Podcast Ep.252: Realizing a 'Rug Pull-Proof ICO'... MetaDAO Challenges On-Chain Capital Markets by Hardcoding Investor Rights

Source: TokenPost Original Title: Podcast Ep.252—Realizing ‘Rug Pull Proof ICOs’…MetaDAO Challenges On-Chain Capital Markets by Hardcoding Investor Rights Original Link:

MetaDAO has redesigned the crypto ICO structure with a futarchy-based automated market-making mechanism, effectively aligning investor protection and token value accrual. This is an attempt that enables both rug pull prevention and an evolution toward on-chain capital markets.

The podcast, which began in October 2025 as a discussion about the crypto startup investment market, in this episode covered the topic “MetaDAO: Rug Pull Proof ICO and On-Chain Capital Market Experiment.” The main focus was the imbalance in the current crypto investment environment, represented by thin liquidity and high FDV(Fully Diluted Valuation). It was pointed out that, except for Bitcoin, most projects do not provide investors with actual revenue streams, and issues such as rug pull risk and VC-centric tokenomics remain problematic.

In reality, many crypto projects have a structural internal contradiction, where profits return to off-chain foundations or teams and token holders have no involvement in value accrual. Investor protection mechanisms are often absent or insufficient, and even governance tokens are frequently operated separately from protocol revenue. There are notable cases where it took years for a revenue distribution policy to be implemented, or token holders had no rights to claim anything at all.

MetaDAO has emerged as a response to these issues. Born from the on-chain experiment called futarchy(Futarchy), MetaDAO has evolved into an ICO platform with a rug pull proof structure and an Internet Capital Market(Internet Capital Market) that automates investment governance. The core is a structure that enforces fundraising and governance through the futarchy AMM(Automated Market Maker) within MetaDAO. Project tokens are paired with USDC, and fees are distributed equally to the META treasury and the project treasury. All procedures are pre-designed according to on-chain rules, so founders cannot move funds arbitrarily, and investors are guaranteed the right to request redemptions under certain conditions.

Currently, MetaDAO is based on the Solana ecosystem, recording a transaction volume of $147 million and generating $370,000 in fee revenue. This revenue accumulates in a treasury controlled by META holders, creating a structure in which investors can participate fairly in every project launch according to predefined rules. Notably, Umbra project’s 20,700% oversubscription and 7x price increase case proved that MetaDAO can design a new “upside tracking” revenue model in structured ICOs.

According to research institutions, MetaDAO is currently the only experiment among crypto investment infrastructures that aligns holder rights and protocol revenue distribution through a “hardcoded mechanism.” Unlike similar blockchain launchpads or fixed-income trading platforms, MetaDAO distinguishes itself by not relying solely on the DAO rationale but integrating real user protection design into its initial structure. In addition, MetaDAO’s futarchy AMM combines various risk management tools such as automatic redemption and spending limits, opening the door to disciplined investment in a speculative market.

However, experts warn that despite such structural innovation, there remain significant risks due to low liquidity of META, lack of listings on major exchanges, and insufficient incentives for whales to participate actively. Especially, if future project launches decrease or MetaDAO fails to be recognized as the ICM leader, the trust premium could collapse. Nevertheless, the fact that the structured launch model reduces VC control and secures exit strategies for users clearly presents a different evolutionary direction for ICOs.

Can MetaDAO truly realize a trust-based capital market in a decentralized world? In a changing tokenomics environment, it remains to be seen whether ICOs can establish themselves as genuine investment infrastructure.