Antares

Trade idea - Long $ACX at buyout price Across Protocol converting from DAO → US C-corp. Token holders choose: sell at $0.04375 USDC (25% premium to 30-day avg) or convert to equity 1:1. The trade: → Buyout price = soft floor now, hard floor in ~3 months when window opens → Downside capped at ~$0.04375 — someone is literally offering to buy your tokens there → Upside uncapped — market reprices ACX as equity in a real company with revenue, institutional partnerships, enforceable contracts Capped downside. Uncapped upside.

@0xElude what's the sale's valuation

@dcfgod @Cbb0fe 32M/y in profits is using q4 forecast by team

32M/y profits on top of a 50M treasury built up already The “foundation contribution” is what goes to buybacks so it’s already considered a cost before the profit line All assuming eth $2k too With no investor vests left and all metrics breaking ATH on the cash business Trades at like 5-6x revenues when hype trades at like 60x

Etherfi would be 3-5x higher based on metrics / revenues alone… but they said $50m buybacks and have suddenly stopped them Team needs to be more true to their word to trust the token The scroll - optimism migration is likely why But need to see them get way more aggressive w buybacks than this $30k per few days recent work. Note: dcf cap seeded etherfi and has only been buying more. Someday it’ll happen.

@mrinko 10 billions

when metadao hits a billion dollar market cap i will build a statue of our holy prophet and place it in salt lake city, the cradle of futarchic civilization

Who are the must follows on Twitter in the $tao ecosystem?

@XeroMaxi @andy8052 @metaproph3t @radiosolace No it needs good projects, sticky capital comes as a consequence

@andy8052 @AntaresIntel @metaproph3t @radiosolace Futarchy needs patient capital

Futarchy is interesting in theory, but one of the most common actual use cases so far has been: Use startup treasury to buy back the token Here are some stats: Ranger Finance = $2.0M Loyal = $1.5M Solomon = $1.0M P2P = $500K Paystream = $225K Ranger is still the best example - $2M buyback passed right after a huge raise then liquidated. This is not innovation. It is mostly treasury money being used to support the chart. Again, this is not me saying futarchy or @MetaDAOProject is bad. I am saying the most common real outputs so far has been buybacks, and for startups that is usually redacted capital allocation. Startup money should fund product, growth, distribution, runway, and users, not self bidding your own token because holders want exit liquidity. Honestly, in cases like this, high integrity founders with actual judgment should make better decisions than token holders because if the market’s smartest answer keeps being buy back our own coin, maybe the market is not that smart.

@andy8052 @metaproph3t @radiosolace No distinction between the two in markets

@AntaresIntel @metaproph3t @radiosolace Current buybacks just encourages scalpers looking for a risk free trade and not long term believers

MetaDAO reminds me of a classic idea from Charlie Munger about cash registers. Before cash registers, clerks handled money manually and small amounts would often “go missing.” Not because people were bad, but because the system made it easy to rationalize it: small, untracked amounts, no immediate visibility, and no clear sense of being caught. Cash registers didn’t rely on better behavior. They changed the system, making theft harder and accountability automatic. That’s the same intuition behind MetaDAO. It’s not about assuming founders are bad, it’s about designing a system where misalignment is constrained and outcomes are enforced. Good systems > good intentions.

@andy8052 @metaproph3t @radiosolace Structure in which token don’t automatically fall would be the better fix

@AntaresIntel @metaproph3t @radiosolace Yeah I don't think buybacks in their current form are the right structure

I believe tokens can be a powerful form of capital formation. I also believe that issuing tokens with no structural constraints leads to misalignment and, most of the time, investors getting rugged. That’s not sustainable. Are immediate buybacks the optimal outcome? No. Are they the right response when price trades below treasury backing? Yes. The buyback isn’t the problem. Even if I don’t think it matters that much, the better question is why is price trading below treasury right after launch? It could be market conditions. It could be overfunding. It could be that some projects just aren’t good enough. What actually matters is building a robust system for capital formation at scale. Because global, open capital markets are an incredibly powerful goal: they expand access to funding and opportunity to anyone. But without the right structure, they quickly become dysfunctional.

@AntaresIntel @metaproph3t @radiosolace So you genuinely believe that in highly competitive fields like privacy and payments teams are best set up to win meaningful share by using raised funds for token buybacks within months of TGE?

@metaproph3t @andy8052 @radiosolace not reasonable at all

@andy8052 @radiosolace This is a reasonable take, and there are universes in which it is true My view is that the internet capital market environment is too fraught with information asymmetry for it to be the case, but yeah we shall see!

@andy8052 @metaproph3t @radiosolace awful take

@metaproph3t @radiosolace Imo the rug risk is just part of the deal Any token early stage that is actively using their funds for buybacks is just wasting everyone’s times imo

Interesting proposal just passed in @AcrossProtocol to convert tokens to tradfi equity, but participation is limited only to the wealthiest ~1.6% of wallets - everyone else can choose to be bought out, likely below book value Here is what the proposal does: - Offers ACX holders the choice to be bought out at 0.04375, or convert their shares to US C-Corp equity - The remainder of the treasury, less buyback amount, goes to new C-Corp - Holders who don't act within six months get rugged (not confirmed, but team refuses to answer so probably safe to assume - happy if wrong) - Holders with more than 5m ACX (~$218,750) can convert freely. Everyone else is subject to a cap — only 100 US and 500 non-US participants are allowed to convert - Holders with less than 250k ACX (~$11k) cannot convert to equity and must choose the buyout Holders have asked continuously for treasury details since the proposal has gone live but Risk Labs (the team) has repeatedly refused to share. What we do know is Risk Labs has raised $51M in ACX VC sales over the years, and the buyout only requires roughly $30M to fund - meaning the NAV could be far higher The problem is, ~98.4% of eligible wallets (excluding treasury wallets, exchange wallets I could find, and dust wallets holding < 1 ACX) hold fewer than 250k ACX - and are forced to accept this price without knowing if it is fair, while the team and whales retain the IP premium, the tradfi equity upside, and get a higher NAV in the new company I encourage Risk Labs to engage with the community transparently. Refusing to share treasury details only reinforces the notion that something shady is going on. If the actual NAV is 0.04375, then there is nothing to hide. If it is not, make things right by: - Disclosing the treasury amount transparently - If legally it is not possible to open equity conversion to all wallets, giving full NAV to all those who are forced to redeem - Increasing the redemption window to 1 year+ so dormant holders don't get rugged

@ethanrkho Congrats

@radiosolace @01Resolved That’s by design, futarchy is there mainly to avoid burning investors money

@01Resolved Same. Sadly, I think 80% of the proposal in the future will still be buyback when the product is just the market cap.

“Just trust the founders” has been the default and it’s led to misalignment, poor capital allocation, and frequent rugs. MetaDAO flips that by removing the need for trust: futarchy keeps capital accountable and lets markets price outcomes. Yes, this introduces new tradeoffs (like overfunding), but those get corrected post-launch (buybacks/unwinds). Reverting to trust-based models isn’t a fix, it’s the problem MetaDAO is trying to solve.

metadao is the end-state for this "capital as a service" idea that chamath describes @MetaDAOProject is an online fundraising platform that lets anyone, anywhere create a legal entity and raise money from the internet if kickstarter, goldman sachs, and the us legal system had a prophetic child, it would look something like metadao crypto already solved for instant capital with platforms like pump fun. today, you can go on pump's website, click a few buttons, and raise money in seconds. that's pretty cool the only problem is these platforms are full of scams. they make it way too easy for people to just take the money and run metadao is different. it built a platform that preserves pump's permissionless nature -- "click button and launch coin" -- while at the same time protecting investors from getting scammed metadao solves this with decision markets when a startup raises money on metadao, the capital goes into an onchain treasury. the money is then protected by the market every time a startup wants to make a big spend from the treasury, they must pass the decision by the market in practice, it looks like this: say, a founder wants to full stack their entire raise amount ($1m) on a yacht in miami. the founder would submit a proposal to the market -- "spend $1m on marketing yacht" this would trigger a decision market on the proposal -- "price of startup token ABC if proposal passes" and "price of startup token ABC if proposal fails". at the end of the trading period, whichever price is higher wins and the corresponding decision is adopted decision markets protect investors. they eliminate entire classes of scams like "the founder spent all the money on a yacht" metadao is building a world where a 19 year old kid in lagos can launch a company, raise $2m from 10,000 strangers, and every dollar is governed by a market smarter than any board of directors. where a founder who tries to buy a yacht with the treasury gets stopped not by a strongly worded email from a lawyer, but by a price signal that moves faster than he can swipe his card. where investor protection is not some archaic legal document that nobody reads but transparent impartial self-executing code that runs perpetually onchain futardio

@therealchaseeb @mrinko @MetaDAOProject You’d do that in tranches + once you team looses investor trust they just get liquidated

@mrinko @MetaDAOProject How does metadao protect against misuse of funds. Fox example, decision market on a $1,000,000 marketing/growth spend, where the money is actually secretly used to buy that yacht in Miami. Is this purely up to the investors to demand proof?

@MetaDAOProject is solving this onchain, it's basically ICOs done right. Investors connect a wallet and deploy capital into token sales from anywhere. No SPVs, no jurisdiction-specific fund vehicles, no legal wrapper per deal. But unlike 2017 ICOs, the money doesn't just go to the team and hope for the best. Funds sit in a governed treasury with controlled burn rates. Major decisions go through conditional markets that price whether they're accretive and execute automatically. If the team doesn't deliver, the market can wind down the treasury and return capital to investors.

In the mid 2010s, I experimented with something I called Capital as a Service (CaaS). Companies sent us their data, we ran it over a bunch of rules and sent back an automated investment decision. We funded more than 50 companies. That portfolio returned more than 2x DPI and generated a mid-teens IRR. What didn’t work: the load and cost of setting up and managing all the blockers and legal entities necessary to invest around the world. Once this gets fixed, CaaS is the way to go.

@burstingbagel @metaproph3t @alliance Could be interesting if every qualified project was to launch on futardio (or colosseum ad hoc launcher) and after 1 month colosseum had the chance to invest at a predetermined valuation

@AntaresIntel @metaproph3t @alliance True. I forgot about them

@burstingbagel @metaproph3t @alliance colosseum is metadao adjacent and better positioned to do this

@metaproph3t You guys should offer something similar to the YC program. Or partner with @alliance (Basically yc for crypto) and offer fundraising for each one of the project's after demo day