65 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
65 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 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
|