# Markov ($MRKV) — Backable raise

> Machine-readable companion to https://permissionless.metadao.fi/raises/F8FPTKDGdTFvqXX3Ff9sirYod5jWNQzJKbc5VXLzWjKc
> 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.

Agents and strategists trade capital they can never withdraw. Onchain policy, receipts, kill switch.

## Status

- state: CLAIMABLE
- goal (hard cap on what the project receives): $35,000
- committed: $441 across 2 backers
- raised (received by the project): $0
- claimable back by backers: $441

## The deal

- token price at goal (everyone pays this): $0.0035
- MCAP at open (team package excluded): $45,150
- FDV (all tokens, locked included): $66,150
- total supply (fixed; minting needs a market-approved proposal): 18,900,000
- supply split: backers 10,000,000 (52.9%) · liquidity 2,900,000 (15.3%) · team 6,000,000 (31.7%)
- share of supply sold to backers: 52.9%
- team lock before any unlock: 24 months
- unlock ladder (3-month TWAP must hold each price): 2× → $0.007 · 4× → $0.014 · 8× → $0.028 · 16× → $0.056 · 32× → $0.112
- monthly budget after funding (onchain ceiling): $4,000
- at close (escrow releases): $28,000 to treasury (80.0%) · $7,000 seeds liquidity
- runway at that budget: ~7.0 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): 2/9 — missing: six required answers, market size cites a source, a metric with a date, a founder-stated risk, a named, linked team member, demo, docs or code linked, legal entity named
- B1 transparency filing: filed
- concentration: top wallet G4UFZaQRqRra9G4x3kpAeLQuh6PCCFf3n1KTWQLdFyLu holds 98.9% of committed capital (sample: first 2 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

## Links (founder-provided — verify control yourself)

- website: https://markov.fyi/
- x: https://x.com/markovfyi

## Onchain

- raise: F8FPTKDGdTFvqXX3Ff9sirYod5jWNQzJKbc5VXLzWjKc (v0.7)
- token mint: C4mh9QWpZr7SxEAC4vqPEABP56qL7bkdGY2unmztmeta
- quote mint: EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v
- base vault: 2nHx5xZ8sDnwTe9tq7swspCPGsLjywhXnNj42SjA37Yx
- quote vault: CnqXpsCXENpEJRqFsQcC5B5vbCdMwmBJGK2L98HkQWVq
- authority: LRrTQLqFzAPxjschuAKQAqH1XHBuBgHqwhybENStARt

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

# Markov — the authority layer for agent capital

**Delegation without custody.** Markov is a Solana program that lets owners delegate capital to AI agents and human strategists under onchain policy — funds operators can trade but never withdraw, every action receipted, and a kill switch that works mid-flight.

## The problem

Agents can pay (x402) and identify themselves. They still can't be trusted with capital. Letting an agent — or a human strategist — trade for you today means handing over custody or API keys: unbounded authority, no enforcement, no recourse. That's the missing layer, and it's why agent capital doesn't scale.

## What Markov is

A **mandate** is a policy-bounded, revocable grant of authority over funds that never leave your vault:

- **Policy, enforced onchain** — venue and token allowlists, per-transaction and daily caps, x402 spend budgets, expiry, fee terms. Checks fail closed.
- **Non-custodial by construction** — funds sit in program-owned vaults the operator can act through but never withdraw from. A stolen operator key inherits only the policy's bounds.
- **Receipts for everything** — every action *and every refusal* is receipted onchain with machine-readable reasons. Provable track records, portable across the ecosystem.
- **Kill switch** — owners revoke any time, mid-flight.

**Float** (markov.fyi/float) is the consumer surface: a copilot-first client and agent marketplace where you fund a mandate, approve or automate actions, and pull the plug in one tap. Open core: the protocol and SDKs are open source; hosted Float is the business.

## What exists today

Live on devnet: full mandate lifecycle (create / fund / amend / revoke), program and token allowlists, per-tx and daily caps, x402 spend budgets, action and refusal receipts. Float web app and bot. Two first-party agents operating under real mandates. End-to-end demo: fund a mandate → watch an agent trade and pay for data under policy → watch the program refuse an over-cap attempt with the reason on screen → revoke mid-flight.

## Our contract with the market

We're raising the way this platform was designed for:

- **Exactly what we need, no more.** $35k funds the four-month build to a security-reviewed private mainnet beta, plus ~2 months of post-beta runway — the beta ships with breathing room, not a funding cliff. The raise is fixed at that amount; anything committed above it is automatically refunded by the platform. We come back to the market for the audit and public mainnet *after* we ship — priced on what we delivered, not what we promised.
- **Public from day one.** Open repo, weekly shipping updates, a live milestone tracker, and a monthly treasury report against the burn table below. Our product is receipts. So is our conduct.
- **You hold the kill switch.** Markov gives owners revocation over agents; futarchy gives you the same over us. Our allowance is enforced onchain, big spends need market approval, and if we stop delivering, holders can propose liquidation and take back the treasury. We accept that — it's the exact standard we're building for everyone else.
- And if this raise doesn't fill: you're refunded automatically, we take the market's feedback, and we come back stronger.

## Use of funds

The raise is fixed at **$35k**. After the platform's 20% liquidity allocation, **$28k** is spendable treasury — funding the 4-month build to private mainnet beta plus ~2 months of post-beta operations:

| Line | Amount |
|---|---|
| Team — 3 contributors, through beta + 2 months of post-beta ops | $17,000 |
| Independent security review (one-off, via futarchy proposal) | $4,000 |
| Infra — RPC, indexing, hosting, monitoring | $2,600 |
| Marketing & community | $1,600 |
| Entity, admin & contingency | $2,800 |

Operating burn ≈ $3.7k/month against a **$4,000 onchain monthly limit** — deliberately set at two-thirds of what the platform would allow us, because a ceiling we rarely touch is the point. The $4k security review can't fit inside any single month's allowance by design, so it will be our **first futarchy proposal**: the market that funded us votes to release the security spend. That's not friction — it's the product thesis, performed on ourselves. The full audit is deliberately scoped to Raise 2: the private beta runs security-reviewed, guarded, and capped; **public mainnet ships audited.**

## Roadmap & milestones

- **Sept 30, 2026** — program hardened; in-program fee settlement; Operator SDK (alpha) published.
- **Oct 31, 2026** — Float copilot live; client SDK; MCP server + agent skill files; receipts index API.
- **Nov 30, 2026** — independent security review complete, findings remediated; launch-radar MVP.
- **Dec 15, 2026** — **Private mainnet beta**: guarded launch, capped mandate sizes, allowlisted owners and operators.
- **Q1 2027** — full audit + Raise 2 via futarchy supply proposal → public mainnet + Phase 2: pooled mandates, perp/derivatives adapters, oracle-backed portfolio limits, Score SDK.

## Market & differentiation

The agent economy has payment rails and identity; it lacks an authority layer. Copy-trading products hold custody. API-key bots grant unbounded authority. Session keys and smart-wallet permissions gate *signing*, not *execution semantics* — they can't refuse an over-cap trade at the venue boundary or produce refusal receipts. Markov enforces at the execution layer, and turns enforced history into the start of a credit ladder: receipts → score → bonds → credit.

The same primitive serves human delegation — strategists, copy-trading, treasury operators — from day one. We don't need the agent economy to arrive before the protocol earns its keep.

## The bet

This is not a 100x memecoin pitch. Entry FDV is ~$66k all-in (10M ICO tokens + 2.9M liquidity + 6M performance-locked) — seed pricing for a protocol with a real revenue path: every mandate settles fees through a protocol fee switch the token governs. If Markov becomes the delegation standard for agent capital on Solana, that's the honest 10x-and-beyond case this platform exists to fund. Downside is bounded the whole way: full refund if the goal misses, onchain spending limits if it fills, and your liquidation right if we stall.

## Token

The token owns what this raise creates: the treasury, the IP, and the protocol fee switch — governed by futarchy on metadao.fi. The team takes **no allocation at ICO**; our upside is a performance package of **6M tokens (~32% fully diluted)**, locked for **24 months** — six beyond the platform minimum — and unlocking only in tranches at 2×–32× the ICO price. We get paid when holders are already up, and not before.

## Team

**Kunal** — Protocol & engineering. 4+ years building in web3 and on Solana. [X: @kunaldrall_](https://x.com/kunaldrall_) · [TG: @kunaldrall](https://t.me/kunaldrall)

**Daksh** — Agents & product. ~2 years on Solana, hands-on experience building AI agents. [X: @dralldaksh](https://x.com/dralldaksh)

**Monalika Walia** — Growth & operations. ~5 years across marketing and sales, including 3+ years of operating experience at an IoT company. [X: @monalikawalia](https://x.com/monalikawalia)

## Links

Site: https://markov.fyi · Litepaper: https://markov.fyi/litepaper · X: https://x.com/markovfyi

## 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