---
type: evidence
source: "https://www.metadao.fi/projects/ranger/proposal/DPATwR2HLcGZCBZCTffzagV4r7dp5FF2C9aJmiuCDUpS"
author: "Group of RNGR tokenholders"
date: 2026-03-03
archived_by: rio
tags: [ranger, liquidation, futarchy, misrepresentation, unruggable-ICO, decision-market]
status: processed
claims_extracted:
  - "Futarchy can override its own prior decisions when new evidence emerges because conditional markets re-evaluate proposals against current information not historical commitments"
  - "Futarchy-governed liquidation is the enforcement mechanism that makes unruggable ICOs credible because investors can force full treasury return when teams materially misrepresent"
---

# Ranger Finance Liquidation Proposal — Full Text

## Market Data (as of Mar 5 2026)

- Total Volume: $581.04K
- Pass Likelihood: 97%
- Pass Price: $0.7440 (+0.32%) | Spot: $0.7416 | Fail Price: $0.6759 (-8.86%)
- Approve TWAP: $0.7278 | Reject TWAP: $0.6651
- Passing at +9.4348% (threshold: +3%)

## Summary

This proposal nullifies a prior 90-day restriction on buybacks/liquidations and proposes full liquidation of Ranger Finance. Authored by a group of RNGR tokenholders alleging material misrepresentations.

## Allegations

At ICO time, Ranger was marketed as:
- A business with meaningful product-market fit
- A business with sustainable revenue generation and significant actual revenue
- A business primarily needing capital to scale

Tokenholders allege this was misleading:
- Co-founder FA2 stated "we are close to doing $5 billion in volume this year" and showed "$2m revenue" on slides
- On-chain analysis shows 2025 volume was ~$2B (not $5B) and revenue was ~$500K (not $2M)
- Volume and revenue per day were down over 90% between ICO announcement (Nov 2025) and the presentation (Dec 2025)
- Co-founder Coby later claimed numbers were "projected" based on expectations for a "traditional ICO route"
- Multiple team members (Maker, Luke, FA2) communicated the $2M figure without correction
- Activity across perps and spot "declined to close to 0 following the ICO announcement" — indicating users were farmers, not organic

## Proposed Liquidation Plan

**Part 1: Return treasury funds to tokenholders**
- No further team spending from future allowances (existing $500K released allowances can be used)
- Snapshot of vested token balances 1 week after voting period
- Remove protocol-owned liquidity, add USDC to treasury
- Calculate book value per token
- Open redemption for tokenholders at book value
- Expected book value: $0.75 - $0.82 per token
- Expected eligible tokens: 5.8-6.4M (excluding unvested, locked, protocol-owned)
- Treasury USDC: ~$3.5M + $1.2-1.6M from LP removal
- After 18 months, MetaDAO team discretion on unclaimed USDC

**Part 2: Return all other assets to Glint House PTE. LTD**
- IP, trademarks, domain names, source code, infrastructure return to original company
- Majority developed/acquired prior to ICO with seed investments

## Rio's assessment

- Watershed moment for the futarchy thesis: the "unruggable ICO" mechanism unrugging in production
- 97% pass likelihood with $581K volume = strong consensus with real capital, not thin market
- The mechanism is protecting investors FROM team extraction — inverse of the majority-theft protection
- Proposal nullifies its own prior 90-day restriction = futarchy can self-correct when evidence changes
- Clean separation: USDC to tokenholders, IP to original company — executable liquidation mechanism
- The specific misrepresentation evidence (screenshots, on-chain data, team quotes) is the kind of verifiable claim that makes futarchy governance credible
- New claim: futarchy-governed liquidation as enforcement for unruggable ICOs
- Enriches: decision markets, trustless joint ownership, MetaDAO platform analysis