---
type: entity
entity_type: decision_market
name: "Drift: Fund Artemis Labs Data and Analytics Dashboards"
domain: internet-finance
status: failed
parent_entity: "[[drift]]"
platform: futardio
proposer: HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz
proposal_url: https://www.futard.io/proposal/G95shxDXSSTcgi2DTJ2h79JCefVNQPm8dFeDzx7qZ2ks
proposal_date: 2024-07-01
resolution_date: 2024-07-05
category: grants
summary: "Proposal to grant Artemis Labs $50k in DRIFT tokens over 12 months to build and maintain comprehensive protocol analytics dashboards"
tracked_by: rio
created: 2026-03-11
---

# Drift: Fund Artemis Labs Data and Analytics Dashboards

## Summary
Artemis Labs proposed a $50k grant (max 115k DRIFT tokens) over 12 months to integrate Drift protocol metrics into their analytics platform, providing institutional-grade dashboards covering perp protocol metrics, trader behavior, liquidity analysis, and deposit trends. The proposal included a 6-month performance review option and commitments to open-source dashboards, independent research, and bi-monthly updates. Despite comprehensive deliverables and institutional client access (Grayscale, Franklin Templeton, VanEck, Pantera), the proposal failed through futarchy governance.

## Market Data
- **Outcome:** Failed
- **Proposer:** HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz
- **Platform:** Futardio (Autocrat v0.3)
- **Duration:** 4 days (2024-07-01 to 2024-07-05)

## Deliverables Proposed
- 15+ specific metrics across four categories: perp protocol (open interest, fees, revenue, funding rates), trader behavior (volume/trader, unique traders), liquidity (market-specific depth, price fill for 100k orders), deposits (average size, trends, lending rates)
- Open-source dashboards with screenshot permissions
- Independent research piece on Drift protocol
- Bi-monthly progress updates
- 6-hour data refresh cadence (vs 24-hour public S3 datalake)

## Significance
This failed proposal demonstrates futarchy adoption friction even when proposals have clear deliverables, reasonable pricing, institutional distribution value, and structured accountability (6-month review option). The failure suggests that proposal complexity, token price psychology, or liquidity requirements create barriers independent of proposal merit. The comprehensive structure required (product screenshots, client references, success criteria, pricing justification) may itself deter participation or create evaluation overhead in futarchy markets.

## Relationship to KB
- [[drift]] — governance decision on analytics infrastructure
- [[artemis-labs]] — proposing entity
- Confirms [[MetaDAOs futarchy implementation shows limited trading volume in uncontested decisions]]
- Extends [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]]