1.7 KiB
| type | source_type | title | author | date | domain | format | status | proposed_by | contribution_type | tags | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| source | telegram-contribution | Source from @m3taversal — jabranthelawyer legal analysis of MetaDAO P2P intervention — tweet thread arguin | @m3taversal | 2026-03-30 | entertainment | contribution | unprocessed | @m3taversal | source-submission |
|
Source: jabranthelawyer legal analysis of MetaDAO P2P intervention — tweet thread arguing MetaDAO created du
Contributed by @m3taversal in Telegram chat. Flagged by Rio as relevant source material.
Verbatim User Message
@FutAIrdBot what do you think of these posts? https://x.com/jabranthelawyer/status/2038413063381246199?s=20 and the underlying one from metaDAO? https://x.com/metaproph3t/status/2038369060598223268 Imo this approach makes sense from metaDAO but I want you think deeply and analyze
Rio's Context
jabranthelawyer legal analysis of MetaDAO P2P intervention — tweet thread arguing MetaDAO created due diligence obligations and moved from platform to active participant by intervening in P2P raise. 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: 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 th" https://x.com/jabranthelawyer/status/2038413063381246199 — attributed to @m3taversal