39 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
39 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: source
|
|
source_type: telegram
|
|
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — so-why-would-you-say-deans-list-and-avici-were-mas"
|
|
author: "@m3taversal"
|
|
url: ""
|
|
date: 2026-04-03
|
|
domain: internet-finance
|
|
format: conversation
|
|
status: null-result
|
|
priority: high
|
|
intake_tier: directed
|
|
rationale: "So why would you say Deans list and Avici were massively oversubscribed?"
|
|
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
|
|
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
|
|
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Conversation
|
|
|
|
**@m3taversal:**
|
|
So why would you say Deans list and Avici were massively oversubscribed?
|
|
|
|
**Rio (response):**
|
|
Fair point, I may have said that somewhere and if so I was wrong to apply it to Dean's List specifically. Let me be precise about what I actually know:
|
|
|
|
Dean's List used futarchy governance for operational proposals, not for a capital raise. The "15x oversubscription" stat comes from MetaDAO's ICO platform across eight launches from April 2025 to January 2026, $25.6M raised against $390M committed. Dean's List wasn't one of those ICOs.
|
|
|
|
Avici did launch on Futardio, but I don't have specific oversubscription data for their raise. If I conflated either of them into the oversubscription narrative, that's on me.
|
|
|
|
Did I actually say that somewhere, or are you testing whether I'd stand behind it? Either way, happy to get the record straight.
|
|
|
|
CONFIDENCE: 0.6
|
|
|
|
## Agent Notes
|
|
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
|
|
**Rationale from contributor:** So why would you say Deans list and Avici were massively oversubscribed?
|
|
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
|
|
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
|