5 KiB
| type | source_type | title | author | url | date | domain | format | status | priority | intake_tier | rationale | proposed_by | tags | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| source | telegram | Telegram: @m3taversal — futairdbot-another-interesting-take-on-the-p2p-po | @m3taversal | https://x.com/sjdedic/status/2037819062697242729?s=46 | 2026-03-28 | entertainment | conversation | unprocessed | high | directed | another interesting take on the p2p poly market stuff | @m3taversal |
|
Conversation
@m3taversal: @FutAIrdBot another interesting take on the p2p poly market stuff https://x.com/sjdedic/status/2037819062697242729?s=46
Rio (response): Sjdedic's post is mostly vibes defense but there's one useful data point: he says he reached out to the P2P team mid last year, before the MetaDAO raise was even announced, and has been tracking them since. That's credible context for why some known figures are publicly backing the ICO. It's not astroturfing if people genuinely found the project independently before the fundraise mechanism existed.
His broader point that 9 out of 10 people commenting don't know what P2P.me actually does is probably right. The rage bait cycle around the Polymarket betting disclosure attracted a lot of drive-by takes from people who have no opinion on emerging market fiat-to-stablecoin rails and just want to argue about whether betting on your own ICO is shady.
Nothing here changes the substantive analysis though. The Polymarket bet was small, disclosed, and the real question remains whether P2P.me can execute on the product with $6M in treasury under futarchy governance. The social media discourse is noise at this point.
SOURCE: X post by @sjdedic (2025-03-27) defending P2P.me ICO participation. Says he reached out to P2P team mid-2024 before MetaDAO raise was announced, has spoken to founders regularly since. Claims 9/10 commenters on the Polymarket controversy don't understand what P2P.me does. Frames criticism as rage bait. Full text: "Funny how all of a sudden everyone is talking about @P2Pdotme just to rage bait. 9 out of 10 people commenting don't even know what the project does, yet everyone's suddenly an expert. Here are my 2 cents: I reached out to the P2P team mid last year, way before I even knew the @MetaDAOProject raise was going to happen. I found the project, was genuinely excited about what they were building and wanted to stay close. Since then, I've spoken to their founders regularly. When the ICO came aroun..." URL: https://x.com/sjdedic/status/2037819062697242729
Article Content (fetched)
Funny how all of a sudden everyone is talking about @P2Pdotme just to rage bait.
9 out of 10 people commenting don’t even know what the project does, yet everyone’s suddenly an expert.
Here are my 2 cents:
I reached out to the P2P team mid last year, way before I even knew the @MetaDAOProject raise was going to happen. I found the project, was genuinely excited about what they were building and wanted to stay close.
Since then, I’ve spoken to their founders regularly. When the ICO came around, we got convicted pretty quickly, the conviction was already there, and the MetaDAO raise gave us the opportunity to build exposure at very attractive terms with a strong setup given the ownership coin structure.
We’re now among the biggest contributors in this raise. So yes, I might be biased on what comes next:
Was the Polymarket trade by the team a stupid move?
Yes, absolutely.
Do I believe this makes them a shady, untrustworthy team?
Hell no.
There was no bad intention behind it. No one with any common sense would risk a $6M raise over $15K.
Their genuine intention was to create what they thought would be a guerrilla marketing stunt, very much in the spirit of crypto natives and trenchers. The idea was to show such strong conviction in the sale that they’d even bet on themselves. This is exactly why they intentionally named the account “P2P team.” Otherwise you’d have to argue they’re the most incompetent insider traders of all time.
Funnily enough, having spoken to this team several times, I’ve consistently been surprised by how transparent and honest they are compared to most founders I deal with. That hasn’t changed.
Neither has anything changed about P2P being a great project with real product-market fit, real traction and solving a real problem in emerging markets.
Nor has anything changed about the founding team being hardworking people that I trust.
The only thing I might question at this point is whether they should replace their marketing team.
Hope this perspective helps. I understand why people are upset. But I genuinely believe this is a small, stupid mistake on what will be a long and successful journey for them.
This too shall pass.
Agent Notes
Why archived: Tagged exchange in ownership community. Rationale from contributor: another interesting take on the p2p poly market stuff Intake tier: directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning Triage: Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.