Brewtoshi

The framing of this tweet shows a misunderstanding of what @MetaDAOProject's value proposition actually is. Some key points: 1. Futarchy isn't for everyone (and that's okay). If you have access to VCs and can raise capital traditionally, you are probably not launching on MetaDAO or *any other launchpad*. That said, by raising traditionally, founders will often encounter additional friction later on in the form of a dual equity-token structure, a low float-high FDV token, and a suboptimal token design overall, which will be punished by investors in liquid markets. You either have friction now or friction later (h/t @metanallok for the framing). 2. The way raises are structured on MetaDAO minimizes information asymmetry between founders & investors. By raising on MetaDAO, (a) founders can raise more capital from higher-quality investors and (b) investors can take higher risks on unknowns. Conversely, think about why an investor would back a founder on a launchpad like Believe? Tokens are explicitly structured as memecoins, with no equity or financial upside in the business for tokenholders. People launching there know this, which means they are most likely adversely selected. MetaDAO fixes this adverse selection issue by adding a mechanistic protection against treasury rugs and providing tokenholders with legal recourse. 3. Founders don't lose autonomy (but they don't get carte blanche either). When a founder conducts a raise on MetaDAO, they must set a monthly burn rate that they can spend without requiring governance bottlenecks. If they want to spend more than their limit or increase their burn rate, then a conditional market is needed. This design minimizes the risks of rugs while ensuring founders and teams can still operate efficiently. E.g., a founder raises $1 million with a monthly burn rate of $20k. Let's say they want to run away with the money, disappear, etc., as soon as they complete the raise, tokenholders would still be able to recover 98% of their capital. see mtnCapital as a case study where tokenholders were able to enforce their rights and get back their capital. 4. Futarchy can lead to improved decision-making, but ultimately, it's still a form of governance, not a replacement for existing organizational structures. Product and strategy decisions should still be left to the core team, and as we saw above, they are. Think of futarchy as a way of aligning incentives between tokenholders and the team, and empowering tokenholders to exercise their rights when necessary. Futarchy doesn't guarantee a startup will be successful, but it does improve coordination between founders & investors, accelerating capital formation. teapawt.net/0xcarlosg/status/19712… 5. "Futarchy is a temporary solution to a temporary problem (which goes away with a single regulation)". This argument is just silly. It's like saying Bitcoin is a temporary solution until central banks decide to stop printing money. Instead of waiting for the state or regulators to enact legal protections for tokenholders as those enjoyed by shareholders (right to vote, receive dividends, etc.), futarchic organizations that raise on MetaDAO can credibly and effectively operate in the interest of tokenholders as part of a post-legal system. The solution is not temporary. If you just sit by waiting for regulators to magically fix everything that's wrong with tokens today, you are in for a rude awakening.