# Futardio cult ($FUTARDIO) — Backable raise

> Machine-readable companion to https://permissionless.metadao.fi/raises/3EZBeQPQNHYkxnbrMRXG56DK1QRG8DR7VhYAUyvUFBzK
> Deal terms and escrow figures come from onchain and API records. The pitch
> is the founder's own frozen text — Backable is permissionless and nobody
> reviewed it. Listing is not endorsement.

The first futarchy governed meme coin.
We will make tokens great again

## Status

- state: OVERSUBSCRIBED
- goal (hard cap on what the project receives): $50,000
- committed: $11,402,898 across 725 backers
- demand: 228.1× the goal
- raised (received by the project): $50,000
- claimable back by backers: $11,352,898
- split of raised: $40,000 treasury · $10,000 liquidity

## The deal

- token price at goal (everyone pays this): $0.005
- MCAP at open (team package excluded): $64,500
- FDV (all tokens, locked included): $89,500
- total supply (fixed; minting needs a market-approved proposal): 17,900,000
- supply split: backers 10,000,000 (55.9%) · liquidity 2,900,000 (16.2%) · team 5,000,000 (27.9%)
- share of supply sold to backers: 55.9%
- team lock before any unlock: 18 months
- unlock ladder (3-month TWAP must hold each price): 2× → $0.01 · 4× → $0.02 · 8× → $0.04 · 16× → $0.08 · 32× → $0.16
- monthly budget after funding (onchain ceiling): $2,500
- at close (escrow releases): $40,000 to treasury (80.0%) · $10,000 seeds liquidity
- runway at that budget: ~16.0 months

## Protections (identical for every raise)

- Commitments sit in escrow; the team receives $0 unless the goal is met.
- Goal missed → every backer claims back 100% of principal. The claim is a
  transaction the backer sends themselves; nothing arrives automatically,
  nobody can refuse it, and there is no deadline.
- After funding, spending above the published monthly budget requires a
  proposal decided by decision markets, not by the team.
- Tokens are not equity and may be worth nothing.

## What the token is, and is not

Both halves matter, and reading either alone gives the wrong answer.

**It is not** a security, equity, loan or ownership interest. Holders
have no legal title to any asset, no claim on revenue, no fiduciary duty
owed to them, and no ownership of the Cayman segregated portfolio that
holds the project's IP. There is no promise of return, buyback or
future utility.

**It is** a governance claim in a decision market. The treasury is
governed by that market rather than by the team, spending above the
published monthly budget has to pass it, and the segregated portfolio is
contractually required to abide by certain of its determinations. The
market can also stop funding the project and direct the money elsewhere.

So "the DAO controls X" and "holders own nothing" are both accurate: the
first is control through the mechanism, the second is legal title.

**The mechanism is the top of the stack.** The constraints above are the
structure's current settings, not its ceiling — the operating documents
are themselves subject to the decision market, within the scope those
documents define. This is the point most readers miss, and it cuts in
both directions, which is why it is not a reassurance:

- The market can authorise things nobody promised at the raise.
- The market can also withdraw things a backer assumed. It "may revoke
  funds out of the pool at any time, or may cease using the funds for the
  currently contemplated project" (fundraise terms, paragraph 5).
- Governance power is not legal effect. The market deciding to do a thing
  does not by itself make that thing lawful or effective; anything with
  its own regulatory path still has to travel it.

The correct reading is therefore not "the page and the terms contradict
each other" but "nothing here is fixed except the escrow and the claim."
Score the raise on that basis. A page describing what the mechanism could
authorise is not making a promise; a page claiming holders *own* an asset
outright is overstating it, and that is still worth flagging.

## Diligence signals

- disclosure score (mechanical — counts what the founder chose to show, not idea quality): 1/9 — missing: six required answers, market size cites a source, a metric with a date, a founder-stated risk, a named, linked team member, founder reachable, demo, docs or code linked, B1 filing published
- B1 transparency filing: not filed (predates the requirement)
- concentration: top wallet DxWTJdhY1tmTM67Z9c3jmiw9u5gfhQsNRgZ1cEYedKww holds 9.1% of committed capital (sample: first 200 funding records)
- vetting: none — anyone can publish a raise for $15; do your own research

## Founder claims (unverified — absence is itself a disclosure)

- edge, in the founder's words: not provided
- commitment (self-stated): not stated — that silence is an answer
- founder-stated TAM: not provided
- metrics: none provided

## Onchain

- raise: 3EZBeQPQNHYkxnbrMRXG56DK1QRG8DR7VhYAUyvUFBzK (v0.7)
- token mint: Cbjr1Nvcay3QWDriyRKtokJ7V4PMknesGxeK8z7Zmeta
- quote mint: EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v
- base vault: 4KTW8188nBHdbJe9X9X24Eoyjoa4MtfrravdAUd6dCVg
- quote vault: uETvACWh4eT2YEiTT9gggfwd7P2EvyqVqzcz6Lkx6L5
- authority: LRrTQLqFzAPxjschuAKQAqH1XHBuBgHqwhybENStARt

## Founder's pitch (verbatim, frozen at publish, unreviewed)

• Funds will be used for a variety of different things incuding fan merch, token listings, private events/partys for futards

## How the mechanism works

- https://permissionless.metadao.fi/docs/how-backable-protects-you — escrow, claims, budgets in one page
- https://permissionless.metadao.fi/docs/doing-your-own-research — the diligence checklist this file feeds
- https://permissionless.metadao.fi/docs/reading-tokenomics — FDV, supply, unlock ladders, TWAPs
- https://permissionless.metadao.fi/docs/committed-vs-raised — why committed and raised differ