teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 13 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1
teleo-codex/entities/internet-finance/metadao-otc-trade-pantera-capital.md
Teleo Agents cd5b061567 rio: extract from 2024-02-18-futardio-proposal-engage-in-50000-otc-trade-with-pantera-capital.md 
- Source: inbox/archive/2024-02-18-futardio-proposal-engage-in-50000-otc-trade-with-pantera-capital.md
- Domain: internet-finance
- Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 6)

Pentagon-Agent: Rio <HEADLESS>
2026-03-11 21:27:10 +00:00

2.6 KiB
Raw Blame History

type entity_type name domain status parent_entity platform proposer proposal_url proposal_date resolution_date category summary tracked_by created
entity decision_market MetaDAO: Engage in $50,000 OTC Trade with Pantera Capital internet-finance failed metadao futardio HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz https://www.futard.io/proposal/H59VHchVsy8UVLotZLs7YaFv2FqTH5HAeXc4Y48kxieY 2024-02-18 2024-02-23 fundraise Pantera Capital proposed acquiring $50,000 USDC worth of META tokens through OTC trade with 20% immediate transfer and 80% vested over 12 months rio 2026-03-11

MetaDAO: Engage in $50,000 OTC Trade with Pantera Capital

Summary

Pantera Capital proposed a $50,000 OTC purchase of META tokens from The Meta-DAO treasury, structured as 20% immediate transfer and 80% linear vesting over 12 months. The price per META was to be determined as the minimum of the average TWAP of pass/fail markets and $100. The proposal failed, indicating market rejection of the terms or strategic direction.

Market Data

  • Outcome: Failed
  • Proposer: HfFi634cyurmVVDr9frwu4MjGLJzz9XbAJz981HdVaNz
  • Amount: $50,000 USDC
  • Price Formula: min((twapPass + twapFail) / 2, 100)
  • Vesting: 20% immediate, 80% linear over 12 months via Streamflow
  • META Spot Price (2024-02-17): $96.93
  • META Circulating Supply: 14,530

Significance

This proposal represents an early attempt at institutional capital entry into futarchy-governed DAOs through structured OTC deals. The failure is notable because it suggests either:

  1. Market skepticism about the valuation terms (price cap at $100 vs spot of $96.93)
  2. Concern about dilution impact on existing holders
  3. Strategic disagreement with bringing institutional capital into governance

The proposal included sophisticated execution mechanics (multisig custody, TWAP-based pricing, Streamflow vesting) that became templates for later fundraising structures. The involvement of multiple community members (0xNallok, 7Layer, Proph3t) as multisig signers showed early governance scaffolding.

Relationship to KB