m3taversal
1a31bc0f4d
Changes that missed PR #1750 merge: Dean's List (8 records): - 6 full text backfills + 2 new (Treasury De-Risking, Liquidity Fee Structure) ORE (4 records): - 2 full text backfills + 2 new (USDC-ORE Boost, Sublinear Supply Function) coal (4 records): - 4 full text backfills URL migration (75 files): - All proposal_url fields migrated from dead futard.io to v1.metadao.fi - Pattern: futard.io/proposal/{key} → v1.metadao.fi/{project}/trade/{key} - futard.io returns 404; v1.metadao.fi returns 200 Pentagon-Agent: Rio <5551F5AF-0C5C-429F-8915-1FE74A00E019>
50 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
50 lines
2.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: decision
|
|
entity_type: decision_market
|
|
name: "MetaDAO: Should MetaDAO Create Futardio?"
|
|
domain: internet-finance
|
|
status: failed
|
|
tracked_by: rio
|
|
created: 2026-03-11
|
|
last_updated: 2026-03-11
|
|
parent_entity: "[[metadao]]"
|
|
platform: "futardio"
|
|
proposer: "unknown"
|
|
proposal_url: "https://v1.metadao.fi/MetaDAO/trade/zN9Uft1zEsh9h7Wspeg5bTNirBBvtBTaJ6i5KcEnbAb"
|
|
proposal_date: 2024-11-21
|
|
resolution_date: 2024-11-25
|
|
category: strategy
|
|
summary: "Minimal proposal to create Futardio — failed, likely due to lack of specification and justification"
|
|
tags: ["futarchy", "futardio", "governance-filtering"]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# MetaDAO: Should MetaDAO Create Futardio?
|
|
|
|
## Summary
|
|
A minimal one-sentence proposal: "Futardio is a great idea and needs to happen." Filed under the "Program" category. Failed within 4 days. No budget, no specification, no implementation plan. The proposer identity is not associated with core team members.
|
|
|
|
## Market Data
|
|
- **Outcome:** Failed (2024-11-25)
|
|
- **Autocrat version:** 0.3
|
|
- **Key participants:** Unknown proposer
|
|
|
|
## Significance
|
|
This failed proposal is more informative than many that passed. It demonstrates futarchy's quality filtering function — the market rejected an unsubstantiated proposal despite the concept (Futardio/permissionless launchpad) eventually being approved three months later with proper specification (see [[metadao-release-launchpad]]). The market distinguished between "good idea" and "well-specified proposal," rejecting the former and approving the latter.
|
|
|
|
This is concrete evidence against the criticism that futarchy markets are easily manipulated or that token holders vote based on vibes rather than substance. The failure also shows that non-founder community members can propose, even if their proposals face higher scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Note: The later "Release a Launchpad" proposal (2025-02-26) by Proph3t and Kollan succeeded — same concept, dramatically better specification.
|
|
|
|
## Relationship to KB
|
|
- [[metadao]] — governance decision, quality filtering
|
|
- [[futarchy adoption faces friction from token price psychology proposal complexity and liquidity requirements]] — this proposal was too simple to pass
|
|
- [[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]] — the market correctly filtered a low-quality proposal
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Relevant Entities:
|
|
- [[metadao]] — parent organization
|
|
- [[futardio]] — the entity that was eventually created
|
|
|
|
Topics:
|
|
- [[internet finance and decision markets]]
|