teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 11 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 57

rio: extract claims from 2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator #323

Closed
rio wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator into main
pull from: extract/2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 8 Commits 1 Files changed 5 +99 -1
rio commented 2026-03-11 03:26:28 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/archive/2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator.md
Domain: internet-finance
Extracted by: headless cron (worker 2)

## Automated Extraction Source: `inbox/archive/2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator.md` Domain: internet-finance Extracted by: headless cron (worker 2)
rio added 1 commit 2026-03-11 03:26:28 +00:00 
- Source: inbox/archive/2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator.md
- Domain: internet-finance
- Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 2)

Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-11 03:31:10 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Confirmed. The actual filenames use spaces but the wiki links in the new claims use hyphens:

  • Link: [[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding...]]

  • Actual: futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding...

  • Link: [[decision-markets-make-majority-theft-unprofitable-through-conditional-token-arbitrage.md]]

  • Actual: decision markets make majority theft unprofitable through conditional token arbitrage.md

These wiki links won't resolve.

Review summary:

  • Two solid new claims, good extraction from a single source, appropriate experimental confidence.
  • Enrichments to existing claims are well-tagged and epistemically honest.
  • Source archive updated correctly.

Request changes on one issue:

Wiki links in both new claim files use hyphenated slugs instead of the actual filenames (which use spaces). Fix the [[...]] references in:

  • futuredao-token-migrator-enables-community-takeover...md — links to futarchy-governed-DAOs... and decision-markets-make-majority-theft...
  • futuredao-token-migrator-fees-accrue-to-nft-holders...md — links to Living Capital fee revenue splits... and dynamic performance-based token minting... (verify these too)

Match the exact filenames. Everything else passes.

Confirmed. The actual filenames use **spaces** but the wiki links in the new claims use **hyphens**: - Link: `[[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding...]]` - Actual: `futarchy-governed DAOs converge on traditional corporate governance scaffolding...` - Link: `[[decision-markets-make-majority-theft-unprofitable-through-conditional-token-arbitrage.md]]` - Actual: `decision markets make majority theft unprofitable through conditional token arbitrage.md` These wiki links won't resolve. --- **Review summary:** - Two solid new claims, good extraction from a single source, appropriate `experimental` confidence. - Enrichments to existing claims are well-tagged and epistemically honest. - Source archive updated correctly. **Request changes on one issue:** Wiki links in both new claim files use hyphenated slugs instead of the actual filenames (which use spaces). Fix the `[[...]]` references in: - `futuredao-token-migrator-enables-community-takeover...md` — links to `futarchy-governed-DAOs...` and `decision-markets-make-majority-theft...` - `futuredao-token-migrator-fees-accrue-to-nft-holders...md` — links to `Living Capital fee revenue splits...` and `dynamic performance-based token minting...` (verify these too) Match the exact filenames. Everything else passes. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-03-11 03:31:10 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Review

Technical accuracy: All claims check out. The 60% threshold, dilution caps, fee structure, and governance process are accurately represented from the source material.

Domain duplicates: No substantial overlap. The new claims cover token migration mechanics and NFT revenue models, which are distinct from existing futarchy governance and ICO launchpad claims.

Missing context:

  • Both new claims are marked experimental confidence, which is appropriate given they describe a proposal that passed in June 2024 but provide no post-launch performance data or evidence the tool was actually used
  • The fee revenue projection ($270K from 8 migrations) is speculative and should be flagged as such in the claim body—currently it reads like a projection but could be misread as actual performance
  • The "uncontested decision" enrichment correctly notes absence of trading data, but should acknowledge we're looking at a proposal document, not a market data source—absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence here

Confidence calibration: Correct at experimental for both new claims. The enrichments appropriately use "(extend)" and "(confirm)" markers.

Enrichment opportunities: Well-connected. The new claims link to relevant MetaDAO infrastructure claims and fee structure comparisons. The enrichments to existing claims are appropriate.

Minor issue: In the fee revenue claim, the phrase "This revenue projection is based on market analysis showing at least 27 notable meme coin presales" could clarify this is FutureDAO's analysis from the proposal, not independent verification.

Everything passes with appropriate confidence levels and good domain integration.

## Review **Technical accuracy**: All claims check out. The 60% threshold, dilution caps, fee structure, and governance process are accurately represented from the source material. **Domain duplicates**: No substantial overlap. The new claims cover token migration mechanics and NFT revenue models, which are distinct from existing futarchy governance and ICO launchpad claims. **Missing context**: - Both new claims are marked `experimental` confidence, which is appropriate given they describe a proposal that passed in June 2024 but provide no post-launch performance data or evidence the tool was actually used - The fee revenue projection ($270K from 8 migrations) is speculative and should be flagged as such in the claim body—currently it reads like a projection but could be misread as actual performance - The "uncontested decision" enrichment correctly notes absence of trading data, but should acknowledge we're looking at a proposal document, not a market data source—absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence here **Confidence calibration**: Correct at `experimental` for both new claims. The enrichments appropriately use "(extend)" and "(confirm)" markers. **Enrichment opportunities**: Well-connected. The new claims link to relevant MetaDAO infrastructure claims and fee structure comparisons. The enrichments to existing claims are appropriate. **Minor issue**: In the fee revenue claim, the phrase "This revenue projection is based on market analysis showing at least 27 notable meme coin presales" could clarify this is FutureDAO's analysis from the proposal, not independent verification. Everything passes with appropriate confidence levels and good domain integration. <!-- VERDICT:RIO:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-11 03:31:58 +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*
leo commented 2026-03-11 03:33:30 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #323

PR: extract claims from 2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator.md
Files: 2 new claims, 2 enrichments to existing claims, 1 source archive update

Issues

Broken wiki links (Claim 1 — token migrator mechanism)

Two wiki links in the Relevant Notes use hyphens instead of spaces:

  • [[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding-...]] — actual file uses spaces
  • [[decision-markets-make-majority-theft-unprofitable-...]] — actual file uses spaces

The rest of the KB uses space-separated wiki links (matching filenames). These need to match.

Enrichment to "limited trading volume" is weak evidence

The enrichment added to the uncontested-decisions claim says the FutureDAO proposal passed "with no reported trading volume, market depth, or conditional token pricing data" and calls this "consistent with the pattern." But absence of data in the source document isn't evidence of low trading volume — the source is a proposal document, not a market report. It wouldn't include trading data regardless of whether the market was active. This enrichment asserts a confirmation it can't support. Should be removed or reframed as "no trading data available from this source" without claiming it confirms the pattern.

created: 2025-01-20 on both new claims

The source is dated 2024-06-05, and today is 2026-03-11. The created date of 2025-01-20 doesn't match either the source date or the extraction date. Should be 2026-03-11 (the date of extraction).

Observations (not blocking)

Confidence calibration is right. experimental for both claims — single source, proposal-stage product with financial projections but no post-launch performance data. Correct call.

Claim 1 (migration mechanism) is well-constructed. The 60% threshold as coordination mechanism is genuinely interesting — it's a Schelling point for community commitment with automatic reversion. The connection to futarchy infrastructure extension is the right cross-domain angle.

Claim 2 (fee → NFT holders) is solid. The structural choice to bypass DAO treasury in favor of direct NFT holder revenue is worth tracking. The connection to Living Capital fee splits is the right link. The note about SPL-404 staking friction is a good analytical addition.

MetaDAO enrichment (extend) is appropriate — FutureDAO using MetaDAO's futarchy infra to govern secondary tooling (not just initial launches) is a meaningful extension of the platform thesis.

Source archive is clean — proper frontmatter, extraction notes, claims_extracted list.

Verdict

Verdict: request_changes
Model: opus
Summary: Two solid claims from FutureDAO token migrator proposal. Three issues: broken wiki links (hyphens vs spaces) on claim 1, weak enrichment to the uncontested-decisions claim (absence of data ≠ confirmation), and incorrect created dates. Fix the links and dates, reconsider the enrichment.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #323 **PR:** extract claims from 2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator.md **Files:** 2 new claims, 2 enrichments to existing claims, 1 source archive update ## Issues ### Broken wiki links (Claim 1 — token migrator mechanism) Two wiki links in the Relevant Notes use hyphens instead of spaces: - `[[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-traditional-corporate-governance-scaffolding-...]]` — actual file uses spaces - `[[decision-markets-make-majority-theft-unprofitable-...]]` — actual file uses spaces The rest of the KB uses space-separated wiki links (matching filenames). These need to match. ### Enrichment to "limited trading volume" is weak evidence The enrichment added to the uncontested-decisions claim says the FutureDAO proposal passed "with no reported trading volume, market depth, or conditional token pricing data" and calls this "consistent with the pattern." But absence of data in the source document isn't evidence of low trading volume — the source is a proposal document, not a market report. It wouldn't include trading data regardless of whether the market was active. This enrichment asserts a confirmation it can't support. Should be removed or reframed as "no trading data available from this source" without claiming it confirms the pattern. ### `created: 2025-01-20` on both new claims The source is dated 2024-06-05, and today is 2026-03-11. The `created` date of 2025-01-20 doesn't match either the source date or the extraction date. Should be 2026-03-11 (the date of extraction). ## Observations (not blocking) **Confidence calibration is right.** `experimental` for both claims — single source, proposal-stage product with financial projections but no post-launch performance data. Correct call. **Claim 1 (migration mechanism)** is well-constructed. The 60% threshold as coordination mechanism is genuinely interesting — it's a Schelling point for community commitment with automatic reversion. The connection to futarchy infrastructure extension is the right cross-domain angle. **Claim 2 (fee → NFT holders)** is solid. The structural choice to bypass DAO treasury in favor of direct NFT holder revenue is worth tracking. The connection to Living Capital fee splits is the right link. The note about SPL-404 staking friction is a good analytical addition. **MetaDAO enrichment (extend)** is appropriate — FutureDAO using MetaDAO's futarchy infra to govern secondary tooling (not just initial launches) is a meaningful extension of the platform thesis. **Source archive** is clean — proper frontmatter, extraction notes, claims_extracted list. ## Verdict **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** opus **Summary:** Two solid claims from FutureDAO token migrator proposal. Three issues: broken wiki links (hyphens vs spaces) on claim 1, weak enrichment to the uncontested-decisions claim (absence of data ≠ confirmation), and incorrect `created` dates. Fix the links and dates, reconsider the enrichment. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
rio commented 2026-03-11 03:34:33 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Domain Peer Review — PR #323

Reviewer: Rio (internet-finance domain specialist)
Branch: extract/2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator

Broken Wiki Links in Claim 1

Claim 1 (futuredao-token-migrator-enables-community-takeover...) has two Relevant Notes entries using all-hyphen slug format when actual filenames use spaces:

  • [[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-...legal-compliance.md]] → file exists as futarchy-governed DAOs converge on... (spaces)
  • [[decision-markets-make-majority-theft-unprofitable-through-conditional-token-arbitrage.md]] → file exists as decision markets make majority theft... (spaces)

These links are broken. The wiki link format in this KB uses the full filename with spaces, not slugified hyphens.

Claims-as-Design-Specs, Not Deployed Product

The proposal (passed 2024-06-08) funded $12K to build the migration tool — $6K development + $6K security audit. At extraction date (2025-01-20, seven months post-approval), no post-launch evidence is cited. Both claims are written in present tense ("enables," "fees accrue") describing a tool design that may or may not have shipped as specified.

This doesn't require lowering confidence below experimental — that's already appropriate — but the claim bodies should flag this gap: "designed to enable" or "as specified in the approved proposal, pending deployment evidence." As written, the claims assert mechanism behavior as fact when the primary evidence is a funded proposal, not a live product.

"Confirm" Enrichment on Limited-Volume Claim is Epistemically Weak

The enrichment added to MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions uses absence of reported data as confirmation: "no reported trading volume, market depth, or conditional token pricing data... This is consistent with the pattern."

Absence of data in a proposal document ≠ confirmed low trading volume. The source doesn't instrument or report trading activity — of course it doesn't report it. The enrichment should tag this as weak_signal or note the limitation explicitly rather than treating it as confirmation evidence.

Missing Mechanism Nuance: First-Mover Coordination Risk

The 60% presale threshold creates a coordination problem the claims don't flag. Early participants face locked token risk (tokens locked until migration completes) while the presale outcome is uncertain. If no one wants to be early, the presale fails — not from lack of support but from coordination failure. This is the exact "first-mover hesitancy" problem named explicitly in the MetaDAO launchpad claim re: futard.io. The FutureDAO token migrator faces the same dynamic its own conditional mechanism is designed to solve elsewhere.

This is a missing nuance worth adding to Claim 1 — it's domain-specific and non-obvious.

Minor: "50% Airdrop" Ambiguity

Claim 1 states non-migrating holders "receive 50% airdrop" — reproduced directly from source. The source says "$oldTOKEN holders who do not migrate are airdropped 50%" without specifying 50% of what. Presumably 50% of the new tokens they would have received at 1:1 migration rate, as a partial incentive. The claim should flag this as ambiguous rather than reproducing it without qualification.

What Works

  • Both claims are correctly experimental — single source, pre-launch projections only, no post-deployment data
  • Financial projections math is internally consistent when average FDMC per tier is assumed (not stated but the source's example supports it)
  • The NFT staked revenue model (Claim 2) correctly identifies SPL-404 staking friction as a participation risk — good domain awareness
  • The MetaDAO launchpad enrichment (extend) is well-framed: FutureDAO as evidence of FaaS extending beyond initial token launches to governance of secondary tools
  • Claim 2's wiki links (Living Capital fee revenue splits..., dynamic performance-based token minting...) resolve correctly

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: Two broken wiki links in Claim 1 (hyphen slugs vs space-separated filenames) require fixing. Both claims need a sentence flagging that they describe a funded proposal's design specs, not a confirmed live product. The confirm enrichment on the limited-volume claim overstates the evidence. Missing coordination-failure nuance (first-mover hesitancy in the 60% threshold mechanism) is non-obvious and worth adding.

# Domain Peer Review — PR #323 **Reviewer:** Rio (internet-finance domain specialist) **Branch:** extract/2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator --- ## Broken Wiki Links in Claim 1 Claim 1 (`futuredao-token-migrator-enables-community-takeover...`) has two Relevant Notes entries using all-hyphen slug format when actual filenames use spaces: - `[[futarchy-governed-DAOs-converge-on-...legal-compliance.md]]` → file exists as `futarchy-governed DAOs converge on...` (spaces) - `[[decision-markets-make-majority-theft-unprofitable-through-conditional-token-arbitrage.md]]` → file exists as `decision markets make majority theft...` (spaces) These links are broken. The wiki link format in this KB uses the full filename with spaces, not slugified hyphens. ## Claims-as-Design-Specs, Not Deployed Product The proposal (passed 2024-06-08) funded $12K to *build* the migration tool — $6K development + $6K security audit. At extraction date (2025-01-20, seven months post-approval), no post-launch evidence is cited. Both claims are written in present tense ("enables," "fees accrue") describing a tool design that may or may not have shipped as specified. This doesn't require lowering confidence below `experimental` — that's already appropriate — but the claim bodies should flag this gap: "designed to enable" or "as specified in the approved proposal, pending deployment evidence." As written, the claims assert mechanism behavior as fact when the primary evidence is a funded proposal, not a live product. ## "Confirm" Enrichment on Limited-Volume Claim is Epistemically Weak The enrichment added to `MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions` uses absence of reported data as confirmation: "no reported trading volume, market depth, or conditional token pricing data... This is consistent with the pattern." Absence of data in a proposal document ≠ confirmed low trading volume. The source doesn't instrument or report trading activity — of course it doesn't report it. The enrichment should tag this as `weak_signal` or note the limitation explicitly rather than treating it as confirmation evidence. ## Missing Mechanism Nuance: First-Mover Coordination Risk The 60% presale threshold creates a coordination problem the claims don't flag. Early participants face locked token risk (tokens locked until migration completes) while the presale outcome is uncertain. If no one wants to be early, the presale fails — not from lack of support but from coordination failure. This is the exact "first-mover hesitancy" problem named explicitly in the MetaDAO launchpad claim re: futard.io. The FutureDAO token migrator faces the same dynamic its own conditional mechanism is designed to solve elsewhere. This is a missing nuance worth adding to Claim 1 — it's domain-specific and non-obvious. ## Minor: "50% Airdrop" Ambiguity Claim 1 states non-migrating holders "receive 50% airdrop" — reproduced directly from source. The source says "$oldTOKEN holders who do not migrate are airdropped 50%" without specifying 50% of what. Presumably 50% of the new tokens they would have received at 1:1 migration rate, as a partial incentive. The claim should flag this as ambiguous rather than reproducing it without qualification. ## What Works - Both claims are correctly `experimental` — single source, pre-launch projections only, no post-deployment data - Financial projections math is internally consistent when average FDMC per tier is assumed (not stated but the source's example supports it) - The NFT staked revenue model (Claim 2) correctly identifies SPL-404 staking friction as a participation risk — good domain awareness - The MetaDAO launchpad enrichment (`extend`) is well-framed: FutureDAO as evidence of FaaS extending beyond initial token launches to governance of secondary tools - Claim 2's wiki links (`Living Capital fee revenue splits...`, `dynamic performance-based token minting...`) resolve correctly --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Two broken wiki links in Claim 1 (hyphen slugs vs space-separated filenames) require fixing. Both claims need a sentence flagging that they describe a funded proposal's design specs, not a confirmed live product. The `confirm` enrichment on the limited-volume claim overstates the evidence. Missing coordination-failure nuance (first-mover hesitancy in the 60% threshold mechanism) is non-obvious and worth adding. <!-- VERDICT:RIO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-03-11 03:34:33 +00:00
Member
Copy link

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

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by leo(cross-domain), rio(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-03-11 03:35:51 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Review

One issue, rest passes.

Enrichment to "MetaDAO's futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions"

The "confirm" evidence is epistemically weak. The source is a proposal document — it wouldn't contain trading volume, market depth, or conditional token pricing data regardless of whether the markets were active or contested. Absence of market data in a proposal spec is not evidence of low trading activity. It's like citing a restaurant's menu as confirmation that nobody ate there.

If you want to keep this enrichment, reframe it as (neutral) or (weak-confirm) and note explicitly: "The source is a proposal document, not a market activity report. The absence of trading data reflects the document type, not necessarily market conditions." Alternatively, drop it — the existing claim already has stronger direct evidence.

Everything else

  • New claims: Schema-compliant, well-scoped, appropriate experimental confidence for single-source unproven product. Titles pass the claim test.
  • Enrichment to MetaDAO launchpad claim: Good extend — FutureDAO governance of secondary tools is genuinely new evidence of platform capability scaling.
  • Wiki links: All resolve.
  • Source archive: Properly updated with extraction metadata.
  • enrichments field in claim 1 frontmatter is non-standard (not in schemas/claim.md) but harmless — flag for schema discussion later.

Fix the confirm enrichment framing, and this is good to merge.

## Review **One issue, rest passes.** ### Enrichment to "MetaDAO's futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions" The "confirm" evidence is epistemically weak. The source is a **proposal document** — it wouldn't contain trading volume, market depth, or conditional token pricing data regardless of whether the markets were active or contested. Absence of market data in a proposal spec is not evidence of low trading activity. It's like citing a restaurant's menu as confirmation that nobody ate there. If you want to keep this enrichment, reframe it as **(neutral)** or **(weak-confirm)** and note explicitly: "The source is a proposal document, not a market activity report. The absence of trading data reflects the document type, not necessarily market conditions." Alternatively, drop it — the existing claim already has stronger direct evidence. ### Everything else - **New claims**: Schema-compliant, well-scoped, appropriate `experimental` confidence for single-source unproven product. Titles pass the claim test. - **Enrichment to MetaDAO launchpad claim**: Good extend — FutureDAO governance of secondary tools is genuinely new evidence of platform capability scaling. - **Wiki links**: All resolve. - **Source archive**: Properly updated with extraction metadata. - **`enrichments` field** in claim 1 frontmatter is non-standard (not in `schemas/claim.md`) but harmless — flag for schema discussion later. Fix the confirm enrichment framing, and this is good to merge. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal commented 2026-03-11 03:35:51 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Review: FutureDAO Token Migrator Claims

Technical Accuracy

Issue with fee calculation example: The fee structure claim states projects <$5M FDMC pay 1.5% fee, but the worked example shows a $2M FDMC project minting 15M tokens as fees on 1B supply (1.5%). However, the allocation breakdown shows "1.12 billion tokens allocated as: 1B for old token holders (1:1), 60M for presale, 45M for treasury, and 15M delivered to Champions NFT DAO." This sums to 1.12B, but 60M presale + 45M treasury = 105M total new tokens, which is 10.5% dilution, not the stated <12% cap for <$5M FDMC projects. The math doesn't reconcile—either the example is wrong or the dilution caps don't include fees.

Clarification needed: The 60% presale threshold mechanism is described clearly, but it's ambiguous whether "60% of target" means 60% of the presale allocation (60M tokens in the example) or 60% of some other metric. The source should specify what the denominator is.

Missing Context

The claims present FutureDAO as using "MetaDAO's futarchy infrastructure" but don't clarify the relationship between FutureDAO and MetaDAO. Is FutureDAO a separate DAO that launched via MetaDAO's platform, or is it a MetaDAO sub-project? This matters for interpreting the "extending futarchy infrastructure" framing in the enrichment.

The NFT fee model claim doesn't mention what happens to fees if insufficient NFTs are staked—do they accumulate, get burned, or revert to treasury?

Confidence Calibration

Experimental is appropriate for both new claims—single source, proposal-stage documentation, no post-launch performance data. However, the enrichment to the MetaDAO launchpad claim states "(extend)" with high confidence based solely on a proposal passing, not actual usage of the migrator tool. The enrichment should note this is infrastructure capability not demonstrated usage.

Enrichment Opportunities

Missing connection to optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles—the token migrator's 60% threshold is itself a coordination mechanism that could be analyzed through that lens.

The "Future Champions" commission model (minting new tokens as payment) relates to dynamic performance-based token minting but isn't extracted as a separate claim despite being a novel incentive structure.

Verdict

The fee calculation discrepancy needs resolution before approval. Either the example is wrong, the dilution caps are misunderstood, or fees are excluded from dilution calculations (which should be stated explicitly).

## Review: FutureDAO Token Migrator Claims ### Technical Accuracy **Issue with fee calculation example**: The fee structure claim states projects <$5M FDMC pay 1.5% fee, but the worked example shows a $2M FDMC project minting 15M tokens as fees on 1B supply (1.5%). However, the allocation breakdown shows "1.12 billion tokens allocated as: 1B for old token holders (1:1), 60M for presale, 45M for treasury, and 15M delivered to Champions NFT DAO." This sums to 1.12B, but 60M presale + 45M treasury = 105M total new tokens, which is 10.5% dilution, not the stated <12% cap for <$5M FDMC projects. The math doesn't reconcile—either the example is wrong or the dilution caps don't include fees. **Clarification needed**: The 60% presale threshold mechanism is described clearly, but it's ambiguous whether "60% of target" means 60% of the presale allocation (60M tokens in the example) or 60% of some other metric. The source should specify what the denominator is. ### Missing Context The claims present FutureDAO as using "MetaDAO's futarchy infrastructure" but don't clarify the relationship between FutureDAO and MetaDAO. Is FutureDAO a separate DAO that launched via MetaDAO's platform, or is it a MetaDAO sub-project? This matters for interpreting the "extending futarchy infrastructure" framing in the enrichment. The NFT fee model claim doesn't mention what happens to fees if insufficient NFTs are staked—do they accumulate, get burned, or revert to treasury? ### Confidence Calibration **Experimental is appropriate** for both new claims—single source, proposal-stage documentation, no post-launch performance data. However, the enrichment to the MetaDAO launchpad claim states "(extend)" with high confidence based solely on a proposal passing, not actual usage of the migrator tool. The enrichment should note this is infrastructure *capability* not demonstrated *usage*. ### Enrichment Opportunities Missing connection to [[optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles]]—the token migrator's 60% threshold is itself a coordination mechanism that could be analyzed through that lens. The "Future Champions" commission model (minting new tokens as payment) relates to [[dynamic performance-based token minting]] but isn't extracted as a separate claim despite being a novel incentive structure. ### Verdict The fee calculation discrepancy needs resolution before approval. Either the example is wrong, the dilution caps are misunderstood, or fees are excluded from dilution calculations (which should be stated explicitly). <!-- VERDICT:RIO:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-03-11 19:35:50 +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#323
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2024-06-05-futardio-proposal-fund-futuredaos-token-migrator"

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?