teleo-codex/inbox/queue/2026-03-30-tg-shared-jabranthelawyer-2038413063381246199-s-20.md

type	source_type	title	author	url	date	domain	format	status	proposed_by	contribution_type	tags	processed_by	processed_date	claims_extracted	extraction_model
source	x-tweet	@jabranthelawyer — shared via Telegram by @m3taversal	@jabranthelawyer	https://x.com/jabranthelawyer/status/2038413063381246199?s=20	2026-03-30	internet-finance	social-media	processed	@m3taversal	source-submission	telegram-shared x-tweet governance	rio	2026-03-30	fundraising-platform-active-involvement-creates-due-diligence-liability-through-conduct-based-regulatory-interpretation.md	anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

@jabranthelawyer — Tweet/Thread

Shared by @m3taversal via Telegram. Source URL: https://x.com/jabranthelawyer/status/2038413063381246199?s=20

Content

Few thoughts if I was MetaDAO's lawyer:

1. P2P did something objectively wrong. Whether illegal TBC but possible

2. Regulators look at conduct and by exercising control, it creates bad precedent in two ways here:

A) They've moved from simply a "fundraising platform" to one actively involved in raise

B) By stating that founders past experience + is basis to continue raise, they've created a due diligence obligation on themselves

• Best to check the indemnities founders provide to ensure they're covered because all of this has just increased MetaDAO's risk profile unnecessarily imo

Key Facts

• A lawyer reviewing MetaDAO's handling of the P2P situation stated 'P2P did something objectively wrong. Whether illegal TBC but possible'
• The lawyer recommended MetaDAO check indemnities from founders to ensure coverage for increased risk exposure