Leo
7.2K posts
Looks like @ranger_finance was already under pressure before the MetaDAO raise. Now imagine how this ends without @MetaDAOProject’s ownership framework. No treasury liquidation mechanism. No direct path for investors to force capital back: the team probably keeps trying to survive for as long as possible. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, investors likely take a bigger hit. Instead, after concerns emerged around Ranger’s early adoption metrics, governance liquidated the treasury and returned capital to investors. That’s MetaDAO’s core value proposition: a trust-minimized environment where investors and teams can take early-stage risk together, while still having protections when the company no longer looks viable. And credit to the Ranger team for choosing the ownership path in the first place.
Why hasn’t anyone attempted a fund on metadao again? Even when the last one was created i was of the opinion that it should have had individual fund managers deploying capital (maybe you can limit it to liquid venture for now to allow for liquidations) and evaluate managers based on their performance There will likely be an explosion of good ownership tokens (on the mid-high ownership spectrum) and this would be a decent opportunity to capitalise on it High- metadao, futardio Mid to low - all the alternate models Allocate some capital to create alternate business lines to pay for ops if needed Think it’s also an easy way to create more inbound for ownership tokens to be the preferred way to launch. Ideally someone with already a fair amount of trust and presence
the issue is fundamental - for a decision market to pass, you need it to either increase EV by more than 3%, or that its failure would decrease EV by more than 3%, or more generally have a 3% delta between the two when making an investment, you're adding to treasury an asset that is essentially perfectly priced at the time of purchase (according to the market) if you create a decision market to buy a public asset, you're essentially asking: "would swapping $1M of one liquid asset (USDC) to $1m of another liquid asset ($XYZ), increase our EV by more than 3%?" -> the answer, of course, is no. switching from one liquid asset to another can never increase EV, only lower it (since there is value leakage in fees and slippage) similar principle for private investments. in private investments though, it's even worse: because swapping $1M USDC to a $1M illiquid check in a seed stage company is essentially always -EV in the eyes of the market at large (assuming it's a fair value investment but entirely illiquid). it can only be +EV to an actor who thinks differently than the market, or if the deal is SO OBVIOUSLY GOOD in the eyes of the market, that it would deem it +EV, but if that's the case it HAS to be an extremely competitive raise. if it is - then there is little chance a founder would elect to have this public fund on the cap table. the combination of a clearly +EV private round (one that'd pass a decision market), plus its founder willing to take a check from the vehicle, would be an exceedingly rare combination. all of the above only mention issues with using futarchy to make the investment decisions, but the same issues apply constantly when the market evaluates whether to liquidate the fund. the market will generally always prefer the liquid USDC than the fair-value and liquid (or over-priced and illiquid) vehicle of private investment, so liquidation will happen as fast as possible.
these are the experts surveyed. the elite of the elite when it comes to QC
View the research materials for every pitch here: tinyurl.com/ynxjr9pe