+
+* Ecosystem growth
+  * Published findings will attract and support institutional adopters and projects evaluating the Futarchy Management tool on Solana
+
+
+### Scope of work
+
+The research team will design and run controlled experiments with 500 student participants (500@$50 each, $25,000 total) in structured decision-making scenarios. All protocols will undergo Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. Dr. Daniel Houser (experimental economics) will participate as co-investigator. A graduate research assistant will handle programming, recruitment, data collection, and analysis across the full academic year and summer.
+
+### Budget Allocation
+
+| Item | Amount (USDC) |
+| :---- | ----: |
+| Dr. Robin Hanson — 2 months summer salary | \~$30,000 |
+| Dr. Daniel Houser — Co-investigator (0.85% AY \+ summer) | \~$6,000 |
+| Graduate research assistant — full AY \+ summer | \~$19,007 |
+| Participant payments (500 @ $50) | $25,000 |
+| Total | $80,007 |
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+The primary risk is that experimental results challenge some assumptions underlying futarchy — this is a feature, not a bug. Regardless, MetaDAO benefits from honest/accurate data either way.
+
+A secondary risk is IRB or recruitment delays; the GRA timeline includes buffer for both.
+
+We propose funds to be disbursed in two payments (subject to the final grant agreement): 50% on agreement execution, 50% upon delivery of the interim report, giving the DAO a natural checkpoint.
+
+### Onchain action
+
+Upon passing the program will authorize a treasury transfer of $80,007 USDC. In the event that George Mason University is unable to accept cryptocurrency payments, the MetaDAO servicing entity is authorized to convert the approved USDC to USD and execute a cash payment to GMU in the full amount of $80,007, with any conversion or transfer fees borne by the MetaDAO treasury. No further governance action required.
+
+### Supporting Documentation
+
+[https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MBStw8sAwjn7_cdoufQ-ooJjt4_nKY4o?usp=drive_link](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MBStw8sAwjn7_cdoufQ-ooJjt4_nKY4o?usp=drive_link)

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-fundraise-2.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Proph3t"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/9BMRY1HBe61MJoKEd9AAW5iNQyws2vGK6vuL49oR3AzX"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/9BMRY1HBe61MJoKEd9AAW5iNQyws2vGK6vuL49oR3AzX"
 proposal_date: 2024-06-26
 resolution_date: 2024-06-30
 category: fundraise
@@ -49,3 +49,25 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-06-26*
+
+### Overview
+
+Three weeks ago, MetaDAO launched the futarchy protocol with Drift, Dean's List, and Future. Our goal is to onboard more Solana DAOs. To do that, Nallok and I have a few ideas for growth initiatives, including:
+
+- Social: seeing who's trading in the markets
+
+- NFTs: allowing NFT communities to leverage decision markets
+
+- Special contracts: creating custom financial contracts that make it easier to make grants decisions through decision markets
+
+To accelerate this, our goal is to hire a small team. Between us (\$90k/yr each), three engineers (\$190k/yr each), audits (\$300k), office space (\$80k/yr), a growth person (\$150k/yr), and other administrative expenses (\$100k/yr), we're looking at a \$1.38M burn rate.
+
+To fund this, I'm proposing that the DAO raise \$1.5M by selling META to a combination of venture capitalists and angels. Specifically, we would sell up to 4,000 META with no discount and no lockup.
+
+Nallok and I would execute this sale on behalf of the DAO. To minimize the risk of a DAO attack, the money raised would be custodied by us in a multisig and released to the DAO treasury at a rate of $100k / month.
+
+The exact terms of the sale would be left to our discretion. This includes details such as who is given allocation, whether to raise more than \$1.5M, how escrow is managed, et cetera. However, we would be bound to a minimum price: \$375. Given that there'd be 20,823.5 META in the hands of the public (which includes VCs + angels) after this raise, this means we would be unable to sell tokens at less than a \$7.81M valuation.  Everyone who participates in the raise will get similar terms. We will make public who's participated after it's complete.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-governance-migration-2026-03.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+type: decision
+domain: internet-finance
+parent_entity: metadao
+status: active
+proposal_date: 2026-03-22
+vote_close_date: 2026-03-24
+category: mechanism
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# MetaDAO Governance Migration Proposal (March 2026)
+
+**Status:** Active (84% likelihood to pass as of 2026-03-23)  
+**Trading Volume:** $408k  
+**Proposal Scope:** Broad operational migration  
+
+## Proposal Summary
+
+The proposal aims to execute a comprehensive migration of MetaDAO's governance infrastructure:
+
+1. **Technical Migration:** Move MetaDAO to a new onchain DAO and program architecture
+2. **Legal Updates:** Update Operating Agreement and Master Service Agreement
+3. **Treasury Migration:** Migrate treasury assets and liquidity to new infrastructure
+
+## Market Signal
+
+As of March 23, 2026 (one day before vote close):
+- **Pass likelihood:** 84%
+- **Trading volume:** $408,000
+- **Market characterization:** High confidence, substantial liquidity
+
+## Operational Context
+
+The proposal is described as "intentionally broad and operationally heavy" (@01Resolved), reflecting the complexity of migrating a live futarchy platform while maintaining continuity of governance operations.
+
+## Significance
+
+This represents MetaDAO's first major infrastructure migration since launch, testing whether futarchy governance can successfully coordinate complex operational changes that require legal, technical, and treasury coordination simultaneously.
+
+## Sources
+
+- @UmbraPrivacy: "One day left: 84% likelihood to pass, $408k traded. While the broader mood shifts, community governance keeps moving."
+- @01Resolved: "The proposal is intentionally broad and operationally heavy. It aims to: Migrate MetaDAO to a new onchain DAO & program, Update legal docs (Operating Agreement + MSA), Migrate treasury & liquidity"

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-hire-advaith-sekharan.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Nallok, Proph3t"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/B82Dw1W6cfngH7BRukAyKXvXzP4T2cDsxwKYfxCftoC2"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/B82Dw1W6cfngH7BRukAyKXvXzP4T2cDsxwKYfxCftoC2"
 proposal_date: 2024-10-22
 resolution_date: 2024-10-26
 category: "hiring"
@@ -45,3 +45,31 @@ This hiring decision demonstrates MetaDAO's execution on its San Francisco core
 - [[advaith-sekharan]] — hired individual
 - [[metadao-fundraise-2]] — strategic context for hiring
 - [[performance-unlocked-team-tokens-with-price-multiple-triggers-and-twap-settlement-create-long-term-alignment-without-initial-dilution]] — compensation mechanism example
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-10-22*
+
+**Type**
+Operations Direct Action
+
+**Author(s)**
+Nallok, Proph3t
+
+**Overview**
+As specified in "[MetaDAO Fundraise \#2](https://futarchy.metadao.fi/metadao/proposals/9BMRY1HBe61MJoKEd9AAW5iNQyws2vGK6vuL49oR3AzX)," our goal is to build a core team in San Francisco. At this stage, we've found a highly-engaged candidate for the founding engineer role: Advaith Sekharan. We propose extending an offer to Advaith for $180,000 per year cash compensation and 1% of the token supply subject to the same terms as our [co-founder allocation](https://futarchy.metadao.fi/metadao/proposals/BgHv9GutbnsXZLZQHqPL8BbGWwtcaRDWx82aeRMNmJbG).
+
+**Specifications**
+The terms of its release would be the same as Nallok and Proph3t, except that the vest would begin in November 2024\. Specifically:
+
+- **Fixed Token Allocation**: If you exclude DAO holdings, the supply of META is 19,755.7. If you include Nallok and Proph3t's potential allocation, the supply of META is 23,705.7. 1% of that is 237 META. So Advaith's allocation would be 237 META, fixed regardless of future dilution.
+- **Linear Unlocks**: 100% would unlock at a \$5B market cap, with linear unlocks depending on price. For example, a \$500M market cap would release 10% of the allocation or 23.7 META.
+- **Unlock Criteria**: Decided at a later date, potentially using a simple moving average (SMA) over a month or an option-based system.
+- **Start Date**: November 2024 for the purposes of vesting. October 16th for the purposes of retroactive salary.
+- **Vesting Period**: No tokens unlock before November 2028, no matter what milestones are hit. This signals long-term commitment to building the business.
+- **Illiquid Vest**: The DAO can claw back all tokens until July 2025 (8 months from start). Thereafter, tokens vest into a smart contract / multisig that can't be accessed by Proph3t or Nallok.
+- **Market Cap Definition**: \$1B market cap is defined as a price of \$42,198 per META. Payouts are based on the value per META, not total market capitalization.
+
+[Github](https://github.com/advaith101)
+
+[LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/advaith-sekharan-78b52b277/)

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-hire-robin-hanson.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Proph3t"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/AnCu4QFDmoGpebfAM8Aa7kViouAk1JW6LJCJJer6ELBF"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/AnCu4QFDmoGpebfAM8Aa7kViouAk1JW6LJCJJer6ELBF"
 proposal_date: 2025-02-10
 resolution_date: 2025-02-13
 category: hiring
@@ -49,3 +49,37 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-02-10*
+
+## **Hire Robin Hanson as Advisor?**
+
+#### **Type**
+
+**Operations \- Direct Action**
+
+#### **Author(s)**
+
+**Proph3t**
+
+**Overview**
+
+Robin Hanson's help has been integral thus far. Specifically, his insights on futarchy mechanism design have helped us design a more compelling and capital-efficient product.
+
+We would like to extend an offer for him to become an advisor to MetaDAO.
+
+**Scope of Work**
+
+The scope of work would primarily be mechanism design and strategy advice.
+
+We would also likely want to co-author blog posts / whitepapers that explain new futarchic mechanisms. For example, we've been thinking about a new 'shared liquidity AMM' design where people provide META/USDC liquidity and it can be used in pMETA/pUSDC and fMETA/fUSDC markets, which we'll want to write something about.
+
+**Compensation**
+
+We propose to pay Robin 0.1% of the supply (20.9 META) vested over 2 years.
+
+**Early termination**
+
+Either Robin, MetaDAO, or Proph3t and Kollan in unanimous agreement would be able to cancel this agreement, at which point any unvested tokens (minus the amount for the current month) would be forfeited.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-increase-meta-liquidity-dutch-auction.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "prdUTSLQs6EcwreBtZnG92RWaLxdCTivZvRXSVRdpmJ"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/Dn638yPirR3e2UNNECpLNJApDhxsjhJTAv9uEd9LBVVT"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/Dn638yPirR3e2UNNECpLNJApDhxsjhJTAv9uEd9LBVVT"
 proposal_account: "Dn638yPirR3e2UNNECpLNJApDhxsjhJTAv9uEd9LBVVT"
 proposal_number: 10
 proposal_date: 2024-02-26
@@ -62,3 +62,78 @@ Demonstrates futarchy-governed treasury management with minimal governance overh
 - [[metadao]] - treasury management decision
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - operational implementation example
 - [[meteora]] - liquidity destination platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-02-26*
+
+#### Responsible Parties
+Durden, Ben H, Nico, joebuild, and Dodecahedr0x.
+
+### Overview
+Sell META via a Dutch auction executed manually through OpenBook, and pair the acquired USDC with META to provide liquidity on Meteora.
+
+### Background
+Given the currently low volume and high volatility of META, there is little incentive to provide liquidity (low fees, high risk of impermanent loss). Yet there seems to be near-universal agreement in the Meta DAO Discord that greater liquidity would be highly beneficial to the project.
+
+While the DAO has plenty of META, to provide liquidity it needs USDC to pair with it's META. This USDC can be acquired by selling META.
+
+There is currently strong demand for META, with an oversubscribed raise (proposal 3), proposals from notable parties attemtpting to purchase META at below market price, and a well-known figure DCAing into META. There is thus no need to sell META for USDC at below market prices; we only need to sell META at a price that would be better than if they were to buy through the market.
+
+This proposal seeks to manually perform a Dutch auction using OpenBook. This serves a few purposes: price discovery through a market that is open to all, low smart contract risk (relative to using a custom Dutch auction program), simplicity (which will result in wider participation), and ease of execution (just place asks on OpenBook).
+
+### Implementation
+Meta DAO will sell a total of 1,000 META.
+
+The META will be sold in tranches of 100 META by placing asks above the spot price. The first tranche will be placed 50% above the spot price. Every 24 hours, if the ask is more than 6% above the spot price, it will be lowered by 5%.
+
+Whenever an ask is filled, a new ask worth 100 META will be placed 10% above the spot price. In addition, USDC from the filled asks will be paired with META and added to the 4% fee pool.
+
+The multisig currently holding the liquidity in the [4% fee pool](https://app.meteora.ag/pools/6t2CdBC26q9tj6jBwPzzFZogtjX8mtmVHUmAFmjAhMSn) will send their LP tokens to this proposal's multisig. After the 1,000 META has all been sold, all of Meta DAO's liquidity will be moved to the [1% fee pool](https://app.meteora.ag/pools/53miVooS2uLfVpiKShXpMqh6PkZhmfDXiRAzs3tNhjwC). The LP tokens will be sent to the treasury to be held as permanent liquidity until Meta DAO decides otherwise.
+
+All operations will be executed through a 3/5 Squads multisig.
+
+Multisig address: `LMRVapqnn1LEwKaD8PzYEs4i37whTgeVS41qKqyn1wi`
+
+The multisig is composed of the following five members:
+
+Durden: `91NjPFfJxQw2FRJvyuQUQsdh9mBGPeGPuNavt7nMLTQj`
+
+Ben H: `Hu8qped4Cj7gQ3ChfZvZYrtgy2Ntr6YzfN7vwMZ2SWii`
+
+Nico: `6kDGqrP4Wwqe5KBa9zTrgUFykVsv4YhZPDEX22kUsDMP`
+
+joebuild: `XXXvLz1B89UtcTsg2hT3cL9qUJi5PqEEBTHg57MfNkZ`
+
+Dodecahedr0x: `UuGEwN9aeh676ufphbavfssWVxH7BJCqacq1RYhco8e`
+
+I will be using the SquadsX wallet to propose transactions to interact with OpenBook through [Prism's UI](https://v4xyz.prism.ag/trade/v2/2Fgj6eyx9mpfc27nN16E5sWqmBovwiT52LTyPSX5qdba). Once proposed, I will vote on the proposed transaction and wait for two other multisig members to sign and execute.
+
+If the proposal passes, those with the permissions to make announcements in the Discord and access to the Meta DAO Twitter account will be notified so they can announce this initiative.
+
+### Compensation
+I am requesting a payment of 5 META to cover the cost of creating the market for this proposal and for the effort of crafting this proposal and carrying it out to completion.
+
+For the compensation of the multisig members other than myself, I performed a sealed-bid auction via Discord DMs for the amount of META that each of the 10 candidates would require to become a member. Those who were willing to join for the least amount of META were selected. Only individuals who were already respectable Meta DAO members were selected as candidates so that regardless of who was chosen we didn't end up in a precarious situation. This was done in order to create a competitive dynamic that minimizes the cost incurred by Meta DAO.
+
+The candidates with the lowest asks and their requested amounts were as follows:
+
+- Ben H – 0 META
+- Nico – 0 META
+- joebuild – 0.2 META
+- Dodecahedr0x – 0.25 META
+All compensatory payments will be made by the multisig to each individual upon the completion of the proposal.
+
+### Total Required META
+Since the amount of META needed to be paired for liquidity is unknown until the META is actually sold, we will request double the amount of META to be sold, which leaves a fairly large margin for price to increase and still have enough META. In the event that there is insufficient META to pair with the USDC, the excess USDC will be returned to the treasury. Similarly, any META slated for liquidity that is leftover will be returned to the treasury.
+
+META to be sold: 1,000
+
+META for liquidity: 2,000
+
+META for compensation: 5.45
+
+**Total: 3,005.45**
+
+### Result
+This proposal will significantly increase Meta DAO's protocol-owned liquidity as well as move its existing liquidity to a more efficient fee tier, addressing recent complaints and concerns regarding META's liquidity.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-migrate-autocrat-v01.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/AkLsnieYpCU2UsSqUNrbMrQNi9bvdnjxx75mZbJns9zi"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/AkLsnieYpCU2UsSqUNrbMrQNi9bvdnjxx75mZbJns9zi"
 proposal_date: 2023-12-03
 resolution_date: 2023-12-13
 category: "mechanism"
@@ -41,3 +41,25 @@ The proposal also highlighted a key production tradeoff: the upgrade was deploye
 - [[metadao]] - first major mechanism upgrade
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - configurable duration feature
 - [[futarchy implementations must simplify theoretical mechanisms for production adoption because original designs include impractical elements that academics tolerate but users reject]] - verifiable build tradeoff
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2023-12-03*
+
+## Overview
+
+I've made some improvements to the autocrat program. You can see these [here](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/meta-dao/pull/36/files). Most importantly, I've made the slots per proposal configurable, and changed its default to 3 days to allow for quicker feedback loops.
+
+This proposal migrates the 990,000 META, 10,025 USDC, and 5.5 SOL from the treasury owned by the first program to the treasury owned by the second program.
+
+## Key risks
+
+### Smart contract risk
+
+There is a risk that the new program contains an important bug that the first one didn't. I consider this risk small given that I didn't change that much of autocrat.
+
+### Counter-party risk
+
+Unfortunately, for reasons I can't get into, I was unable to build this new program with [solana-verifiable-build](https://github.com/Ellipsis-Labs/solana-verifiable-build). You'd be placing trust in me that I didn't introduce a backdoor, not on the GitHub repo, that allows me to steal the funds.
+
+For future versions, I should always be able to use verifiable builds.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-migrate-autocrat-v02.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HenryE & Proph3t"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/HXohDRKtDcXNKnWysjyjK8S5SvBe76J5o4NdcF4jj963"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/HXohDRKtDcXNKnWysjyjK8S5SvBe76J5o4NdcF4jj963"
 proposal_date: 2024-03-28
 resolution_date: 2024-04-03
 category: mechanism
@@ -49,3 +49,75 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-03-28*
+
+#### Author(s)
+HenryE, Proph3t
+
+## Overview
+It's time to upgrade futarchy!
+
+This upgrade includes three new features and a number of smaller config changes.
+
+### The features:
+
+- Reclaimable rent: you will now be able to get back the ~4 SOL used to create OpenBook proposal markets. This should lower the friction involved in creating proposals.
+- Conditional token merging: now, if you have 1 pTOKEN and 1 fTOKEN, you'll me able to merge them back into 1 TOKEN. This should help with liquidity when there are multiple proposals active at once.
+- Conditional token metadata: before, you would see conditional tokens in your wallet as random mint addresses. After this is merged, you should be able to see token names and logos, helping you identify what proposal they're a part of.
+
+### The config changes:
+
+- Lower pass threshold from 5% to 3%
+- Set default TWAP value to $100 instead of $1
+- Update TWAP in $5 increments instead of 1% increments, which enhances manipulation resistance while allowing the TWAP to be more accure
+- Change minimum META lot sizes from 1 META to 0.1 META
+
+The instruction attached to this proposal will migrate MetaDAO's assets over to the new autocrat program.
+
+There are three main futarchy programs and a migrator program for transfering tokens from one DAO treasury account to another:
+
+1. [autocrat_v0](https://solscan.io/account/metaRK9dUBnrAdZN6uUDKvxBVKW5pyCbPVmLtUZwtBp)
+2. [openbook_twap](https://solscan.io/account/twAP5sArq2vDS1mZCT7f4qRLwzTfHvf5Ay5R5Q5df1m)
+3. [conditional_vault](https://solscan.io/account/vAuLTQjV5AZx5f3UgE75wcnkxnQowWxThn1hGjfCVwP)
+4. [migrator](https://solscan.io/account/MigRDW6uxyNMDBD8fX2njCRyJC4YZk2Rx9pDUZiAESt)
+
+Each program has been deployed to devnet and mainnet, their IDLs have been deployed, and they've been verified by the OtterSec API against the programs in the two repos; [futarchy](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/futarchy) contains autocrat_v0, conditional_vault and migrator, and a separate repo contains [openbook_twap](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/openbook-twap). The Treasury account is the DAO's signer and has been set as the program upgrade authority on all programs.
+
+### Addtional details for verification
+- Old DAO
+  - Autocrat Program: [metaX99LHn3A7Gr7VAcCfXhpfocvpMpqQ3eyp3PGUUq](https://solscan.io/account/metaX99LHn3A7Gr7VAcCfXhpfocvpMpqQ3eyp3PGUUq)
+  - DAO Account: [7J5yieabpMoiN3LrdfJnRjQiXHgi7f47UuMnyMyR78yy](https://solscan.io/account/7J5yieabpMoiN3LrdfJnRjQiXHgi7f47UuMnyMyR78yy)
+  - Treasury: [ADCCEAbH8eixGj5t73vb4sKecSKo7ndgDSuWGvER4Loy](https://solscan.io/account/ADCCEAbH8eixGj5t73vb4sKecSKo7ndgDSuWGvER4Loy) - signer
+
+- New DAO
+  - Autocrat Program: [metaRK9dUBnrAdZN6uUDKvxBVKW5pyCbPVmLtUZwtBp](https://solscan.io/account/metaRK9dUBnrAdZN6uUDKvxBVKW5pyCbPVmLtUZwtBp)
+  - DAO Account: [14YsfUtP6aZ5UHfwfbqe9MYEW4VaDwTHs9NZroAfV6Pi](https://solscan.io/account/14YsfUtP6aZ5UHfwfbqe9MYEW4VaDwTHs9NZroAfV6Pi)
+  - Treasury: [BC1jThSN7Cgy5LfBZdCKCfMnhKcq155gMjhd9HPWzsCN](https://solscan.io/account/BC1jThSN7Cgy5LfBZdCKCfMnhKcq155gMjhd9HPWzsCN) - signer
+
+### Detailed Changelog and PR links
+#### Autocrat
+- Mostly minor config changes ([Pull Request #69](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/futarchy/pull/69)):
+  - Set default pass threshold to 3%
+  - Set max observation change per update lots to $5 and make it a configurable option
+  - Set default expected value to $100
+  - Ensure that the open markets expire a minimum of 10 days from the creation of the proposal to allow for rent retrieval from openbook markets
+  - Reduce the openbook base lot size so that people can trade in lots of 0.1 META
+#### Conditional Vault
+- Add metadata to the conditional vault tokens so they show up nicely in wallets during a proposal ([Pull Request #52](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/futarchy/pull/52))
+- Add the ability to merge tokens ([Pull Request #66](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/futarchy/pull/66))
+
+#### Openbook-TWAP
+- Switch to using a dollar-based increment instead of a percentage one:
+  - [commit d08fb13](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/openbook-twap/commit/d08fb13d16c49071e37bd4fd0eff22edfb144237)
+  - [commit a1cb709](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/openbook-twap/commit/a1cb7092374f146b430ab67b38f961f331a77ae1)
+  - [commit fe159d2](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/openbook-twap/commit/fe159d2707ca4648a874d1fe0c411298b55de072)
+  - [Pull Request #16](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/openbook-twap/pull/16)
+- Get rid of the market expiry check, leave it up to autocrat ([Pull Request #20](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/openbook-twap/pull/20))
+- Add instructions to allow pruning and closing of the market ([Pull Request #18](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/openbook-twap/pull/18))
+- Also add permissionless settling of funds ([Pull Request #21](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/openbook-twap/pull/21))
+
+#### Migrator
+- Migrate all four token accounts to the new DAO account ([Pull Request #68](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/futarchy/pull/68))

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-migrate-meta-token.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Proph3t & Kollan"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/4grb3pea8ZSqE3ghx76Fn43Q97mAh64XjgwL9AXaB3Pe"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/4grb3pea8ZSqE3ghx76Fn43Q97mAh64XjgwL9AXaB3Pe"
 proposal_date: 2025-08-07
 resolution_date: 2025-08-10
 category: mechanism
@@ -50,3 +50,81 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-08-07*
+
+**Type:** Operations Direct Action
+
+**Authors:** Proph3t, Kollan
+
+
+## **Overview**
+
+Futarchy is market-driven decision making. To stay true to that principle, it also requires market-driven issuance. A mintable token is essential to fund the organization, incentivize participation, and adapt to changing governance outcomes.
+
+MetaDAO's token, META (METAC), is no longer fit for purpose: it's unmintable, the DAO's treasury is exhausted, and unit bias remains an issue. This proposal introduces a 1:1000 token split, re-establishes mint and update authority, and migrates the DAO to version 0.5 (Squads).
+
+We're migrating METAC to a new token, META, expanding supply from \~20K to \~20M to align with peer futarchies. Protocol-owned liquidity will also shift from a restrictive 4% fee pool to a 0.50% pool, improving efficiency until FutarchyAMM is live.
+
+The new META token will be governed by the new DAO, which holds mint and update authority. A migration contract and frontend will let METAC holders convert at any time.
+
+Work on the migration is already underway and should take up to 1 week. Migration will only proceed if this proposal passes.
+
+
+## **Specifications**
+
+|  | New (META) | Existing (METAC) |
+| ----- | ----- | ----- |
+| Ticker | META | META |
+| Supply | 20,863,129.001238  | 20,863.129001238  |
+| Price | \~$0.79875 | \~$798.75 |
+| Protocol Owned Liquidity Fee | 0.5% | 4% |
+| Mintable | Yes | No |
+| Updateable | Yes | Yes |
+| Decimals | 6 | 9 |
+| Split Ratio | 1000 | – |
+
+
+## **Process**
+
+* This proposal includes a transfer instruction for the new DAO to take custody of onchain assets, including:
+  * 1.2M USDC from account `C6DaJNGP1Xsd1seePqn8BPfQWMxsbBoUSf6Kbagmta2T` to account `BxgkvRwqzYFWuDbRjfTYfgTtb41NaFw1aQ3129F79eBT`
+* Transfer the remaining USDC (minus funds used for proposal creation) from `6awyHMshBGVjJ3ozdSJdyyDE1CTAXUwrpNMaRGMsb4sf` to the new Squads treasury
+* Notify LPs to withdraw liquidity from the existing pools
+* Withdraw protocol-owned liquidity from Meteora
+* Migrate liquidity to a new AMM LP with:
+  * 0.5% fee tier
+  * Initial price set at time of liquidity removal
+* Launch the migration frontend upon passing
+  * Supports frontend and script-based interactions
+* Update token information across:
+  * CoinMarketCap
+  * CoinGecko
+  * Blockworks
+* Update internal systems (UI, SDKs, tools)
+* Notify tokenholders and custodians with clear instructions
+* Announce each milestone publicly as it's completed
+
+
+## **References**
+
+* New META token with 20,865,160.717538 supply `METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta`
+* Launch a new v0.5 DAO using META as its `base_token`
+  * `Bc3pKPnSbSX8W2hTXbsFsybh1GeRtu3Qqpfu9ZLxg6Km`
+  * Reduced passing threshold to 1.5%
+  * Established a 120k USDC spending limit monthly
+    * Expected burn is \~$80k, with max previously $120k
+* Transferred mint and update authority for META to the new DAO controlled Squads vault
+  * `BxgkvRwqzYFWuDbRjfTYfgTtb41NaFw1aQ3129F79eBT`
+* Deploy a permanent migration contract that accepts METAC and releases META 1:1000
+  * Program `gr8tqq2ripsM6N46gLWpSDXtdrH6J9jaXoyya1ELC9t`
+  * Deployment `4viadAyxnRpHyW2g2NEzjLwGGgLTQK2QBmniJJqXWpXN`
+
+* [Meteora Protocol Owned Liquidity](https://www.meteora.ag/pools/6t2CdBC26q9tj6jBwPzzFZogtjX8mtmVHUmAFmjAhMSn)
+* [Current MetaDAO Treasury (Solana Explorer)](https://explorer.solana.com/address/C6DaJNGP1Xsd1seePqn8BPfQWMxsbBoUSf6Kbagmta2T/tokens)
+* [METAC Token on Solscan](https://solscan.io/token/METADDFL6wWMWEoKTFJwcThTbUmtarRJZjRpzUvkxhr)
+* [META Token on Solscan](https://solscan.io/token/METAwkXcqyXKy1AtsSgJ8JiUHwGCafnZL38n3vYmeta)
+* [MetaDAO on CoinMarketCap](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/meta-dao/)
+* [MetaDAO on CoinGecko](https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/meta-2)

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-otc-trade-ben-hawkins.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Ben Hawkins"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/US8j6iLf9GkokZbk89Bo1qnGBees5etv5sEfsfvCoZK"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/US8j6iLf9GkokZbk89Bo1qnGBees5etv5sEfsfvCoZK"
 proposal_date: 2024-02-13
 resolution_date: 2024-02-18
 category: "treasury"
@@ -36,3 +36,13 @@ This represents an early OTC trade proposal on MetaDAO's futarchy platform, test
 ## Relationship to KB
 - [[metadao]] - treasury governance decision
 - [[futardio]] - platform where proposal was executed
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-02-13*
+
+Ben Hawkins is requesting to mint 1500 META to GxHamnPVxsBaWdbUSjR4C5izhMv2snriGyYtjCkAVzze
+
+in exchange for Ben will send 50,000 USDC to be sent to ADCCEAbH8eixGj5t73vb4sKecSKo7ndgDSuWGvER4Loy the treasury to MetaDAO
+
+33.33 usdc per Meta

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-otc-trade-colosseum.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: futardio
 proposer: pR13Aev6U2DQ3sQTWSZrFzevNqYnvq5TM9c1qTKLfm8
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/5qEyKCVyJZMFZSb3yxh6rQjqDYxASiLW7vFuuUTCYnb1"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/5qEyKCVyJZMFZSb3yxh6rQjqDYxASiLW7vFuuUTCYnb1"
 proposal_date: 2024-03-19
 resolution_date: 2024-03-24
 category: fundraise
@@ -56,3 +56,52 @@ This represents one of the earliest institutional OTC acquisitions through futar
 - [[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
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-03-19*
+
+### Overview
+- Colosseum wishes to acquire {tbd} META (METADDFL6wWMWEoKTFJwcThTbUmtarRJZjRpzUvkxhr) from The MetaDAO Treasury (ADCCEAbH8eixGj5t73vb4sKecSKo7ndgDSuWGvER4Loy).
+- If the proposal passes, the price per META will be the TWAP of the pass market if below \$850. If this proposal is approved and the pass market TWAP surpasses \$850 per META, but is below \$1,200, then the acquisition price per META will be \$850. If the pass market TWAP surpasses \$1,200, then this proposal becomes void and the USDC in the multisig will be returned to Colosseum's wallet.
+- A total of \$250,000 USDC (EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v) will be committed by Colosseum.
+- The MetaDAO will transfer 20% of the final allocation of META to Colosseum's wallet immediately and place 80% of the final allocation of META into a 12 month, linear vest Streamflow program.
+
+### Rationale
+Colosseum runs Solana's hackathons, supports winning founders through a new accelerator program, and invests in their startups. Our mission is to bolster innovative improvements to technology, economics, and governance in crypto through all 3 pillars of our organization. In line with that mission, we believe MetaDAO is one of the most promising early experiments in crypto and we strongly believe we can help the project grow significantly due to our unique position in the Solana ecosystem.
+
+In addition to the capital infusion provided by Colosseum, our primary value proposition is our ability to bring new entrepreneurs and cyber agents to MetaDAO over the long-term. Given that a majority of the VC-backed startups in the Solana ecosystem started in hackathons, we can utilize both our hackathons and accelerator program to funnel talented developers, founders, and ultimately revenue-generating startups to the DAO.
+
+In practice, there are many ways Colosseum can promote MetaDAO and we want to collaborate with the DAO community around ongoing initiatives. To show our commitment towards future collaborations, we promise that if this proposal passes, the MetaDAO will be the sponsor of the DAO track in the next Solana hackathon after Renaissance, at no additional cost. The next DAO track prize pool will be between \$50,000 - \$80,000.
+
+### Execution
+The proposal contains the instruction for a transfer {tbd} META into a Squads multisignature wallet [FhJHnsCGm9JDAe2JuEvqr67WE8mD2PiJMUsmCTD1fDPZ] with a 5/7 threshold of which the following parties will be members:
+- Colosseum (REDACTED)
+- Colosseum (REDACTED)
+- MetaProph3t (65U66fcYuNfqN12vzateJhZ4bgDuxFWN9gMwraeQKByg)
+- 0xNallok (4LpE9Lxqb4jYYh8jA8oDhsGDKPNBNkcoXobbAJTa3pWw)
+- Cavemanloverboy (2EvcwLAHvXW71c8d1uEXTCbVZjzMpYUQL5h64PuYUi3T)
+- Dean (3PKhzE9wuEkGPHHu2sNCvG86xNtDJduAcyBPXpE6cSNt)
+- Durden (91NjPFfJxQw2FRJvyuQUQsdh9mBGPeGPuNavt7nMLTQj)
+
+The multisig members instructions are as follows:
+1. Accept receipt of META into the multisig as defined by onchain instruction
+2. Accept the full USDC amount of \$250,000 from Colosseum into the multisig
+3.Determine and publish the price per META according to the definition above
+4. Confirmation from two parties within The MetaDAO that the balances exist and are in fullTake \$250,000 / calculated per META and determine final allocation quantity of META
+5. Transfer 20% of the final allocation of META to Colosseum's address [REDACTED]
+6. Configure a 12 month Streamflow vesting program with a linear vest
+7. Transfer 80% of the final allocation of META into the Streamflow program
+8. Return any remaining META to the DAO treasury
+
+> NOTE: The reason for transferring 2,060 META is due to the fact that there is only one transfer and by overallocating we have a wider price range to be able to execute the instructions above. This is due to the fluctuations in the price of META.
+For example if the price of TWAP for META is \$250 by the time the proposal passes, the amount of META allocated for the \$250,000/\$250 = 1,000 META. In this case 1,060 META would be returned to the treasury.
+
+### ROI to META
+We won't speculate on what the exact ROI will be to META in the short to medium-term. However, if this proposal passes, we believe that our strategic partnership will increase the value of META significantly over the long-term due to Colosseum's unique ability to embed MetaDAO as a viable institution that can help future crypto founders grow their businesses.
+### Details
+- META Spot Price 2024-03-18 18:09 UTC: \$468.09
+- META Circulating Supply 2024-03-18 18:09 UTC: 17,421
+- Circulating supply could change depending on the current dutch auction
+- Offer Price per 1 META: Any market price up to \$850 per 1 META
+- Offer USDC: \$250,000

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-otc-trade-pantera-capital.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/H59VHchVsy8UVLotZLs7YaFv2FqTH5HAeXc4Y48kxieY"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/H59VHchVsy8UVLotZLs7YaFv2FqTH5HAeXc4Y48kxieY"
 proposal_date: 2024-02-18
 resolution_date: 2024-02-23
 category: "fundraise"
@@ -42,3 +42,71 @@ The proposal included sophisticated execution mechanics (multisig custody, TWAP-
 - [[metadao]] - failed fundraising proposal
 - [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]] - tested institutional OTC structure
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] - used TWAP pricing mechanism
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-02-18*
+
+Drafted with support from: Pantera Capital, 0xNallok, 7Layer, and Proph3t
+
+## Overview
+
+- Pantera Capital wishes to acquire {tbd} META (`METADDFL6wWMWEoKTFJwcThTbUmtarRJZjRpzUvkxhr`) from The Meta-DAO (`ADCCEAbH8eixGj5t73vb4sKecSKo7ndgDSuWGvER4Loy`)
+- The price per META shall be determined upon passing of the proposal and the lesser of the average TWAP price of the pass / fail market and \$100
+
+  $$ ppM = min((twapPass + twapFail) / 2, 100) $$
+- A total of \$50,000 USDC (`EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v`) will be committed by Pantera Capital
+- The Meta-DAO will transfer 20% of the final allocation of META to the Pantera wallet immediately and place 80% of the final allocation of META into a 12 month, linear vest Streamflow program
+
+## Rationale
+
+Pantera views this investment as a strategic partnership and an opportunity to show support for The Meta-DAO, which is spearheading innovation in decentralized governance. Pantera has invested in the blockchain and crypto ecosystem heavily and looks forward to its long term promise. It views its acquisition of META as an opportunity to test futarchy's potential as an improved system for decentralized governance and provide meaningful feedback for accelerating its development and adoption across the crypto ecosystem.
+
+There is a specific interest in Solana as a proving ground for innovative products and services for blockchain technology, and Pantera desires more direct exposure to the Solana ecosystem.
+
+With respect to the investment, Pantera holds the perspective that The Meta-DAO may be an ideal community within Solana for soliciting additional deal flow. It also highlights support for innovation in the space of governance, support for Solana projects, and a belief that fundamentally, futarchy has a reasonable chance of success.
+
+## Execution
+The proposal contains the instruction for a transfer 1,000 META into a multisignature wallet `BtNPTBX1XkFCwazDJ6ZkK3hcUsomm1RPcfmtUrP6wd2K` with a 5/7 threshold of which the following parties will be members:
+
+- Pantera Capital (`6S5LQhggSTjm6gGWrTBiQkQbz3F7JB5CtJZZLMZp2XNE`)
+- Pantera Capital (`4kjRZzWWRZGBto2iKB6V7dYdWuMRtSFYbiUnE2VfppXw`)
+- 0xNallok (`4LpE9Lxqb4jYYh8jA8oDhsGDKPNBNkcoXobbAJTa3pWw`)
+- MetaProph3t (`65U66fcYuNfqN12vzateJhZ4bgDuxFWN9gMwraeQKByg`)
+- Dodecahedr0x (`UuGEwN9aeh676ufphbavfssWVxH7BJCqacq1RYhco8e`)
+- Durden (`91NjPFfJxQw2FRJvyuQUQsdh9mBGPeGPuNavt7nMLTQj`)
+- Blockchainfixesthis (`HKcXZAkT4ec2VBzGNxazWhpV7BTk3frQpSufpaNoho3D`)
+
+The multisig members instructions are as follows:
+- Accept receipt of META into the multisig as defined by on chain instruction
+- Accept the full USDC amount of $50,000 from Pantera Capital into the multisig
+- Determine and publish the price per META according to the definition above
+- Confirmation from two parties within The Meta-DAO that the balances exist and are in full
+- Take `$50,000 / calculated per META` and determine final allocation quantity of META
+- Transfer 20% of the final allocation of META to Pantera's address `FLzqFMQo2KmsenkMP4Y82kYVnKTJJfahTJUWUDSp2ZX5`
+- Configure a 12 month Streamflow vesting program with a linear vest
+- Transfer 80% of the final allocation of  META into the Streamflow program
+- Return any remaining META to the DAO treasury
+
+
+## ROI to META
+
+The proposal evaluates a net increase in value to META by bringing on a strategic partner such as Pantera which would boost visibility and afford some cash holdings. This proposal speculates a ~25% increase in META value due to the high profile of Pantera and their offering of strategic resources to the project.
+
+| Details | |
+|---|---|
+| META Spot Price 2024-02-17 15:58 UTC | $96.93 |
+| META Circulating Supply 2024-02-17 15:58 UTC | 14,530 |
+| Offer Price | \${TBD} |
+| Offer META | {TBD} |
+| Offer USDC | \$50,000 |
+| META Transfer to Circulation |  {TBD} % |
+| New META Circulating Supply | {TBD}  |
+
+Here are the pre-money valuations at different prices:
+- \$50: \$726,000
+- \$60: \$871,800
+- \$70: \$1,017,000
+- \$80: \$1,162,400
+- \$90: \$1,307,700
+- \$100: \$1,453,000

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-otc-trade-theia-2.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/3tApJXw2REQAZZyehiaAnQSdauVNviNbXsuS4inn8PAe"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/3tApJXw2REQAZZyehiaAnQSdauVNviNbXsuS4inn8PAe"
 proposal_date: 2025-01-27
 resolution_date: 2025-01-30
 category: "fundraise"
@@ -40,3 +40,68 @@ Theia's investment thesis treats MetaDAO as infrastructure for "the Internet Fin
 - [[metadao]] - treasury fundraise decision
 - [[theia-research]] - strategic investor
 - [[futardio]] - governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-01-27*
+
+### **Overview**
+
+* Theia wishes to acquire META tokens (METADDFL6wWMWEoKTFJwcThTbUmtarRJZjRpzUvkxhr) from the MetaDAO Treasury (6awyHMshBGVjJ3ozdSJdyyDE1CTAXUwrpNMaRGMsb4sf) in exchange for $500,000 USDC (EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v).
+* Theia wishes to acquire 370.370 META tokens at a USD price of $1,350 per token from the MetaDAO Treasury. This represents a 14% premium to spot price at the time we completed this proposal.
+* Theia will allocate resources to helping MetaDAO succeed and believes it can be helpful across multiple core areas, including active governance, research, token structuring/liquidity, US policy, and business development. We have provided numerous portfolio company references to the MetaDAO team that can attest to our involvement and value add.
+* Theia's $500K investment could be spent to hire an additional senior engineer, seed liquidity on new markets, and expand business development operations to onboard more DAOs to MetaDAO.
+* MetaDAO will transfer the entire portion of META tokens through a 12-month linear vest Streamflow program.
+
+**Introduction to Theia**
+
+Theia is an onchain liquid token fund manager that invests in companies building the Internet Financial System. Theia replicates traditional private investment strategies by taking large positions in small-cap tokens within under-explored market parts and working closely with management teams to add value. Theia typically buys liquid tokens through structured and proprietary deals and holds investments through a two to four-year investment thesis.
+
+Theia is a differentiated partner due to the time and expertise we commit to our portfolio companies as well as our intense focus on core infrastructure and financial applications in EVM and SVM. Our fund strategy is designed to drive value for our portfolio companies; we cap our fund size, maintain a concentrated book of few investments, and seek to hold investments for many years. We work to ensure that each portfolio company has time and ample resources to realize our underwriting model forecast. This allows us to hold for the long term and ignore price fluctuations that are unrelated to business-specific catalysts.
+
+**Proposal**
+
+We appreciate the time and effort both Proph3t and Kollan have spent with our team as we have conducted our diligence on MetaDAO. Better governance is a pressing need across the Internet Financial System and we are impressed by MetaDAO's commitment to the vision of Futarchy. It isn't often you find a team that combines missionary zeal with real talent as builders.
+
+We are pleased to submit an offer to acquire META tokens on behalf of Theia and serve as a strategic partner to MetaDAO. While this letter outlines specific terms for a token agreement, we believe that a long-term partnership between Theia and MetaDAO is the most important component of our proposal.
+
+On behalf of Theia Blockchain Partners Master Fund LP ("Theia"), to acquire 370.370 META tokens at a USD price of $1,350 per token from the MetaDAO Treasury. We would consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to buy a large amount of META from the treasury.
+
+Importantly, our $500,000 investment would provide valuable capital to MetaDAO. Theia's $500K investment could be spent to hire an additional senior engineer, seed liquidity on new markets, and expand business development operations to onboard more DAOs to MetaDAO.
+
+"An incremental $500k would allow us to extend our runway, experiment more (e.g. provide capital to decision markets on non-futarchic governance proposals), and/or spend more on growth (e.g. twitter videos)." \- Proph3t, Cofounder of MetaDAO
+
+**Theia Value Add**
+
+MetaDAO is one of the most exciting ideas in the Internet Financial System and global governance as a whole, and we are eager to support the company through its next phase of growth. We will work hard to increase the probability of success for MetaDAO across the following five dimensions:
+
+* **Active Governance:** Theia has been a fully onchain fund since inception. We are participants in onchain markets and would plan to actively trade MetaDAO markets. We believe having one more aligned liquid fund trading MetaDAO markets would bolster market efficiency and deepen liquidity.
+* **Roadshows:** We meet regularly with most major US and European liquid funds. We openly share our best ideas but pay close attention to the stylistic preferences of different funds. When mutually beneficial, we facilitate introductions and also help them prepare. We have introduced our portfolio companies to liquid funds at different times. We provide detailed feedback on presentations, data rooms, and investor pitches. We often help organize roadshows, provide references, and workshop token pitches with founders. We are an active research firm and believe that the correct market framing can help a company raise capital, hire talent, win partnerships, and focus resources on the most impactful outcomes. We only started publishing our research in the middle of 2024 and have developed an active following of like-minded investors. We write consistently about our portfolio companies and the key themes that affect them. We pitch portfolio companies with liquid funds at dinners and are increasingly asked to share our perspective on liquid markets. We are attaching a few examples of our research:
+  * [https://x.com/TheiaResearch/status/1859598616001675681](https://x.com/TheiaResearch/status/1859598616001675681)
+  * [https://x.com/TheiaResearch/status/1833553153976844453](https://x.com/TheiaResearch/status/1833553153976844453)
+  * [https://x.com/TheiaResearch/status/1814277792705479128](https://x.com/TheiaResearch/status/1814277792705479128)
+* **Policy:** We expect US policy to remain an important input for companies, especially as they seek to expand beyond what exists onchain today. We have built strong relationships with political consultants, congressional staffers, regulatory agencies, and law firms to ensure we are prepared for upcoming policy changes in the US and abroad. We seek to be a resource to portfolio companies and effectively direct them to the right resources for complex questions.
+
+**Theia References**
+
+This is our second proposal to MetaDAO. During our first proposal, we asked a few of our portfolio company founders to provide references for Theia. We are including these references below for easier access.
+
+**Marius, Kamino Cofounder**
+
+![image](https://imagedelivery.net/HYEnlujCFMCgj6yA728xIw/78068fbf-fcfc-4b84-674f-c77ace5dcb00/public)
+
+**Mack, Lead of Strategy at Metaplex**
+
+![image](https://imagedelivery.net/HYEnlujCFMCgj6yA728xIw/306ff9d4-0520-436f-d50d-47c531059d00/public)
+
+We would also like to reference specific statements by the MetaDAO team as part of our proposal.
+
+**Proph3t, Cofounder of MetaDAO**
+
+![iimage](https://imagedelivery.net/HYEnlujCFMCgj6yA728xIw/f8dfe809-45e1-4520-85ac-4156cce2dd00/public)
+
+**0xNallok, Cofounder of MetaDAO**
+
+![image](https://imagedelivery.net/HYEnlujCFMCgj6yA728xIw/ed2c80c0-bde4-4a12-8df4-3e1727fabe00/public)
+
+We are deeply impressed with the team, mission and community at MetaDAO. We would consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to participate as you onboard Solana and then the world to Futarchy, and we thank you for your consideration.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-ranger-finance-liquidation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# MetaDAO Ranger Finance Liquidation
+
+**Date:** March 13, 2026  
+**Status:** Passed  
+**Category:** Liquidation  
+**Parent Entity:** [[metadao]]  
+**Affected Project:** [[ranger-finance]]  
+
+## Decision Summary
+
+MetaDAO's futarchy governance voted to liquidate Ranger Finance following documented material misrepresentation during its ICO, returning $5,047,250 USDC to unlocked RNGR token holders.
+
+## Background
+
+Ranger Finance raised approximately $8M on MetaDAO's ICO platform with specific performance claims:
+- **Claimed:** $5 billion in trading volume by 2025
+- **Claimed:** $2 million in revenue by 2025
+- **Actual:** ~$2 billion in trading volume (~40% of claimed)
+- **Actual:** ~$500K in revenue (~25% of claimed)
+
+Blockchain data revealed the discrepancy, and RNGR token holders filed challenges citing material misrepresentation.
+
+## Governance Process
+
+1. Token holders identified material misrepresentation through on-chain data analysis
+2. Conditional markets evaluated the liquidation proposal
+3. Markets produced decisive outcome (telegram sources claim 97% support with $581K traded, unverified)
+4. Liquidation executed with full treasury return
+
+## Outcome
+
+- **Total Distribution:** $5,047,250 USDC
+- **Distribution Rate:** ~$0.75-$0.82 per unlocked RNGR token (book value)
+- **Snapshot Time:** 8:00 AM UTC+8 on March 13, 2026
+- **Portal Launch:** March 17, 2026
+- **IP Disposition:** All intellectual property returned to Glint House PTE (founding team)
+
+## Significance
+
+This is the second successful futarchy-governed liquidation at MetaDAO (after mtnCapital in September 2025), establishing a two-case empirical pattern for the trustless joint ownership mechanism. The decision demonstrates that:
+
+1. The "Unruggable ICO" protection mechanism can enforce capital return post-discovery
+2. Futarchy governance can correct material misrepresentation after it's identified
+3. Minority token holders can successfully force liquidation against teams with information advantages
+
+However, the case also reveals a scope limitation: the futarchy market selected Ranger during ICO without pricing in the false volume claims, suggesting the mechanism is better at enforcing governance decisions than at pre-launch due diligence.
+
+## Market Activity
+
+Telegram sources (unverified through web sources) report:
+- 97% support for liquidation
+- $581K traded on conditional markets
+
+If accurate, this would represent the highest-volume governance decision in MetaDAO history for a single-project matter, far exceeding typical uncontested decision volumes.
+
+## Sources
+
+- Phemex News: https://phemex.com/news/article/ranger-finance-to-liquidate-return-504m-usdc-to-token-holders-65724
+- CryptoTimes, Bitget News, defiprime (on-chain confirmation)
+- MetaDAO community announcements

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-release-launchpad.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Proph3t & Kollan"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/HREoLZVrY5FHhPgBFXGGc6XAA3hPjZw1UZcahhumFkef"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/HREoLZVrY5FHhPgBFXGGc6XAA3hPjZw1UZcahhumFkef"
 proposal_date: 2025-02-26
 resolution_date: 2025-03-01
 category: strategy
@@ -55,3 +55,55 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-02-26*
+
+#### **Type**
+
+**Business \- Project**
+
+#### **Author(s)**
+
+**Proph3t, Kollan**
+
+**Overview**
+
+We are requesting the DAO's permission to release a launchpad for futarchy DAOs. Such a launchpad could solve many of the existing issues with capital formation in crypto.
+
+**Mechanics**
+
+The launchpad would work in the following way \-
+
+1. Project creators raise project ideas and specify a minimum amount of USDC they need to execute on the idea
+2. Funders have 5 days to fund those ideas in exchange for tokens
+   1. Funders would receive 1,000 tokens per USDC committed
+   2. Except in rare cases, the whole initial supply would be issued by this process
+3. If the launch receives sufficient USDC, 10% of the USDC is paired against an equivalent amount of tokens in a constant-product AMM. Then, all remaining USDC and the ability to mint new tokens are transferred to a futarchy DAO. Contributors can then raise proposals to issue tokens to themselves or to pay themselves on some interval (e.g., monthly)
+4. If the launch does not receive sufficient USDC, all funders would be able to burn their tokens to claim their original USDC back
+
+**Why funders will prefer this to the status quo**
+
+Rugging is a rampant problem for on-chain capital raises. In this system, it's much harder for projects to rug because all of the USDC goes either to the DAO or to the liquidity pool. If the team walks away on day \#1, anyone would be able to raise a proposal to the DAO to liquidate the treasury and return all money to the funders. This is also true on day \#30, day \#365, and day \#1083.
+
+**Why founders will prefer this to the status quo**
+
+This system gives you two benefits as a founder:
+
+1) Community involvement from day 1
+2) Ability to raise money that you wouldn't have otherwise been able to raise
+
+As I've written about before, community involvement from day 1 is an unfair advantage for projects. The two biggest crypto projects, Bitcoin and Ethereum, both had it. Bag bias is real, and in this system it works for you as a founder.
+
+This also opens up the door to founders from geographies where it's historically been difficult to raise money.
+
+**GTM**
+
+We will canvas our network to find early-stage (ideally pre-raise) projects to launch on the platform. We already have a few prospective projects.
+
+At the start, launches would be permissioned by us. We would reserve the right to transition to a permissionless system when and if we deem it beneficial.
+
+**Founder discretion**
+
+We would also have discretion to change the mechanics of launches (e.g. to adopt an IDO pool approach rather than the above fixed price approach) if we deem it \+EV for MetaDAO

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-services-agreement-organization-technology.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "Nallok, Proph3t"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/53EDms4zPkp4khbwBT3eXWhMALiMwssg7f5zckq22tH5"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/53EDms4zPkp4khbwBT3eXWhMALiMwssg7f5zckq22tH5"
 proposal_date: 2024-08-31
 resolution_date: 2024-09-03
 category: "treasury"
@@ -42,3 +42,38 @@ This proposal represents MetaDAO's operational maturation following its strategi
 - [[metadao]] — treasury and operational decision
 - [[organization-technology-llc]] — entity created through this proposal
 - Part of post-Proposal 19 strategic partnership implementation
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-08-31*
+
+#### Type
+
+Operations Direct Action
+
+#### Author(s)
+
+Nallok, Proph3t
+
+### Overview
+
+Four weeks ago, MetaDAO completed its strategic partnership as part of [Proposal 19](https://futarchy.metadao.fi/metadao/proposals/9BMRY1HBe61MJoKEd9AAW5iNQyws2vGK6vuL49oR3AzX). To support MetaDAO's operations, we have created a US entity as a vehicle for paying MetaDAO contributors.
+
+Of note is:
+
+- This entity does not have nor will own any intellectual property, all efforts produced are owned by MetaDAO LLC.
+- This entity will be responsible for the costs of services and development and not have authority to encumber MetaDAO LLC.
+
+We are creating this proposal with a memo instruction to agree and sign the services agreement, which is legally binding as defined in MetaDAO LLC's operating agreement. You can review this agreement here:
+
+[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vvl94DpvSpJoPGFyESs1TbGpnNf6zGBYp5a-5wwGXgM](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vvl94DpvSpJoPGFyESs1TbGpnNf6zGBYp5a-5wwGXgM)
+
+If passed this proposal will execute  the memo instructions which will act as a countersignatory to the agreement. The first disbursement from MetaDAO LLC to the entity will occur on September 1st, 2024 or when passed, whichever is later.
+
+This agreement can be canceled by the DAO with a 30 day notice or immediately through material breach of contract by either party. A 30 day notice and cancellation would need to be executed through a proposal.
+
+If any significant material expense is to be assessed or significant changes to the contract are to be made, those shall be put through the governance process of MetaDAO.
+
+- The expected annualized burn is $1.378M.
+- You can read about our [Q3 Roadmap](https://futarchy.metadao.fi/metadao/proposals/7AbivixQZTrgnqpmyxW2j1dd4Jyy15K3T2T7MEgfg8DZ).
+- For where current numbers in the agreement were arrived at you can review the [alignment proposal](https://futarchy.metadao.fi/metadao/proposals/BgHv9GutbnsXZLZQHqPL8BbGWwtcaRDWx82aeRMNmJbG).

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-swap-150k-into-isc.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "@Richard_ISC"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/Gp3ANMRTdGLPNeMGFUrzVFaodouwJSEXHbg5rFUi9roJ"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/Gp3ANMRTdGLPNeMGFUrzVFaodouwJSEXHbg5rFUi9roJ"
 proposal_date: 2024-10-30
 resolution_date: 2024-11-03
 category: "treasury"
@@ -39,3 +39,52 @@ The proposal included a reciprocal governance commitment: ISC would use MetaDAO
 ## Relationship to KB
 - [[metadao]] - treasury management decision
 - [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]] - relevant to understanding market participation patterns
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-10-30*
+
+**Type**
+Operations Direct Action
+
+**Author(s)**
+@Richard_ISC
+
+**Overview**
+
+MetaDAO has approximately \$2.2M in USDC in its treasury.
+
+This poses a risk to the DAO given that the US Dollar has been losing value at an increasing rate. The dollar has lost 17.8% of its value since 2020. Due to the debt situation, we don't expect this to be resolved soon, if ever.
+
+\$ISC was built specifically to solve this issue. ISC is an inflation-resistant stable currency built on Solana. It was launched at the Solana Hacker House in HCMC on 2023-03-17 at a price of \$1.545. It is now trading at \$1.81.
+
+Not pegged to USD, ISC is collateralized by a basket of financial assets. This basket consists of 20% cash, 20% commodities, 20% treasuries, 20% bonds, and 20% equities.
+
+If the proposal passes, MetaDAO will swap 150,000 USDC of its treasury (~6.8%) for ISC.
+
+Details:
+
+MetaDAO would execute a DCA order on jup.ag using the following parameters:
+
+
+Amount: 150,000 USDC
+To buy: ISC
+Every: 1 hours
+Over: 10 orders
+Min price: 1.7
+Max Price: 1.9
+
+The ISC team would encourage other DAOs to use MetaDAO Futarchy for similar treasury swap proposals. This could easily turn into a win-win-win.
+
+Once the ISC DAO is set up, ISC would commit to use MetaDAO for part of its governance. Example proposals that we have in mind:
+- Remove Freeze authority
+- Changes in the basket
+
+Potential advantages:
+- MetaDAO maintains its treasury value over time
+- Promotes other new Solana-native projects
+- Showcase a simple Futarchy proposal for other DAOs to follow
+
+Potential pitfalls:
+- ISC is still small and early compared to USDC
+- ISC could lose value to the USD

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-token-split-elastic-supply.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ last_updated: 2026-03-11
 parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "@aradtski"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/CBhieBvzo5miQBrdaM7vALpgNLt4Q5XYCDfNLaE2wXJA"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/metadao/trade/CBhieBvzo5miQBrdaM7vALpgNLt4Q5XYCDfNLaE2wXJA"
 proposal_date: 2025-01-28
 resolution_date: 2025-01-31
 category: mechanism
@@ -52,3 +52,79 @@ Relevant Entities:
 
 Topics:
 - [[internet finance and decision markets]]
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-01-28*
+
+## **Token Migration**
+
+#### Type
+
+Operations \- Direct Action
+
+#### Author(s)
+
+[@aradtski](https://x.com/aradtski)
+
+### Overview
+
+With the passing of this proposal, Proph3t and Nallok are directed to deploy a new META token program, and a migration program in line with the specifications below. In addition, by passing this proposal, MetaDAO effectively declares the new token to be the canonical and preferred version. Once deployed, all future Futarchic markets for MetaDAO decisions will be conducted using the new token as the trading asset.
+
+### Motivation
+
+\- Alleviate unfavorable psychological bias towards large unit pricing.
+\- Introduce full sovereignty to MetaDAO governance module, particularly on token supply and metadata.
+\- Prepare grounds for a possible future ticker change.
+
+### Specs
+
+\- Deploy a new token, and a program to allow a one-way conversion from META (METADDFL6wWMWEoKTFJwcThTbUmtarRJZjRpzUvkxhr). The new token will be deployed initially with an identical name and ticker to the current one.
+
+\- Effectively split META at a 1:1,000 ratio, resulting in a \~20,886,000 baseline supply for the new token. Each old META token unit will be granted the option to convert to 1,000 new META tokens.
+
+\- The token conversion will be opt-in, require an action from the user, be unidirectional and importantly will have an unlimited time window to complete. A widget, prompt or tab will be added to MetaDAO's website UI to push users towards completing the one-way migration.
+
+\- Introduce supply sovereignty by giving MetaDAO governance ownership over the token program, which it currently does not have. the MetaDAO Futarchic governance itself would become the singular entity with power to control the META token supply and metadata.
+
+In effect, this will allow MetaDAO to expand the META supply through its futarchy-driven governance, as well as lay down the necessary groundwork for a future proposal to change its name and/or ticker.
+
+### Q\&A
+
+**Maybe it's not great to have mutable metadata because websites flag it as a potentially malicious token?**
+The new token program will start with mutable metadata, but access can be revoked through a governance proposal at any time. Ideally, the DAO figures out the ticker and/or name change, and then continues to revoke its own access (which then cannot be restored again).
+
+**Is it not morally indignant to do a token split?**
+If it is not below the likes of Amazon and Nvidia to do stock splits despite most stock brokerages allowing fractional ownership, then it is not below MetaDAO. Human biases are ever present, and should be taken into consideration in token supply just like they are in decisions of branding, design, marketing and so forth.
+
+A token split is of particular importance to MetaDAO, as Futarchy arguably functions better the more trading activity occurs on its base asset. There seems to be anecdotal evidence suggesting that a lower unit price leads to higher trading activity amongst speculators, hence we may conclude that a token split would be fundamentally beneficial to the function of our very first Futarchic organization.
+
+**Why introduce mutable supply? Isn't fixed supply preferable?**
+Not always, and particularly not in the case of MetaDAO governance. While the option of an unlimited token supply may appear scary at first glance, it should be considered for three main reasons:
+
+1\) MetaDAO is on a mission that could extend 10, 20, 30 years into the future. Becoming future-proof means embracing the unknown unknowns, which may create a need to mint tokens into the future for reasons that have yet to reveal themselves. There's merit to enabling it sooner rather than later, since token migrations become increasingly complex the more META gets integrated into external exchanges and grows its holder base.
+
+2\) There is no risk of un-checked or damaging inflation.
+No new tokens can be minted if it would damage token price, which is of course the beauty in Futarchy. The only way MetaDAO governance will mint new tokens and expand the token supply, is if the market clearly deems it \+EV to the token value. The market speaks and Futarchy listens.
+
+3\) MetaDAO was the first to use Futarchy for decision making, and it should likewise be the first to entrust token minting to Futarchic governance. If MetaDAO won't lead the way, who will?
+It's in MetaDAO's DNA to show by example, such that others may follow.
+
+Emphasis: ownership will be given to the governance module only, and will NOT be under any multi-sig control.
+
+**Why specifically a 1:1000 ratio?**
+A 1:1000 split makes it extremely simple to mentally convert back and forth between the old and new unit prices**.** Tangentially, it also retains some of MetaDAO's original form – in setting itself apart by not participating in the current memecoin-esque meta of a billion+ token supply.
+
+ **Is it possible to enforce the conversion?**
+Not in practice. Instead:
+
+\- MetaDAO will offer an opt-in conversion with an unlimited time window.
+\- Future META decision markets will employ the new token instance.
+\- All tokens under the control of MetaDAO's treasury will be promptly migrated to the new token, once deployed, to dogfood the process.
+\- All future user activity will be encouraged to occur on the new token through the website and decision markets.
+\- CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, and onchain protocols like Drift and Jupiter should be informed of the introduction of a new canonical token instance.
+
+The process may ultimately take time, especially when it comes to passive holders converting, But the goal is for the majority of trading activity to begin occurring on the new token as quickly as possible.
+
+**Notes**
+\- With the passing of this proposal, wherever the unit price of META was referred to in past proposals, those decisions will stand with the appropriately adjusted unit price considering the token supply. For example, a [past proposal](https://metadao.fi/metadao/trade/BgHv9GutbnsXZLZQHqPL8BbGWwtcaRDWx82aeRMNmJbG) referenced the price of $42,198 per META as a benchmark. With the passing of this proposal, the price benchmark will adjust retroactively to $42.198 per META in this particular example, to match the exact conversion ratio offered to users upon migration.

decisions/internet-finance/metadao-vc-discount-rejection.md

@@ -36,3 +36,9 @@ This was also a CONTESTED decision with meaningful engagement, providing counter
 ## Related
 - [[decision markets make majority theft unprofitable through conditional token arbitrage]]
 - [[futarchy-governed permissionless launches require brand separation to manage reputational liability because failed projects on a curated platform damage the platforms credibility]] — the VC discount rejection occurred on the curated MetaDAO platform, not futard.io
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-03*
+
+No dedicated source file exists for this proposal. The VC discount rejection is documented from on-chain data and the consolidated batch source (metadao-proposals-1-through-15.md). The proposal offered a $6M OTC deal giving VC firms a 30% discount on META tokens. The futarchy market rejected the deal, and META price surged 16% following the rejection.

decisions/internet-finance/migrate-autocrat-program-to-v01.md

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: 'MetaDAO: Migrate Autocrat Program to v0.1'
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+tracked_by: rio
+created: '2026-03-24'
+last_updated: '2026-03-24'
+parent_entity: '[[metadao]]'
+platform: metadao
+proposer: HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz
+proposal_url: https://www.futard.io/proposal/AkLsnieYpCU2UsSqUNrbMrQNi9bvdnjxx75mZbJns9zi
+proposal_date: '2023-12-03'
+resolution_date: '2023-12-13'
+category: governance
+summary: This proposal migrated 990,000 META, 10,025 USDC, and 5.5 SOL from the original
+  autocrat program treasury to an upgraded v0.1 program that makes proposal duration
+  configurable with a new 3-day default (down from longer periods). The upgrade aimed
+  to enable faster feedback loops in MetaDAO's futarchy governance process, though
+  it notably lacked verifiable builds and required trust in the proposer.
+tags:
+- futardio
+- metadao
+- futarchy
+- solana
+- governance
+- metadao
+---
+
+# MetaDAO: Migrate Autocrat Program to v0.1
+
+## Summary
+
+This proposal migrated 990,000 META, 10,025 USDC, and 5.5 SOL from the original autocrat program treasury to an upgraded v0.1 program that makes proposal duration configurable with a new 3-day default (down from longer periods). The upgrade aimed to enable faster feedback loops in MetaDAO's futarchy governance process, though it notably lacked verifiable builds and required trust in the proposer.
+
+## Market Data
+
+- Proposal: Migrate Autocrat Program to v0.1?
+- Status: Passed
+- Proposal account: `AkLsnieYpCU2UsSqUNrbMrQNi9bvdnjxx75mZbJns9zi`
+- DAO account: `3wDJ5g73ABaDsL1qofF5jJqEJU4RnRQrvzRLkSnFc5di`
+- Proposer: `HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz`
+- Autocrat version: 0
+
+## Significance
+
+This proposal represents a critical early test of MetaDAO's ability to upgrade its own core governance infrastructure through futarchy markets. The migration to v0.1 with configurable 3-day proposal windows demonstrates the DAO's willingness to experiment with faster decision cycles, a key parameter in futarchy system design that balances market information aggregation against operational speed.
+
+The passage of this proposal despite acknowledged counter-party risk (non-verifiable builds requiring trust in the proposer) reveals important tensions in early-stage futarchy governance. Token holders accepted significant security trade-offs to achieve operational improvements, suggesting that in practice, futarchy DAOs may prioritize iteration speed over cryptographic guarantees during bootstrap phases. This creates a precedent where governance upgrades can pass even when they temporarily compromise the trustless properties that theoretically justify blockchain governance.
+
+The focus on "quicker feedback loops" as the primary justification highlights a meta-governance concern: futarchy systems must tune their own temporal parameters to remain viable. Three-day proposal windows represent a hypothesis that faster cycles improve governance quality, but this also compresses the time available for market participants to research, trade, and price in information. This proposal thus tests whether MetaDAO's market depth and participant sophistication could support accelerated decision-making without sacrificing prediction accuracy.
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+## Proposal Details
+- Project: MetaDAO
+- Proposal: Migrate Autocrat Program to v0.1?
+- Status: Passed
+- Created: 2023-12-03
+- URL: https://www.futard.io/proposal/AkLsnieYpCU2UsSqUNrbMrQNi9bvdnjxx75mZbJns9zi
+- Description: Most importantly, I’ve made the slots per proposal configurable, and changed its default to 3 days to allow for quicker feedback loops.
+
+## Summary
+
+### 🎯 Key Points  
+The proposal aims to migrate assets (990,000 META, 10,025 USDC, and 5.5 SOL) from the treasury of the first autocrat program to the second program, while introducing configurable proposal slots and a default duration of 3 days for quicker feedback.
+
+### 📊 Impact Analysis  
+#### 👥 Stakeholder Impact  
+Stakeholders may benefit from enhanced feedback efficiency and asset management through the upgraded autocrat program.
+
+#### 📈 Upside Potential  
+The changes could lead to faster decision-making processes and improved overall program functionality.
+
+#### 📉 Risk Factors  
+There is a risk of potential bugs in the new program and trust issues regarding the absence of verifiable builds, which could jeopardize the security of the funds.
+
+## Content
+
+## Overview
+
+I've made some improvements to the autocrat program. You can see these [here](https://github.com/metaDAOproject/meta-dao/pull/36/files). Most importantly, I've made the slots per proposal configurable, and changed its default to 3 days to allow for quicker feedback loops.
+
+This proposal migrates the 990,000 META, 10,025 USDC, and 5.5 SOL from the treasury owned by the first program to the treasury owned by the second program.
+
+## Key risks
+
+### Smart contract risk
+
+There is a risk that the new program contains an important bug that the first one didn't. I consider this risk small given that I didn't change that much of autocrat.
+
+### Counter-party risk
+
+Unfortunately, for reasons I can't get into, I was unable to build this new program with [solana-verifiable-build](https://github.com/Ellipsis-Labs/solana-verifiable-build). You'd be placing trust in me that I didn't introduce a backdoor, not on the GitHub repo, that allows me to steal the funds.
+
+For future versions, I should always be able to use verifiable builds.
+
+## Raw Data
+
+- Proposal account: `AkLsnieYpCU2UsSqUNrbMrQNi9bvdnjxx75mZbJns9zi`
+- Proposal number: 1
+- DAO account: `3wDJ5g73ABaDsL1qofF5jJqEJU4RnRQrvzRLkSnFc5di`
+- Proposer: `HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz`
+- Autocrat version: 0
+- Completed: 2023-12-13
+- Ended: 2023-12-13
+
+## Relationship to KB
+
+- [[futarchy-implementations-prioritize-operational-iteration-speed-over-security-guarantees-during-early-development-phases]]
+- [[futarchy-governed-daos-face-inherent-tensions-between-trustless-verification-requirements-and-the-need-for-rapid-governance-system-upgrades]]
+- [[shorter-proposal-durations-in-futarchy-markets-trade-information-aggregation-quality-for-operational-velocity]]
+- [[futarchy-daos-must-continuously-tune-their-own-temporal-parameters-through-self-referential-governance-proposals]]
+- [[early-stage-futarchy-adoption-requires-accepting-counter-party-risk-that-contradicts-the-trustless-premises-of-blockchain-governance]]
+
+---
+
+Relevant Entities:
+- [[metadao]] — parent organization
+
+Topics:
+- [[internet finance and decision markets]]

decisions/internet-finance/mtncapital-wind-down.md

@@ -51,3 +51,26 @@ This demonstrates the mechanism described in [[decision markets make majority th
 - [[decision markets make majority theft unprofitable through conditional token arbitrage]] — NAV arbitrage is empirical confirmation
 - [[futarchy-governed liquidation is the enforcement mechanism that makes unruggable ICOs credible because investors can force full treasury return when teams materially misrepresent]] — first live test
 - [[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]] — manipulation concerns test this claim
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: on-chain governance records, ~September 2025*
+
+First futarchy-governed liquidation on MetaDAO. Community voted to wind down mtnCapital operations and return treasury capital to token holders.
+
+**Redemption Rate:** ~$0.604 per $MTN token.
+
+**NAV Arbitrage Evidence:**
+- Theia Research purchased 297K $MTN at ~$0.485 (below redemption value)
+- Voted for wind-down via futarchy
+- Redeemed at ~$0.604
+- Profit: ~$35K on the arbitrage
+
+**Small-scale confirmation:** @arihantbansal traded $100 in pass market, redeemed for $101.
+
+**Manipulation concerns:** @_Dean_Machine flagged potential exploitation (Nov 2025), noting "someone has been taking advantage, going as far back as the mtnCapital raise, trading, and redemption."
+
+**Three-part liquidation sequence on MetaDAO:**
+1. mtnCapital (orderly wind-down, ~Sep 2025)
+2. Hurupay (failed minimum, Feb 2026)
+3. Ranger Finance (contested liquidation, Mar 2026)

decisions/internet-finance/omnipair-fund-security-audits.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Omnipair: OMFG-002 — Fund Security Audits"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[omnipair]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Rakka_sol"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/omnipair/proposal/Eo4WZMiU6UHwxDh3Tn6ygX5Pmr5xMWeR1bYL1CSqhY1j"
+proposal_date: 2025-10-31
+resolution_date: 2025-11-03
+category: "operations"
+summary: "Allocate 64,000 USDC for two-part security audit: Offside Labs (manual review) + Ackee Blockchain Security (fuzzing)"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Omnipair: OMFG-002 — Fund Security Audits
+
+## Summary
+Omnipair allocated 64,000 USDC for a two-part audit before public launch. Offside Labs (past clients: Jupiter, Jito, Kamino, Meteora, MetaDAO) conducts a full manual line-by-line review. Ackee Blockchain Security (creators of Solana's Trident fuzzer) performs guided fuzzing and integration tests. Timeline: 2 weeks for first report, 3-5 weeks total including remediation. All audits invoiced to Omnipair DAO LLC.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** Eo4WZMiU6UHwxDh3Tn6ygX5Pmr5xMWeR1bYL1CSqhY1j
+- **Duration:** 2025-10-31 to ~2025-11-03
+- **Budget:** 64,000 USDC (2 tranches: initiation + completion)
+
+## Significance
+Demonstrates futarchy-governed security spending where the market validates audit vendor selection and budget. Notable that 9 audit quotations were reviewed and shared publicly for DAO transparency — a level of procurement diligence unusual for early-stage protocols.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[omnipair]] — parent entity, pre-launch security
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2025-10-31. Proposer: Rakka_sol. Requested: 64,000 USDC.*
+
+After reviewing 9 audit quotations, selected Offside Labs and Ackee Blockchain Security for two-part audit:
+
+**Offside Labs:** Deep manual audit for Solana programs. Past clients: Jupiter, 1inch, Jito, Kamino, Meteora, MetaDAO. Full line-by-line review of Omnipair's on-chain code.
+
+**Ackee Blockchain Security:** Leading security firm focused on advanced fuzz testing (creators of Solana's Trident fuzzer). Guided fuzzing and integration tests.
+
+Timeline: 2 weeks for first report, followed by remediation and final report (3-5 weeks total). Disbursement: 2 tranches. Progress updates every 14 days. All audits invoiced to Omnipair DAO LLC.

decisions/internet-finance/omnipair-increase-allowance-50k.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Omnipair: OMFG-001 — Increase Allowance to $50K/mo"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[omnipair]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Rakka_sol"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/omnipair/proposal/8JqhQuZN52iiGirwrs6gamckBUCTLohhRjr2UpXL9CET"
+proposal_date: 2025-10-03
+resolution_date: 2025-10-06
+category: "operations"
+summary: "Increase Omnipair monthly spending limit from $10K to $50K to hire developers and designer for mainnet launch"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Omnipair: OMFG-001 — Increase Allowance to $50K/mo
+
+## Summary
+First Omnipair governance proposal. Rakka_sol requested increasing the monthly spending limit from $10,000 to $50,000 to hire two additional developers and a designer as the protocol entered closed beta on mainnet. At $50K/month, the treasury provides ~16 months of runway. Spending limit is a maximum, not guaranteed spend, and does not carry over between months. Community updates provided every 30 days.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** 8JqhQuZN52iiGirwrs6gamckBUCTLohhRjr2UpXL9CET
+- **Duration:** 2025-10-03 to ~2025-10-06
+
+## Significance
+First operational governance decision for Omnipair, demonstrating futarchy pricing team scaling decisions. The proposal includes explicit accountability mechanisms (monthly updates, no carry-over, revocable by future proposal) that show maturing governance patterns for FaaS-launched projects.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[omnipair]] — parent entity, first governance decision
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2025-10-03. Proposer: Rakka_sol*
+
+Current spending limit: $10,000/mo. Proposed spending limit: $50,000/mo.
+
+Over the past two months I have committed myself fully to both Omnipair and the changes in my personal life that support this work. With the protocol now live on mainnet in closed beta, the focus turns to scaling development and preparing for full launch.
+
+Expanded budget will enable: hiring two additional developers, adding a dedicated designer, infrastructure and service costs. At this level, the treasury provides approximately 16 months of runway.
+
+The spending limit will be capped at $50,000 per month. Any unclaimed funds from a given month will not carry over or accumulate. The limit can be reduced or removed at any time by community proposal.
+
+Near-term timeline: keep gathering feedback from closed beta, ship leveraging functionality, enhance features, undergo external audit and review.

decisions/internet-finance/omnipair-migrate-to-v06.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Omnipair: OMFG-003 — Migrate to V0.6"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[omnipair]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Rakka_sol"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/omnipair/proposal/3zsLbaVTYkJb7a4ETyxLeedemkrFkFi3MiJketcRNXDS"
+proposal_date: 2026-02-16
+resolution_date: 2026-02-19
+category: "mechanism"
+summary: "Migrate Omnipair liquidity from Raydium CPMM to MetaDAO v0.6 futarchyAMM (90%) + Meteora DAMM V2 (10%), enabling optimistic governance"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Omnipair: OMFG-003 — Migrate to V0.6
+
+## Summary
+Migrated Omnipair's liquidity and DAO to MetaDAO v0.6 program. 100% of Raydium CPMM pool liquidity reallocated: 90% to OMFG/USDC futarchyAMM, 10% to Meteora DAMM V2. Introduces team-sponsored proposals (-300 bps threshold), community proposals (300 bps threshold), 1.5M OMFG base stake requirement, and optimistic governance (one-off expenses up to 3x spending limit with 3-day contestation period).
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** 3zsLbaVTYkJb7a4ETyxLeedemkrFkFi3MiJketcRNXDS
+- **Duration:** 2026-02-16 to ~2026-02-19
+
+## Significance
+Demonstrates the standard v0.6 migration pattern for FaaS-launched projects. The optimistic governance feature (one-off expenses up to 3x spending limit, contestable within 3 days) introduces a new governance primitive balancing operational speed with market oversight.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[omnipair]] — parent entity, governance upgrade
+- [[metadao]] — v0.6 infrastructure provider
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-02-16. Proposer: Rakka_sol.*
+
+Migrates Omnipair's liquidity and DAO to MetaDAO v0.6 program. 100% of Raydium CPMM pool liquidity withdrawn and reallocated: 90% to OMFG/USDC futarchyAMM, 10% to Meteora DAMM V2.
+
+Configuration changes: team-sponsored proposals with -300 bps pass threshold, community proposals with 300 bps threshold, 1.5M OMFG base stake requirement. Accepts optimistic governance enabling one-off expenses up to 3x spending limit with 3-day contestation period. If contested, enters traditional proposal process.
+
+Custom migration contract unwinding Raydium liquidity and initializing futarchyAMM + Meteora pool. New DAO address: s45fTDhkzKPMFbNmUXA3bJNdF92z5cbVvHdY8LpznWQ.

decisions/internet-finance/omnipair-strategic-ecosystem-investment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Omnipair: OMFG-004 — Strategic Ecosystem Investment"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[omnipair]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Rakka_sol"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/omnipair/proposal/8WcHZ6U5PPa98xwXwKJxNKAhgKNdYMrwoUSpEyMdSww9"
+proposal_date: 2026-03-12
+resolution_date: 2026-03-15
+category: "treasury"
+summary: "Deploy 20,000 USDC to fund top 3 ideas built on Omnipair via Spark hackathon launchpad, with futarchy-based builder selection and automatic refund if no winner"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Omnipair: OMFG-004 — Strategic Ecosystem Investment
+
+## Summary
+Omnipair allocated 20,000 USDC to fund the top 3 ideas built on Omnipair through Spark, a hackathon-focused launchpad. Each funded concept launches fully backed by its treasury. Futarchy decision markets determine winning builders. If no builder is selected, investors are automatically refunded — providing downside protection for the DAO. Budget: Concept 1 ($10K), Concept 2 ($5K), Concept 3 ($5K).
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** 8WcHZ6U5PPa98xwXwKJxNKAhgKNdYMrwoUSpEyMdSww9
+- **Duration:** 2026-03-12 to ~2026-03-15
+
+## Significance
+First futarchy-governed ecosystem investment where a FaaS-launched project deploys treasury capital to fund builders on its own infrastructure. The Spark model (futarchy-based hackathon + automatic refund on failure) creates a novel capital-efficient builder pipeline with market-governed quality filtering.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[omnipair]] — parent entity, ecosystem investment
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-03-12. Proposer: Rakka_sol. Requested: 20,000 USDC.*
+
+Omnipair will act as liquidity venue for tokens launched on Spark, a hackathon-focused launchpad. Users submit and fund ideas; once a goal is hit, a token launches and builders compete in a hackathon with futarchy decision markets determining the winner.
+
+Budget: Concept 1 ($10K), Concept 2 ($5K), Concept 3 ($5K). Each concept fully backed at launch. If no builder is deemed worthy, investors refunded automatically.
+
+Factors: growth (new markets, liquidity, revenue), builder pipeline (developers who learn codebase), downside protection (automatic refund on failure). Upon passage, USDC transfers to core team multi-sig; Omnipair receives tokens representing ownership in each funded concept.

decisions/internet-finance/ore-adopt-sublinear-supply-function.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "ORE: Adopt a sublinear supply function?"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[ore]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/ore/trade/5YA1NbUJWmGLorWtpTzBMfsMFLKa37oxb7pHwH7wSz9L"
+proposal_date: 2024-11-18
+resolution_date: 2024-11-22
+category: "mechanism"
+summary: "Reduce ORE supply cap from 21M to 5M tokens and implement 10% annual emissions reduction, creating scarcer distribution than Bitcoin"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# ORE: Adopt a sublinear supply function?
+
+## Summary
+ORE approved a fundamental change to its tokenomics: reducing the supply cap from 21 million to 5 million tokens and implementing a 10% annual reduction in emissions rate (replacing infrequent halvings). The new curve reaches 50% dilution by ~year 5, 90% by ~year 18, and full dilution by ~2052. This makes ORE an order of magnitude scarcer than Bitcoin when fully diluted.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** 5YA1NbUJWmGLorWtpTzBMfsMFLKa37oxb7pHwH7wSz9L
+- **Proposal Number:** 2
+- **DAO Account:** 7XoddQu6HtEeHZowzCEwKiFJg4zR3BXUqMygvwPwSB1D
+- **Duration:** 2024-11-18 to 2024-11-22
+
+## Supply Schedule
+| Year | Circulating | Dilution |
+|------|------------|----------|
+| ~5   | 2.5M       | 50%      |
+| ~18  | 4.5M       | 90%      |
+| ~28  | 5M         | 100%     |
+
+## Significance
+This represents futarchy governing a critical monetary policy decision — the permanent supply curve of a proof-of-work token. The market approved a more deflationary model that balances competing community preferences: reduced FDV (addressing buyer sticker shock), faster-than-Bitcoin decay, order-of-magnitude scarcity, and ~30 years of mining runway. Described as "a major step forward in ORE's hardening process" toward freezing the contract permanently.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[ore]] — parent entity, monetary policy
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+- [[dynamic performance-based token minting replaces fixed emission schedules by tying new token creation to measurable outcomes creating algorithmic meritocracy in token distribution]] — related mechanism concept
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-11-18*
+
+Should ORE migrate to a deflationary emissions curve and reduce the supply cap to 5m tokens?
+
+When ORE launched in April 2024, it was built with a linear emissions rate of 1 ORE/min and uncapped total supply. In response to overwhelming feedback from the community, we introduced an artificial supply cap of 21m tokens in the redesign of v2.
+
+Over the last few months, the ORE community has continued to voice interest in accelerating ORE's distribution. After considering a series of alternative models, we propose:
+
+1. Reduce the supply cap from 21m to 5m tokens
+2. Reduce the emissions rate by 10% every 12 months
+
+ORE's current limit of 21m tokens was originally chosen to mimic Bitcoin's total supply count. With a supply cap 4.2x lower, ORE's supply will be an order of magnitude more scarce than Bitcoin when fully-diluted.
+
+Rather than infrequent "halvings" every 4 years, we believe ORE's mission would be better served by reducing emissions at a more gradual 10% per year. This would provide a faster, smoother, and scarcer distribution curve than Bitcoin.
+
+We believe these changes strike an ideal balance:
+- Reduces FDV to address sticker shock of buyers
+- Introduces a deflationary curve that decays faster than Bitcoin
+- Caps the supply an order of magnitude more scarce than Bitcoin
+- Provides ~30 years of mining runway for onboarding and liquidity incentives
+
+If passed, we will implement these changes and migrate the mainnet mining program. This would represent a major step forward in ORE's hardening process and bring us one step closer towards freezing the contract for good.

decisions/internet-finance/ore-increase-ore-sol-lp-boost-to-6x.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[ore]]"
 platform: "futardio"
 proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/A19yLRVqxvUf4cTDm6mKNKadasd7YSYDrzk6AYEyubAC"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/ore/trade/A19yLRVqxvUf4cTDm6mKNKadasd7YSYDrzk6AYEyubAC"
 proposal_date: 2024-10-22
 resolution_date: 2024-10-26
 category: "mechanism"
@@ -54,3 +54,21 @@ This proposal demonstrates futarchy's application to operational parameter tunin
 - [[futardio]] — platform used for decision market
 - MetaDAOs-futarchy-implementation-shows-limited-trading-volume-in-uncontested-decisions — extends pattern to operational parameters
 - [[futarchy-markets-can-price-cultural-spending-proposals-by-treating-community-cohesion-and-brand-equity-as-token-price-inputs]] — demonstrates indirect token-price reasoning through liquidity depth
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-10-22*
+
+This proposal seeks to increase the boost multiplier for ORE-SOL LP to 6x (from the current 4x).
+
+Boosts are an ORE-native incentive mechanism for turning capital into "virtual hashpower". They allow miners to stake select tokens and earn multipliers on their mining rewards. Currently, ORE supports boost multipliers for 3 different tokens:
+- ORE-SOL LP (4x)
+- ORE-ISC LP (4x)
+- ORE (2x)
+
+With the launch of boosts just over one week ago, ORE saw a significant rise in the total value of liquidity provided to the boosted trading pools. This proposal seeks to increase the multiplier for the ORE-SOL LP to further increase liquidity and better understand how boost multipliers affect the targeted markets.
+
+**Objectives:**
+1. Increase TVL in the ORE-SOL liquidity pool — higher multipliers counterbalance LP risk in volatile pairs
+2. Gather data to understand how changes in boost multipliers affect liquidity — first-ever multiplier change provides natural experiment
+3. Introduce futarchy to the ORE community — low-risk testrun before considering integration into critical systems like the supply function

decisions/internet-finance/ore-launch-hnt-boost.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ domain: internet-finance
 status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[ore]]"
 platform: "futardio"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/proposal/2QUxbiMkDtoKxY2u6kXuevfMsqKGtHNxMFYHVWbqRK1A"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/ore/trade/2QUxbiMkDtoKxY2u6kXuevfMsqKGtHNxMFYHVWbqRK1A"
 proposal_date: 2024-11-25
 resolution_date: 2024-11-28
 category: "strategy"
@@ -45,3 +45,19 @@ This proposal demonstrates futarchy pricing strategic partnerships and network p
 - [[ore]] — parent entity
 - [[MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets where proposals create parallel pass and fail universes settled by time-weighted average price over a three-day window]] — governance mechanism
 - [[futarchy-markets-can-price-cultural-spending-proposals-by-treating-community-cohesion-and-brand-equity-as-token-price-inputs]] — strategic evaluation through conditional markets
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-11-25*
+
+Should ORE launch a boost for HNT-ORE liquidity?
+
+Our primary strategic goal for ORE defi is to build up a deep liquidity network consisting of all real world assets on Solana. As the central hub of this network, ORE would reduce costs and minimize slippage for traders by increasing the depth and diversity of liquidity in the network. By focusing exclusively on real world assets such as tokenized commodities and DePIN credits, ORE would uniquely position itself as a competitive unit of account for assets representing real world value in the Solana defi ecosystem.
+
+As a revolutionary new wireless networking protocol, Helium is one of the flagship DePIN projects on Solana and all of crypto. HNT (Helium Network Token) is the primary reward and governance token of the Helium network. With the passing of HIP-138, Helium is consolidating its network tokenomics around the HNT token, making it an ideal candidate for the next token in the ORE liquidity network.
+
+With the passing of this proposal, we would introduce a new boost with the same multiplier value as the ORE-ISC liquidity pair. We would additionally commit to formalizing a 3-tier system for boosts multipliers:
+- Tier 1: Vanilla ORE stake
+- Tier 2: Critical liquidity pairs (SOL-ORE, USDC-ORE)
+- Tier 3: Extended liquidity pairs (ISC-ORE, HNT-ORE, and others)
+Future proposals to change boost multipliers would apply to a tier as a whole.

decisions/internet-finance/ore-launch-usdc-boost.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "ORE: Launch a boost for USDC-ORE?"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[ore]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "proPaC9tVZEsmgDtNhx15e7nSpoojtPD3H9h4GqSqB2"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/ore/trade/GBQZvZAeW8xUuVV5a9FJHSyttzY5fPGuvkwLTpWLbw6N"
+proposal_date: 2024-12-04
+resolution_date: 2024-12-07
+category: "mechanism"
+summary: "Launch USDC-ORE liquidity boost via Kamino vault at same multiplier as ORE-SOL, positioning USDC as strategic liquidity pair"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# ORE: Launch a boost for USDC-ORE?
+
+## Summary
+ORE approved launching a USDC-ORE liquidity boost incentive, creating a Kamino vault with the same boost multiplier as the ORE-SOL pair. The proposal positions USDC as a strategically important market for ORE's liquidity network, connecting ORE to the traditional financial system through Circle's dollar-backed stablecoin.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** GBQZvZAeW8xUuVV5a9FJHSyttzY5fPGuvkwLTpWLbw6N
+- **Proposal Number:** 3
+- **DAO Account:** 7XoddQu6HtEeHZowzCEwKiFJg4zR3BXUqMygvwPwSB1D
+- **Duration:** 2024-12-04 to 2024-12-07
+
+## Significance
+Third ORE futarchy proposal, expanding the liquidity network from crypto-native pairs (SOL, ISC, HNT) to stablecoins. Positions ORE as a bridge between DeFi and traditional finance on Solana.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[ore]] — parent entity, liquidity strategy
+- [[futardio]] — governance platform
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2024-12-04*
+
+Should ORE launch a boost incentive for USDC-ORE liquidity?
+
+Our mission with ORE is to create the best digital gold product in crypto. To accomplish this, we need to drive deep liquidity for ORE across a variety of assets in Solana defi.
+
+USDC is a stablecoin, pegged to the US dollar, and fully-backed by dollars and treasuries held in US banks by Circle. It is one of the lynchpin assets connecting Solana to the traditional financial system. It therefore represents a strategically important market for ORE to target with liquidity incentives.
+
+With the passing of this proposal, we would launch a USDC-ORE vault on Kamino and set it up with the same boost multiplier as the ORE-SOL Kamino liquidity pair.

decisions/internet-finance/paystream-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ domain: internet-finance
 status: passed
 parent_entity: "[[paystream]]"
 platform: "futardio"
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/13YpYe4k5GPaD2vZvvY7v7if31S1Wu8yWShkQs8MzLNh"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/paystream/trade/13YpYe4k5GPaD2vZvvY7v7if31S1Wu8yWShkQs8MzLNh"
 proposal_date: 2025-10-23
 resolution_date: 2025-10-27
 category: "fundraise"
@@ -46,3 +46,15 @@ This launch demonstrates continued strong demand for futarchy-governed fundraise
 - [[futardio]] — launch platform
 - [[metadao]] — governance infrastructure provider
 - [[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]] — mechanism context
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2025-10-23*
+
+Paystream: Liquidity Optimizer for Solana. Modular protocol unifying peer-to-peer lending, leveraged liquidity provisioning, and yield routing.
+
+**Core Value:** Matches lenders and borrowers at fair mid-market rates. Automates routing and leverage-enabled LP strategies across Raydium CLMM, Meteora DLMM, DAMM v2 pools. Eliminates wide APY spreads in pool-based models (Kamino, Juplend). Capital-efficient engine where every dollar is always moving/earning.
+
+**Raise:** Target $550,000. Total committed: $6,149,247. Final raise: $750,000 (11.2x oversubscribed). Closed 2025-10-27.
+
+**Token:** PAYS (PAYZP1W3UmdEsNLJwmH61TNqACYJTvhXy8SCN4Tmeta). Website: paystream.finance

decisions/internet-finance/ranger-2m-buyback.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Ranger: RNGR $2M Buyback"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[ranger-finance]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Community Members"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/ranger/proposal/6cdhy4j6CAAJjE1z2iQDsFda2BrqJkhtHrRWT9QasSoa"
+proposal_date: 2026-01-12
+resolution_date: 2026-01-15
+category: "treasury"
+summary: "Allocate $2M USDC for RNGR buyback at max $0.78/token (NAV) to protect treasury against liquidation arbitrage"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Ranger: RNGR $2M Buyback
+
+## Summary
+Community-initiated proposal to deploy $2M USDC from treasury to purchase RNGR tokens at maximum $0.78/token (current NAV). Executed via Jupiter recurring orders every 5 minutes over 30+ days (~8,640 orders). Motivated by RNGR trading at larger discount to NAV than other MetaDAO launches, exposing treasury to liquidation arbitrage. Includes 90-day cooldown on new buyback/redemption proposals.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** 6cdhy4j6CAAJjE1z2iQDsFda2BrqJkhtHrRWT9QasSoa
+- **Duration:** 2026-01-12 to ~2026-01-15
+- **Buyback Budget:** $2M USDC
+- **Max Price:** $0.78/token (NAV)
+- **Estimated Purchase:** ~2.5M RNGR
+
+## Significance
+Demonstrates the ownership coin NAV defense mechanism in practice. When token price falls below NAV, the treasury becomes an arbitrage target — rational actors can buy tokens cheap and vote for liquidation to extract treasury value. The buyback attempts to close the NAV gap and prevent adversarial liquidation. The 90-day cooldown prevents repeated buyback/liquidation cycling.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[ranger-finance]] — parent entity, treasury defense
+- [[ownership coin treasuries should be actively managed through buybacks and token sales as continuous capital calibration not treated as static war chests]] — buyback mechanism
+- [[decision markets make majority theft unprofitable through conditional token arbitrage]] — NAV defense
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-01-12. Authors: Community Members.*
+
+**Type**
+
+Operations Direct Action
+
+**Author(s)**
+
+Community Members
+
+**Summary**
+
+If passed, $2M USDC of treasury funds will be used to purchase RNGR tokens with a maximum price set to $0.78 per token (current NAV).
+
+**Motivation**
+
+As RNGR is trading at a much larger discount to NAV than other curated MetaDao launches, our treasury is exposed to a greater risk of being exploited by arbitrage from adversarial capital. We want to protect the treasury against liquidation and ensure the Ranger team can build out their vision.
+
+This allocation of capital would allow us:
+- Improve overall sentiment regarding Ranger
+- Protect our holders and team alike by addressing the risk of a treasury liquidation
+
+Ranger raised 2 million more than the initial cap, and allocating this capital should not slow down the development. In the case that allocated funds remain unspent. The team can pull them back with an additional proposal.
+
+**Logistics**
+
+$2M of treasury funds will be used to purchase `RNGRtJMbCveqCp7AC6U95KmrdKecFckaJZiWbPGmeta` (RNGR) tokens with a maximum price set at $0.78 per token. These orders will be placed every five minutes. The buyback will go on for an indefinite period until the allocated funds are exhausted (estimated 30+ Days).
+
+The price per token reflects the current net asset value per token.
+
+**Specifications**
+
+- Amount: $2M
+- Order Type: Recurring
+- Order Quantity: 8640
+- Order Frequency: 5 minutes
+- Maximum Order Price: 0.78
+- Estimated RNGR Purchased: 2.5M, assuming full use of the buyback facility at the maximum order price
+
+**Process**
+
+This proposal includes instructions to execute a Jupiter recurring order as stated above.
+
+[Squads Transaction](https://app.squads.so/squads/55H1Q1YrHJQ93uhG4jqrBBHx3a8H7TCM8kvf2UM2g5q3/transactions/6JEUbBQqXLsi1dynDGnw2gs9j1ZfFZ58UdNTK74yVs9k)
+
+[Simulation](https://explorer.solana.com/tx/inspector?squadsTx=6JEUbBQqXLsi1dynDGnw2gs9j1ZfFZ58UdNTK74yVs9k)
+
+**NOTE:**
+Any funds remaining in the order (should it fail to complete its total number of orders in quantity) will remain in the DCA account until there is another proposal to cancel the order.
+
+All RNGR tokens will be transferred to the DAO treasury
+
+**Redemption/Buyback cooldown period**
+
+No new buyback or redemption proposals shall be submitted or executed for 90 days following the passing of this proposal
+
+### Raw Data
+
+- Proposal account: `6cdhy4j6CAAJjE1z2iQDsFda2BrqJkhtHrRWT9QasSoa`
+- Proposal number: 2
+- DAO account: `1PAwyDkWNFCcR96GhEReXHJBv3YEFVazCaQgNicVuKv`
+- Proposer: `ELT1uRmtFvYP6WSrc4mCZaW7VVbcdkcKAj39aHSVCmwH`
+- Autocrat version: 0.6

decisions/internet-finance/ranger-futardio-launch.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Ranger: Futardio ICO Launch"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[ranger-finance]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Ranger Finance team"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/ranger/trade/8Nmd13rpULJjY7h6oxCfuTWy8WkZxcuDrDWiSdnViVuo"
+proposal_date: 2026-01-06
+resolution_date: 2026-01-10
+category: "launch"
+summary: "Ranger Finance raised via MetaDAO ICO — $86.4M committed against $6M minimum, first MetaDAO raise with existing investors and obligations"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Ranger: Futardio ICO Launch
+
+## Summary
+Ranger Finance, a perps aggregator and trading terminal on Solana, launched via MetaDAO's futarchy-governed ICO. First MetaDAO raise with existing investors and pre-ICO obligations. $86.4M committed against $6M minimum. Smart Order Router scans venues in real-time for best execution across Solana and Hyperliquid.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Complete
+- **Total Committed:** $86,398,012
+- **Minimum Raise:** $6,000,000
+- **Duration:** 2026-01-06 to 2026-01-10
+- **Monthly Allowance:** $250K
+
+## Token Structure
+- Total supply: 25,625,000 RNGR
+- Existing investors: 4,356,250 (24mo linear vest)
+- Team performance: 7,600,000 (18mo cliff, price-based unlocks at 2x/4x/8x/16x/32x ICO price, 3mo TWAP)
+- Ambassadors/ecosystem: 768,750 (25% immediate, 75% 6mo vest)
+- Liquidity: 20% of funds raised + 2M tokens in futarchyAMM + 900K in Meteora
+- Bid program: excess funds above $6M minimum returnable at ICO price minus spend for 90 days
+
+## Significance
+First MetaDAO ICO with pre-existing investors and obligations, setting precedent for how legacy cap table structures integrate with futarchy governance. The bid program (excess capital returnable) addresses oversubscription concerns. Team performance package with price-based unlocks at specific multiples of ICO price demonstrates the milestone-vesting model.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[ranger-finance]] — parent entity
+- [[metadao]] — ICO platform
+- [[performance-unlocked-team-tokens-with-price-multiple-triggers-and-twap-settlement-create-long-term-alignment-without-initial-dilution]] — team package structure
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-01-06*
+
+**Project:** Ranger
+**Description:** Unlocking the Potential of the Markets
+**Funding target:** $6,000,000.00
+**Total committed:** $86,398,012.12
+**Status:** Complete
+**Launch date:** 2026-01-06
+**URL:** https://www.futard.io/launch/8Nmd13rpULJjY7h6oxCfuTWy8WkZxcuDrDWiSdnViVuo
+
+### Team / Description
+
+Crypto has a fragmentation problem rather than a liquidity problem.
+
+Roughly $50B in daily derivatives volume now trades across Solana, Arbitrum, and Hyperliquid. Yet, outside of Ranger, most trading platforms still lock each order into a single venue. This fragments liquidity, worsens execution quality, and ultimately leads to a worse experience for traders.
+
+Fragmented markets are a reality in TradFi, CeFi, and DeFi. Aggregation at the application layer delivers better execution and an industry-leading user experience. This is why we've built Ranger around two core pillars: aggregation and the application layer.
+
+Ranger launched as a trading terminal with the first perps aggregator on Solana, quickly integrating all major venues on the chain. Since then, we've added support for Hyperliquid and spot trading via Titan Exchange.
+
+Today, Ranger remains the only application where perp traders benefit from true multi-venue routing and improved execution at the order level.
+
+At the core of Ranger is our Smart Order Router. It scans integrated venues in real time, evaluates liquidity depth, intelligently splits large orders, and executes at the best available global price.
+
+The app is still early in its roadmap, and we're not yet at the end state we envision. We're confident we can deliver a best-in-class experience as we integrate new perp venues to improve execution further and ship new features and product lines that move Ranger toward its goal of becoming DeFi's command center.
+
+This ICO is to expand the team's capacity and increase velocity as we build towards the long term vision. We see MetaDAO and the ownership token as the best way to maintain deep alignment between the token holders and the company.
+
+**NOTE: Ranger is the first MetaDAO raise with existing investors and obligations. The terms are set out below.**
+
+**ICO Structure:**
+
+- $6M minimum raise
+- $250k monthly allowance (spending limit)
+- Ranger points hold a preference for capital committed to the ICO. This is represented pro-rata across all points holders and then excess is filled pro-rata by non-points commitments. [Additional details](https://x.com/ranger_finance/status/2007140827081089086) can be reviewed in the link.
+- Bid program exists for any funds accepted in excess of the minimum goal ($6M). This program will accept tokens at ICO price minus any spend for a period of 90 days or until the excess is exhausted. The tokens exchanged will be burned.
+
+**Token Supply:**
+
+- Total token supply 25,625,000
+- Existing investor allocation 4,356,250 (24mo linear vest)
+- Team performance package 7,600,000 (18mo cliff with price based unlocks with 3mo TWAP at 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x and 32x ICO price)
+- Ambassadors and ecosystem partners 768,750 (25% is immediately unlocked with a remaining 25% in a 6mo linear vest)
+- The remaining supply is provided in liquidity provisioning with 20% of funds raised and 2M tokens placed in the FutarchyAMM and 900k tokens placed in single sided liquidity in Meteora.
+
+**Ranger Socials:**
+
+- [Website](https://www.app.ranger.finance/perps)
+- [X](https://x.com/ranger_finance)
+- [Telegram](http://t.me/rangerfinancehq)
+- [Linkedin](https://www.linkedin.com/company/rangerfinance)
+- [Docs](https://docs.ranger.finance/)
+
+**Token:** [RNGRtJMbCveqCp7AC6U95KmrdKecFckaJZiWbPGmeta](https://jup.ag/tokens/RNGRtJMbCveqCp7AC6U95KmrdKecFckaJZiWbPGmeta)
+
+**Entity Structure:** [Cayman SP Agreement](https://cybercorps.metalex.tech/metadao/formation-summary?hash=0xc91e9a91f0b62b167f3a5971e88c367edabd44e648b01af656094032593b8dbf&callbackUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.metadao.fi%2Fprojects%2Fcreate%2Fb7505e45-5162-4954-b2a5-62f961a98e1c)
+
+### Links
+
+- Website: https://ranger.finance/
+- Twitter: https://docs.ranger.finance/legal-and-compliance
+
+### Raw Data
+
+- Launch address: `8Nmd13rpULJjY7h6oxCfuTWy8WkZxcuDrDWiSdnViVuo`
+- Token: Ranger (RNGR)
+- Token mint: `RNGRtJMbCveqCp7AC6U95KmrdKecFckaJZiWbPGmeta`
+- Version: v0.7
+- Total approved: $8,000,000.00
+- Closed: 2026-01-10
+- Completed: 2026-01-10

decisions/internet-finance/ranger-liquidation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Ranger: Liquidate Ranger Finance"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: passed
+parent_entity: "[[ranger-finance]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Group of RNGR tokenholders"
+proposal_url: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/ranger/proposal/DPATwR2HLcGZCBZCTffzagV4r7dp5FF2C9aJmiuCDUpS"
+proposal_date: 2026-03-02
+resolution_date: 2026-03-05
+category: "liquidation"
+summary: "Tokenholders voted to liquidate Ranger Finance citing material misrepresentations about revenue and product-market fit — treasury USDC returned to holders, IP returned to team"
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Ranger: Liquidate Ranger Finance
+
+## Summary
+Group of RNGR tokenholders proposed full liquidation of Ranger Finance, alleging the team made material misrepresentations about business metrics to entice investment. Key allegations: co-founder stated "$5B volume → $2M revenue" for 2025, but on-chain analysis showed ~$2B volume and ~$500K revenue, with volume and revenue down 90%+ between ICO announcement (Nov 2025) and the presentation (Dec 2025). Activity dropped to near-zero post-ICO announcement, indicating users were points farmers not organic users. The proposal nullified the prior 90-day buyback cooldown.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Passed
+- **Proposal Account:** DPATwR2HLcGZCBZCTffzagV4r7dp5FF2C9aJmiuCDUpS
+- **Duration:** 2026-03-02 to ~2026-03-05
+- **Treasury USDC:** ~$3.5M
+- **Expected book value:** $0.75-$0.82 per RNGR
+- **Eligible tokens:** ~5.8-6.4M RNGR (excludes locked team, out-of-range LP, buyback tokens)
+
+## Liquidation Structure
+1. Remove all RNGR/USDC liquidity from futarchyAMM
+2. Snapshot vested token balances 1 week after voting ends
+3. Calculate book value per token from treasury USDC + LP USDC
+4. Open redemption for tokenholders at book value
+5. Return all IP, trademarks, source code to Glint House PTE. LTD
+6. Unclaimed USDC after 18 months at MetaDAO team's discretion
+
+## Significance
+Third futarchy-governed liquidation on MetaDAO (after mtnCapital and Hurupay), but the first contested liquidation where tokenholders allege material misrepresentation. This is the strongest test of futarchy-governed investor protection: the market mechanism allowed investors to force full treasury return when they believed the team broke trust. The proposal explicitly overrode the 90-day cooldown from the previous buyback proposal, demonstrating that futarchy can override its own prior decisions when new evidence emerges.
+
+The detailed on-chain evidence (Dune queries, Discord screenshots, timeline analysis) presented in the proposal shows the level of due diligence possible when governance is transparent and data is on-chain.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[ranger-finance]] — parent entity, liquidation event
+- [[futarchy-governed liquidation is the enforcement mechanism that makes unruggable ICOs credible because investors can force full treasury return when teams materially misrepresent]] — strongest evidence
+- [[futarchy can override its own prior decisions when new evidence emerges because conditional markets re-evaluate proposals against current information not historical commitments]] — overrode 90-day cooldown
+- [[ownership coins primary value proposition is investor protection not governance quality because anti-rug enforcement through market-governed liquidation creates credible exit guarantees that no amount of decision optimization can match]] — liquidation as investor protection
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: metadao.fi, tabled 2026-03-02. Authors: Group of RNGR tokenholders.*
+
+Since the ICO concluded, it's become clear that: (1) the Ranger team made material misrepresentations about their business, and (2) the business was predicated on points farming, not organic activity.
+
+Key evidence: In a presentation, Ranger co-founder FA2 stated "Current stats: we are close to doing $5 billion in volume this year and next year we are targeting to do $100 billion in volume" with a slide showing "2025: $5b volume → $2m revenue". On-chain analysis shows volume was ~$2B and revenue ~$500K, with volume/revenue down 90%+ between ICO announcement and presentation. Multiple team members repeated the $2M revenue figure without correction.
+
+Activity across perps and spot declined to near-zero following the ICO announcement, indicating "users" were points farmers not organic users.
+
+Proposed plan: remove LP, snapshot vested balances, calculate book value, open redemption. Treasury USDC: ~$3.5M. Expected book value: $0.75-$0.82. Return all IP to Glint House PTE. LTD.

decisions/internet-finance/runbookai-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ domain: internet-finance
 status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[runbookai]]"
 platform: futardio
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/9DfNVpcDm6x1GXUa8wik8YVZhiw7dTmmhefVBWVZuAg8"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/runbookai/trade/9DfNVpcDm6x1GXUa8wik8YVZhiw7dTmmhefVBWVZuAg8"
 proposal_date: 2026-03-05
 resolution_date: 2026-03-06
 category: fundraise
@@ -42,3 +42,17 @@ The failure contrasts with other Futardio launches that achieved higher engageme
 - [[futardio]] — fundraising platform
 - [[runbookai]] — parent entity
 - MetaDAO — futarchy infrastructure
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-03-05*
+
+RunBookAI: Train your DeFi agent. Prove it. Let others rent it.
+
+**Two-sided marketplace:** Supply side — creators train agents in natural language, run in staging for verifiable on-chain track records, push to live (strategy locks permanently). Demand side — renters browse agents by category/track record/risk, rent strategy runs inside TEE container on own capital, share rewards if profitable (no upfront cost).
+
+**Core Design:** Immutable strategies (anti-rug), stage before live, on-chain identity (verifiable track records), TEE execution (IP protection).
+
+**Raise:** Target $350,000. Total committed: $3,600 (1%). Status: Refunding. Closed 2026-03-06.
+
+**Revenue:** Agent setup fee, performance split, platform fee. Roadmap: Q2 2026 (creator onboarding), Q3 (on-chain backtesting), Q4 (marketplace launch), Q1 2027+ (scale with SDK). Website: runbookai.xyz

decisions/internet-finance/salmon-wallet-futardio-fundraise.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ domain: internet-finance
 status: failed
 parent_entity: "[[salmon-wallet]]"
 platform: futardio
-proposal_url: "https://www.futard.io/launch/Aakx1gdDoNQYqiv5uoqdXx56mGr6AbZh73SWpxHrk2qF"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/salmon-wallet/trade/Aakx1gdDoNQYqiv5uoqdXx56mGr6AbZh73SWpxHrk2qF"
 proposal_date: 2026-03-03
 resolution_date: 2026-03-04
 category: fundraise
@@ -61,3 +61,21 @@ First empirical data point on futarchy adoption friction for operational softwar
 - [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] — empirical confirmation
 - [[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]] — platform scope expansion test
 - [[futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations because market mechanisms alone cannot provide operational security and legal compliance]] — included traditional operational structures
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, launched 2026-02-22*
+
+Salmon Wallet: Community-owned wallet built for real decentralization. Open-source, no tracking, no backdoors, keys always in your hands. Building in public since 2022, listed on Solana wallet adapter.
+
+**Why MetaDAO:** Traditional token launches are broken (hidden OTC, insider allocations, teams walk away). MetaDAO's futarchy aligns with Salmon's values: funds locked in on-chain treasury, governance by market-driven prediction markets, IP (code, domains, accounts) assigned to DAO LLC (token holder owned), team unlocks performance-gated.
+
+**The Deal:** High-float fair launch (no seed/whale discounts), treasury controlled by governance from day one, founder incentives tied to token performance, full on-chain transparency.
+
+**Raise:** Target $350,000. Prior funding: $122.5K. Status: Refunding. Closed 2026-02-23.
+
+**Monthly Burn:** $25K ($18.3K team, $4.2K infrastructure, $2K growth, $500 governance/legal). Runway: 12 months.
+
+**Roadmap:** Q2 Android, Q3 iOS TestFlight, Q4 Wallet-as-a-Service, Q1 2027 cross-platform optimization.
+
+**Philosophy:** "If you can't verify it, you don't own it." Website: salmonwallet.io

decisions/internet-finance/sanctum-build-mobile-app-wonder.md

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+---
+type: decision
+entity_type: decision_market
+name: "Sanctum: Should Sanctum build a Sanctum Mobile App (Wonder)?"
+domain: internet-finance
+status: failed
+parent_entity: "[[sanctum]]"
+platform: "futardio"
+proposer: "Sanctum team"
+proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/sanctum/trade/2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoota"
+proposal_date: 2025-03-28
+resolution_date: 2025-03-31
+category: "strategy"
+summary: "Sanctum proposed building mobile app 'Wonder' as crypto consumer onboarding product — team reserved discretion but put strategic direction to futarchy vote. Failed."
+tracked_by: rio
+created: 2026-03-24
+---
+
+# Sanctum: Should Sanctum build a Sanctum Mobile App (Wonder)?
+
+## Summary
+Sanctum proposed building a mobile app codenamed "Wonder" — a consumer-facing crypto onboarding product targeting non-speculative users who want yield, community, and a delightful UX. Despite not involving community CLOUD funds, the team put this product direction to futarchy vote as "the largest product decision ever made by the Sanctum team." Core features: automatic yield on assets, gasless trades, fiat offramps, curated project discovery (including potential MetaDAO launchpad integration). Revenue models: AUM fees, swap fees, subscription fees. The proposal failed, suggesting the market preferred the team focus on core B2B staking infrastructure.
+
+## Market Data
+- **Outcome:** Failed
+- **Proposer:** Sanctum team
+- **Proposal Account:** 2frDGSg1frwBeh3bc6R7XKR2wckyMTt6pGXLGLPgoota
+- **Duration:** 2025-03-28 to ~2025-03-31
+
+## Strategic Context
+- **Opportunity cost acknowledged:** Building mobile app diverts resources from core B2B staking business and institutional liquid staking
+- **Competitive reference:** Phantom ($3B valuation), Jupiter ($1.7B market cap / $6.2B FDV), MetaMask ($320M swap fees, Consensys $2.3B secondary)
+- **Target users:** "Good (agentic, integrous, open-minded, earnest) people" — not memecoin traders
+- **Go-to-market:** Closed beta with top CLOUD stakers (by staking score), invite codes, iterate to find killer feature
+- **Team reserved discretion** to modify features and go-to-market
+
+## Significance
+This is the most consequential use of futarchy for strategic product direction rather than treasury allocation. The team explicitly chose to put a major strategic pivot to market vote despite having no obligation to do so ("this is not a proposal that involves community CLOUD funds"). The failure demonstrates futarchy's ability to override team preferences on strategic direction — the market effectively told the team to stay focused on core infrastructure. This supports the claim that [[coin price is the fairest objective function for asset futarchy]] since token holders optimized for protocol value by rejecting a risky pivot.
+
+The "curate the best, most aligned projects — MetaDAO launchpad integration?" bullet is particularly notable as an early signal of Sanctum exploring the MetaDAO ecosystem as a distribution channel.
+
+## Relationship to KB
+- [[sanctum]] — product strategy governance decision
+- [[coin price is the fairest objective function for asset futarchy]] — market rejected team's strategic preference
+- [[futarchy-markets-can-reject-solutions-to-acknowledged-problems-when-the-proposed-solution-creates-worse-second-order-effects-than-the-problem-it-solves]] — opportunity cost of pivot outweighed potential
+- [[sanctum-wonder-mobile-app-proposal-failed-futarchy-vote-march-2025]] — existing claim about this event
+
+## Full Proposal Text
+
+*Source: futard.io, tabled 2025-03-28*
+
+### tl;dr
+
+This proposal would empower the Sanctum team to build a Sanctum mobile app, codenamed "Wonder".
+Even though this is not a proposal that involves community CLOUD funds, this is going to be the largest product decision ever made by the Sanctum team, so we want to put it up to governance vote. We're excited about this direction but still want to gut check with the community.
+
+### what
+
+Our goal is to onboard more good (agentic, integrous, open-minded, earnest) people onto the magical new world of crypto. Wonder would be a mobile app that maximally serves these users.
+
+Why would these users want to be on chain? They are unlikely to want to trade memecoins. But they would be interested in earning/raising money on crypto to fund their ambitions, holding assets with long-term real yield, and participating, belonging, and interacting with other like-minded people.
+
+Core goals of Wonder:
+
+* to make the new user UX safe and easy (no seed phrases)
+* to put people first (profiles, not wallet addresses), and
+* to maximise love, fun, and delight
+
+(potential) core product features:
+
+* automatically gives you great yields on your assets
+* shows you how much money you've made from your yield-bearing assets (SOL, JUP, CLOUD, USDC)
+* gasless trades/transfers
+* lets you spend and offramp your money via card or bank transfer
+* curates the best, most aligned projects so you can participate or invest in them
+  * MetaDAO launchpad integration?
+
+potential monetisation models:
+
+* AUM fees on deposits
+* swap fees
+* subscription fees
+
+### why
+
+The Business Case:
+
+* There's immense value in products that touch the end-user. Google, Netflix, Amazon, Zillow, and Expedia all capture substantial value through being "the place the user comes to when they want to explore." Wonder would do the same for crypto.
+* Abnormal profits come from pricing power. And pricing power comes from consumers having a reason not to switch to alternatives. Consumers, especially in financial services, are sticky and prefer to stick to what they already know.
+* The market has recognized this opportunity. Phantom recently raised at a $3B valuation. Jupiter trades at a $1.7B market cap and $6.2B FDV. MetaMask made $320M in swap fees and is one of the reasons why Consensys is worth $2.3B in secondary markets.
+
+Team:
+We have a track record of making things fun, building delightful products, simplifying very complex concepts. We made futarchy fun and accessible. I mean we made liquid staking fun for gods sake.
+At the same time, we have a reputation for competence and safety — today, Sanctum safeguards over 1B in funds.
+
+Personal:
+A month ago I saw my 17 year old cousin open up his phone. He was trading TRUMP on Moonshot, looking at his portfolio go from $6 to $4.60 (lol). I was really happy that crypto has conclusively come to the mainstream, but also sad that that was his first experience with crypto.
+Crypto has a lot more to offer than trading memecoins, but it seems like everyone is focused on building apps for that. I want to build the right introduction to crypto: the app we all deserve, but no one is building.
+
+### go-to-market
+
+The goal is to build out a minimally delightful product with just one killer feature — but some iteration will be required to find that feature.
+To get our first users, we'll run a very intimate, high-touch closed beta with our best cloudmen (probably initiated by staking score) — each of them would have some small numbers of invite codes. We'll use that to iterate on the product and find that killer feature.
+Once we are sure we have a compelling product and hook, we'll look to distribute to the broader crypto audience.
+
+### considerations
+
+The largest consideration here is opportunity cost. Building this mobile app will require significant resources and will affect to some degree our focus on scale the core business. The alternative is to stay the course and focus solely on growing Sanctum as a B2B staking business or going into institutional liquid staking (more CEXes, building out custodial products, locked SOL, etc.)
+Other considerations include: building mobile consumer apps is notoriously hard, and value capture is not completely clear, especially if we don't focus on capturing the users which have max trading volumes.
+
+### discretion
+
+The Sanctum core team reserves the right to change details of the prospective features or go-to-market if we deem it better for the product.