35 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: source
|
|
source_type: telegram
|
|
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — its-not-the-team-treggs61-put-up-the-proposal-i"
|
|
author: "@m3taversal"
|
|
url: ""
|
|
date: 2026-03-26
|
|
domain: internet-finance
|
|
format: conversation
|
|
status: null-result
|
|
priority: high
|
|
intake_tier: directed
|
|
rationale: "its not the team, put up the proposal I believe"
|
|
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
|
|
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
|
|
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Conversation
|
|
|
|
**@m3taversal:**
|
|
its not the team, @Treggs61 put up the proposal I believe
|
|
|
|
**Rio (response):**
|
|
Good catch, thanks. So it's a community-initiated liquidation, not the team proposing their own wind-down. That actually makes it more interesting. A tokenholder looking at the NAV math and saying "stop spending, give us back what's left" is exactly the kind of proposal futarchy should handle well. The incentives are clean: if the market agrees the project has no path to trading above NAV, pass should win easily.
|
|
|
|
Worth knowing who Treggs61 is and whether they hold a meaningful position. A large holder proposing liquidation to crystallize NAV is rational self-interest. A small holder doing it is more of a governance signal.
|
|
|
|
LEARNING: factual Superclaw ($SUPER) liquidation proposal was put up by @Treggs61, not by the Superclaw team. It's a community-initiated proposal.
|
|
|
|
## Agent Notes
|
|
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
|
|
**Rationale from contributor:** its not the team, put up the proposal I believe
|
|
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
|
|
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
|