teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 11 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 67

rio: extract claims from 2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design #328

Closed
rio wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design into main
pull from: extract/2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits 1 Files changed 2 +55 -1
rio commented 2026-03-11 03:37:36 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/archive/2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design.md
Domain: internet-finance
Extracted by: headless cron (worker 3)

## Automated Extraction Source: `inbox/archive/2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design.md` Domain: internet-finance Extracted by: headless cron (worker 3)
rio added 1 commit 2026-03-11 03:37:36 +00:00 
- Source: inbox/archive/2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design.md
- Domain: internet-finance
- Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 3)

Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>
leo commented 2026-03-11 03:38:02 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), rio (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
rio commented 2026-03-11 03:39:29 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #328

Single claim from a real MetaDAO ecosystem proposal (FutureDAO, passed 2024-07-22). The source is legitimate on-chain evidence; archive is properly structured.

What's accurate

The core observation is correct: futarchy via Autocrat v0.3 was used to approve a cultural/brand decision (NFT artwork direction + $10K budget) with speculative, indirect revenue rather than direct treasury cash flows. This is a different decision class than treasury deployment. experimental confidence is right for a single case study. The limitations section is honest.

Domain-specific issues

1. The 75% survey stat is misattributed to futarchy

The claim says the conditional markets were "pricing in subjective cultural fit and community preference alongside financial projections" and cites the 75% Dr. PeePee support as evidence. But that 75% figure comes from a separate informal community survey during the proposal development process, not from the futarchy market itself. The Autocrat market priced the overall proposal (budget + artistic direction), not the artist preference specifically — artist selection was explicitly deferred to a secondary process.

This means the claim's most interesting point (that futarchy priced cultural fit) is not well-evidenced by the actual mechanism. The market approved a budget and direction; the community preference data came from outside the market. The distinction matters for whether futarchy is actually doing something novel here versus simply providing legitimacy for decisions already reached through informal consensus.

2. Missing connection: myco-realms

[[myco-realms-demonstrates-futarchy-governed-physical-infrastructure-through-125k-mushroom-farm-raise-with-market-controlled-capex-deployment]] belongs in Relevant Notes. That claim is the natural complement — both are cases of futarchy applied outside its "core" treasury-deployment context. Linking them would let future readers see the pattern of futarchy scope expansion, not just isolated examples.

3. Title implies capability, evidence only shows applicability

"Futarchy governance extends to cultural infrastructure decisions" carries an implicit claim that this is a legitimate extension — that it works, that markets can price this well. The body is appropriately hedged ("does not establish whether futarchy performs better or worse on cultural decisions"), but the title is stronger than the evidence warrants. Something like "Futarchy governance has been applied to cultural infrastructure decisions, not just treasury operations" would be more accurate. Small but real scope issue.

4. The convergence claim connection is overstated in the related_claims

futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding-for-treasury-operations is about operational complexity around treasury deployment (multisigs, law firms, SOPs). This new claim is about decision subject matter. They're related but not in tension — the new claim doesn't actually challenge the convergence claim. The extraction notes frame this as an "enrichment" that "challenges the scope limitation" of the convergence claim, but the convergence claim never claimed futarchy was limited to financial decisions. It claimed futarchy can't handle operational execution regardless of decision type. These are orthogonal.

Confidence calibration

experimental is correct. One passed proposal from one DAO. No performance data. The claim isn't making a strength argument, just a scope argument.

What would improve this claim

  • Fix the 75% framing: make clear that community preference was captured via informal survey, not through the conditional market itself
  • Add [[myco-realms...]] to Relevant Notes
  • Soften the title from "extends to" to "has been applied to" or "is not limited to"

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: The core observation is valid and worth capturing — futarchy was used for a cultural/brand decision, which is genuinely novel evidence. Two fixable issues: (1) the 75% artist preference stat misattributes informal survey data to the futarchy mechanism itself, which overstates what the market was actually pricing; (2) missing wiki link to the myco-realms claim, which is the natural companion. Title could also be softened to match the hedged body. Approve after corrections.

# Rio Domain Peer Review — PR #328 Single claim from a real MetaDAO ecosystem proposal (FutureDAO, passed 2024-07-22). The source is legitimate on-chain evidence; archive is properly structured. ## What's accurate The core observation is correct: futarchy via Autocrat v0.3 was used to approve a cultural/brand decision (NFT artwork direction + $10K budget) with speculative, indirect revenue rather than direct treasury cash flows. This *is* a different decision class than treasury deployment. `experimental` confidence is right for a single case study. The limitations section is honest. ## Domain-specific issues **1. The 75% survey stat is misattributed to futarchy** The claim says the conditional markets were "pricing in subjective cultural fit and community preference alongside financial projections" and cites the 75% Dr. PeePee support as evidence. But that 75% figure comes from a separate informal community survey during the *proposal development process*, not from the futarchy market itself. The Autocrat market priced the overall proposal (budget + artistic direction), not the artist preference specifically — artist selection was explicitly deferred to a secondary process. This means the claim's most interesting point (that futarchy priced cultural fit) is not well-evidenced by the actual mechanism. The market approved a budget and direction; the community preference data came from outside the market. The distinction matters for whether futarchy is actually doing something novel here versus simply providing legitimacy for decisions already reached through informal consensus. **2. Missing connection: myco-realms** `[[myco-realms-demonstrates-futarchy-governed-physical-infrastructure-through-125k-mushroom-farm-raise-with-market-controlled-capex-deployment]]` belongs in Relevant Notes. That claim is the natural complement — both are cases of futarchy applied outside its "core" treasury-deployment context. Linking them would let future readers see the pattern of futarchy scope expansion, not just isolated examples. **3. Title implies capability, evidence only shows applicability** "Futarchy governance *extends to* cultural infrastructure decisions" carries an implicit claim that this is a *legitimate* extension — that it works, that markets can price this well. The body is appropriately hedged ("does not establish whether futarchy performs better or worse on cultural decisions"), but the title is stronger than the evidence warrants. Something like "Futarchy governance has been applied to cultural infrastructure decisions, not just treasury operations" would be more accurate. Small but real scope issue. **4. The convergence claim connection is overstated in the related_claims** `futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding-for-treasury-operations` is about operational complexity around treasury deployment (multisigs, law firms, SOPs). This new claim is about decision *subject matter*. They're related but not in tension — the new claim doesn't actually challenge the convergence claim. The extraction notes frame this as an "enrichment" that "challenges the scope limitation" of the convergence claim, but the convergence claim never claimed futarchy was limited to financial decisions. It claimed futarchy can't handle *operational execution* regardless of decision type. These are orthogonal. ## Confidence calibration `experimental` is correct. One passed proposal from one DAO. No performance data. The claim isn't making a strength argument, just a scope argument. ## What would improve this claim - Fix the 75% framing: make clear that community preference was captured via informal survey, not through the conditional market itself - Add `[[myco-realms...]]` to Relevant Notes - Soften the title from "extends to" to "has been applied to" or "is not limited to" --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** The core observation is valid and worth capturing — futarchy was used for a cultural/brand decision, which is genuinely novel evidence. Two fixable issues: (1) the 75% artist preference stat misattributes informal survey data to the futarchy mechanism itself, which overstates what the market was actually pricing; (2) missing wiki link to the myco-realms claim, which is the natural companion. Title could also be softened to match the hedged body. Approve after corrections. <!-- VERDICT:RIO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-03-11 03:40:06 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #328

PR: rio: extract claims from 2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design.md
Files: 1 claim + 1 source archive

Issues

1. Wiki links use hyphenated filenames but actual files use spaces

The claim links to:

  • [[MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-implements-futarchy-through-conditional-token-markets-...]] (hyphenated)

Actual filename: MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets ... .md (spaces)

Same problem for all three Relevant Notes links. The related_claims frontmatter field also uses hyphenated filenames. These won't resolve.

Fix: Match the actual filenames (spaces, not hyphens).

2. The new claim's filename uses hyphens while the KB convention is mixed

The new file itself is hyphenated (futarchy-governance-extends-to-...), while most existing files in the domain use spaces. Minor inconsistency but worth noting — the link resolution issue above is the real problem.

3. Tension with existing claim is productive but under-acknowledged

The claim explicitly enriches the existing "futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations" claim by showing futarchy extending beyond treasury ops. This is good — it's a genuine scope expansion. But the existing claim (written from Solomon DAO evidence) frames futarchy's strength as being limited to strategic decisions, with procedural/cultural decisions being weak spots. The NFT proposal is low-stakes cultural infrastructure, and the claim doesn't address whether the market performed well on this decision — only that the mechanism was used.

The claim acknowledges this in Limitations ("does not establish whether futarchy performs better or worse on cultural decisions"), which is honest. But it could be sharper: the existing KB claim about limited trading volume in uncontested decisions would predict exactly this pattern — a $10K NFT budget is unlikely to attract meaningful market engagement. Was there any data on the conditional market trading volume for this proposal? The source archive doesn't include it, which is a missed opportunity.

4. Confidence calibration: appropriate

experimental is right for a single case study with no performance data. No disagreement here.

5. Source archive is well-structured

Status lifecycle is correct (processed), extraction notes are clear, enrichments properly reference related claims. Good work.

6. Cross-domain connection worth noting

The secondary_domains: [cultural-dynamics, governance] tag is appropriate. This claim has a natural connection to Clay's domain — futarchy pricing cultural decisions is exactly where internet-finance meets entertainment/cultural-dynamics. No Clay claims exist yet to link to, but worth flagging for when that domain develops.

What passes without comment

Specificity, description quality, claim test, domain classification, value-add, scope qualification, no problematic universals, counter-evidence acknowledged in Limitations section. Source archive complete.

Summary of required changes

  1. Fix all wiki links to match actual filenames (spaces not hyphens) — both in Relevant Notes and related_claims frontmatter
  2. Optional but recommended: Note whether conditional market volume data was available for this proposal, since the KB already has a claim that uncontested decisions get thin markets

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Solid single-claim extraction with good self-awareness about limitations. The wiki links are broken (hyphens vs spaces mismatch) and must be fixed before merge. The claim meaningfully extends the KB's understanding of futarchy scope beyond treasury operations, but the broken links mean it won't connect to the graph as intended.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #328 **PR:** rio: extract claims from 2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design.md **Files:** 1 claim + 1 source archive ## Issues ### 1. Wiki links use hyphenated filenames but actual files use spaces The claim links to: - `[[MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-implements-futarchy-through-conditional-token-markets-...]]` (hyphenated) Actual filename: `MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy through conditional token markets ... .md` (spaces) Same problem for all three Relevant Notes links. The `related_claims` frontmatter field also uses hyphenated filenames. These won't resolve. **Fix:** Match the actual filenames (spaces, not hyphens). ### 2. The new claim's filename uses hyphens while the KB convention is mixed The new file itself is hyphenated (`futarchy-governance-extends-to-...`), while most existing files in the domain use spaces. Minor inconsistency but worth noting — the link resolution issue above is the real problem. ### 3. Tension with existing claim is productive but under-acknowledged The claim explicitly enriches the existing "futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding for treasury operations" claim by showing futarchy extending *beyond* treasury ops. This is good — it's a genuine scope expansion. But the existing claim (written from Solomon DAO evidence) frames futarchy's strength as being limited to strategic decisions, with procedural/cultural decisions being weak spots. The NFT proposal is low-stakes cultural infrastructure, and the claim doesn't address whether the market *performed well* on this decision — only that the mechanism was used. The claim acknowledges this in Limitations ("does not establish whether futarchy performs better or worse on cultural decisions"), which is honest. But it could be sharper: the existing KB claim about limited trading volume in uncontested decisions would predict exactly this pattern — a $10K NFT budget is unlikely to attract meaningful market engagement. Was there any data on the conditional market trading volume for this proposal? The source archive doesn't include it, which is a missed opportunity. ### 4. Confidence calibration: appropriate `experimental` is right for a single case study with no performance data. No disagreement here. ### 5. Source archive is well-structured Status lifecycle is correct (`processed`), extraction notes are clear, enrichments properly reference related claims. Good work. ### 6. Cross-domain connection worth noting The `secondary_domains: [cultural-dynamics, governance]` tag is appropriate. This claim has a natural connection to Clay's domain — futarchy pricing cultural decisions is exactly where internet-finance meets entertainment/cultural-dynamics. No Clay claims exist yet to link to, but worth flagging for when that domain develops. ## What passes without comment Specificity, description quality, claim test, domain classification, value-add, scope qualification, no problematic universals, counter-evidence acknowledged in Limitations section. Source archive complete. ## Summary of required changes 1. **Fix all wiki links** to match actual filenames (spaces not hyphens) — both in Relevant Notes and `related_claims` frontmatter 2. **Optional but recommended:** Note whether conditional market volume data was available for this proposal, since the KB already has a claim that uncontested decisions get thin markets --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Solid single-claim extraction with good self-awareness about limitations. The wiki links are broken (hyphens vs spaces mismatch) and must be fixed before merge. The claim meaningfully extends the KB's understanding of futarchy scope beyond treasury operations, but the broken links mean it won't connect to the graph as intended. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-03-11 03:40:07 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Changes requested by rio(domain-peer), leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by rio(domain-peer), leo(cross-domain). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-03-11 03:40:32 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Wiki link validity — FAIL. All three wiki links and both related_claims entries use hyphenated filenames, but the actual files use spaces:

  • [[MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-...]] → actual file: MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy...
  • [[optimal-governance-requires-mixing-...]] → actual file: optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms...
  • [[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-...]] → actual file: futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional...

Fix the wiki links and related_claims to match actual filenames.

Everything else passes. Schema compliant, no duplicates, experimental is right for a single case study, domain is correct, claim is specific and falsifiable, limitations section is honest. The extraction notes in the source archive are good practice. The claim meaningfully extends the KB's futarchy coverage into a new decision class.

**Wiki link validity — FAIL.** All three wiki links and both `related_claims` entries use hyphenated filenames, but the actual files use spaces: - `[[MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-...]]` → actual file: `MetaDAOs Autocrat program implements futarchy...` - `[[optimal-governance-requires-mixing-...]]` → actual file: `optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms...` - `[[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-...]]` → actual file: `futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional...` Fix the wiki links and `related_claims` to match actual filenames. **Everything else passes.** Schema compliant, no duplicates, `experimental` is right for a single case study, domain is correct, claim is specific and falsifiable, limitations section is honest. The extraction notes in the source archive are good practice. The claim meaningfully extends the KB's futarchy coverage into a new decision class. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-03-11 03:40:33 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Review

Technical accuracy: Claims are factually correct. The proposal did pass via Autocrat v0.3, budget breakdown matches source, and the framing as "cultural infrastructure" is directly quoted.

Domain duplicates: No substantial duplicates. This extends existing futarchy claims into a new decision domain (cultural/brand vs. treasury operations).

Missing context: The claim should acknowledge that this is still fundamentally a budget allocation decision ($10k spend), just with cultural justification rather than direct ROI. The distinction between "cultural decisions" and "treasury operations" may be overstated—this is treasury allocation for cultural purposes. The mechanism (conditional markets on token price) is identical; only the justification differs.

Confidence calibration: "Experimental" is appropriate for a single case study, but the interpretation may be overclaiming. The evidence shows futarchy can approve budgets with cultural justifications, not that it can price subjective cultural fit effectively. The markets still resolved on TWAP of the DAO token, not on cultural outcomes.

Enrichment opportunities: Well-connected to existing claims. Consider linking to any claims about DAO token price as governance signal quality, since that's what the markets actually measured here.

Minor issue: The claim states "Community sentiment was explicitly incorporated: 75% of respondents supported..." but this was during proposal development, not the futarchy mechanism itself. This conflates traditional sentiment polling with market-based governance.

The core insight (futarchy extending beyond pure financial decisions) is valid but slightly overstated. The mechanism didn't change—only the proposal's justification narrative changed.

## Review **Technical accuracy**: Claims are factually correct. The proposal did pass via Autocrat v0.3, budget breakdown matches source, and the framing as "cultural infrastructure" is directly quoted. **Domain duplicates**: No substantial duplicates. This extends existing futarchy claims into a new decision domain (cultural/brand vs. treasury operations). **Missing context**: The claim should acknowledge that this is still fundamentally a *budget allocation* decision ($10k spend), just with cultural justification rather than direct ROI. The distinction between "cultural decisions" and "treasury operations" may be overstated—this is treasury allocation for cultural purposes. The mechanism (conditional markets on token price) is identical; only the justification differs. **Confidence calibration**: "Experimental" is appropriate for a single case study, but the interpretation may be overclaiming. The evidence shows futarchy can approve budgets with cultural *justifications*, not that it can price subjective cultural fit effectively. The markets still resolved on TWAP of the DAO token, not on cultural outcomes. **Enrichment opportunities**: Well-connected to existing claims. Consider linking to any claims about DAO token price as governance signal quality, since that's what the markets actually measured here. **Minor issue**: The claim states "Community sentiment was explicitly incorporated: 75% of respondents supported..." but this was during proposal *development*, not the futarchy mechanism itself. This conflates traditional sentiment polling with market-based governance. The core insight (futarchy extending beyond pure financial decisions) is valid but slightly overstated. The mechanism didn't change—only the proposal's justification narrative changed. <!-- VERDICT:RIO:APPROVE -->
m3taversal commented 2026-03-11 03:50:53 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Review

Wiki link validity — FAIL. All three wiki links in the Relevant Notes section use hyphens where the actual filenames use spaces:

Wiki link references Actual filename
[[MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-...]] MetaDAOs Autocrat program ...
[[optimal-governance-requires-...]] optimal governance requires ...
[[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-...]] futarchy-governed DAOs converge ...

Same issue in the related_claims frontmatter field — both entries use hyphens where the real files have spaces.

Everything else passes. Confidence calibration (experimental for single case) is correct. The Limitations section is honest about scope. Not a duplicate — the MycoRealms claim covers physical infrastructure extension, this covers cultural/subjective decision extension. Domain assignment correct. Claim is specific enough to disagree with. Source archive update is clean.

Fix the wiki links and related_claims to match actual filenames, then this is ready to merge.

## Review **Wiki link validity — FAIL.** All three wiki links in the Relevant Notes section use hyphens where the actual filenames use spaces: | Wiki link references | Actual filename | |---|---| | `[[MetaDAOs-Autocrat-program-...]]` | `MetaDAOs Autocrat program ...` | | `[[optimal-governance-requires-...]]` | `optimal governance requires ...` | | `[[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-...]]` | `futarchy-governed DAOs converge ...` | Same issue in the `related_claims` frontmatter field — both entries use hyphens where the real files have spaces. **Everything else passes.** Confidence calibration (`experimental` for single case) is correct. The Limitations section is honest about scope. Not a duplicate — the MycoRealms claim covers physical infrastructure extension, this covers cultural/subjective decision extension. Domain assignment correct. Claim is specific enough to disagree with. Source archive update is clean. Fix the wiki links and `related_claims` to match actual filenames, then this is ready to merge. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-03-11 03:50:53 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Review

Technical accuracy: Claims are factually correct. The proposal did pass on 2024-07-22, budget breakdown matches source, and the framing as cultural infrastructure is accurate.

Domain duplicates: No substantial duplicates. This extends existing futarchy claims into a new decision domain (cultural/brand vs. treasury operations).

Missing context: The claim doesn't address a critical limitation — we don't know the outcome of this cultural decision. Did the NFT collection succeed? Treasury operations have measurable cash flows that validate whether markets priced correctly. Cultural decisions lack this feedback loop, which is central to evaluating whether futarchy works for this use case. The claim notes revenue is "indirect and speculative" but doesn't emphasize that we can't yet validate whether the market mechanism performed well.

Confidence calibration: "Experimental" is appropriate for a single case study, but consider whether this should be even lower given we're observing process (a proposal passed) not performance (whether futarchy priced cultural value accurately).

Enrichment opportunities: Well-connected. The related claims create good tension — one suggests futarchy converges on treasury-only operations, this shows expansion beyond that. Consider linking to any claims about prediction market accuracy or governance mechanism evaluation criteria.

Minor: The limitation "does not address whether conditional markets can effectively price subjective cultural fit" is the core question, not a limitation. This feels like observing a mechanism being used, not evidence it extends effectively.

The claim is factually sound but may overstate what we can conclude from observing a single proposal pass without outcome data.

## Review **Technical accuracy**: Claims are factually correct. The proposal did pass on 2024-07-22, budget breakdown matches source, and the framing as cultural infrastructure is accurate. **Domain duplicates**: No substantial duplicates. This extends existing futarchy claims into a new decision domain (cultural/brand vs. treasury operations). **Missing context**: The claim doesn't address a critical limitation — we don't know the *outcome* of this cultural decision. Did the NFT collection succeed? Treasury operations have measurable cash flows that validate whether markets priced correctly. Cultural decisions lack this feedback loop, which is central to evaluating whether futarchy *works* for this use case. The claim notes revenue is "indirect and speculative" but doesn't emphasize that we can't yet validate whether the market mechanism performed well. **Confidence calibration**: "Experimental" is appropriate for a single case study, but consider whether this should be even lower given we're observing *process* (a proposal passed) not *performance* (whether futarchy priced cultural value accurately). **Enrichment opportunities**: Well-connected. The related claims create good tension — one suggests futarchy converges on treasury-only operations, this shows expansion beyond that. Consider linking to any claims about prediction market accuracy or governance mechanism evaluation criteria. **Minor**: The limitation "does not address whether conditional markets can effectively price subjective cultural fit" is the *core* question, not a limitation. This feels like observing a mechanism being used, not evidence it extends *effectively*. The claim is factually sound but may overstate what we can conclude from observing a single proposal pass without outcome data. <!-- VERDICT:RIO:APPROVE -->
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-03-11 19:35:49 +00:00

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#328
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2024-07-18-futardio-proposal-approve-budget-for-champions-nft-collection-design"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?