Clanker’s fee machine is real. A public dashboard shows ~$39M in fees since launch (see Dune). At the time the letter circulated, $CLANKER’s market cap was ~33M and spiked toward ~50M on the news. For many holders, this was the first time a tangible, ongoing value flow back to token holders appeared in writing.

Publishing an acquisition letter in public before a deal is signed is uncommon. It invites questions: why go public now, what is happening behind the scenes, and is this negotiation or marketing? As Garrett noted, Rainbow’s move reads like a seemingly unsolicited bid to acquire Clanker for 4% of a not‑yet‑launched $RNBW supply which is a tough offer for Clanker to entertain as written but it does surface the core issue of weak value accrual for $CLANKER. Much of that could, in theory, be addressed by Clanker itself with clearer flywheel design and direct value routing to holders. Regulatory guidance on token value accrual remains a legal grey area, even as the contours slowly come into focus.

Jack posted that Rainbow approached Clanker last month about a potential acquisition. After discussions, Clanker declined and told Rainbow last Thursday. Jack says on Friday Rainbow threatened to publish a public letter if Clanker did not respond, and Clanker still said no. Rainbow then published without consent. Jack closed by saying they are not excited to work with Rainbow after how this played out and do not plan to continue conversations.

About an hour later, Rainbow posted that Clanker came to Rainbow first to discuss acquisition and that a deal was essentially done, pending some Clanker housekeeping, until Clanker went cold.

Rainbow says sharing the letter was not a threat and reiterated they are ready to close, inviting Clanker to propose alternatives.

Right now it is claim vs claim. Without receipts, it is hard to adjudicate. The practical read:

• If Rainbow’s economics are real and executed as written, $CLANKER holders benefit from accrued fees plus a $RNBW allocation, and later from fee routing to $RNBW stakers.

• Process matters. Taking negotiations public can burn trust and makes integration harder even if terms are attractive. It's really bad optics for Rainbow at the moment for instigating.

• Overlap risk. Rainbow and Clanker share many users. Community goodwill matters for both.

Open invite: if both teams agree to share timestamped receipts, I will publish both sides in the next issue and let readers weigh the facts. The only other way to solve this is to square up and the founder who wins gets to acquire the one who loses.

• Native’s Derek posted a satirical counter suggesting Native should acquire Rainbow instead. The memes are memeing.

• I also spun up a Ponder poll asking the community where they currently lean. Rainbow or Clanker?

I still like both products. Both found product‑market fit and have strong teams. The public back‑and‑forth is a reputational drag for each, but the upside case for users is real if thoughtful, aligned economics land. Until then, it is speculation layered on top of speculation. Keep size sane.

Vibe Market: Staking Game PoC
N is experimenting with a proof of concept staking game inside Vibe Market.
→ Peek the build

LIKES Mini App: Hunter Leaderboard Live
A new leaderboard tracks top hunters inside the LIKES mini app.
→ See the update

Clanker Update: Fee Percentages on Token Pages
Token pages now show fee percentages and a few additional tweaks.
→ Changelog

CoopRecords Music Raises 4.5M
Coopahtroopa announced 4.5 million raised across two rounds for CoopRecords.
→ Funding thread

Aptos Experience: Last Call
Deadline is today for the all‑expense paid trip to NYC.
→ Apply now

Fwdfwd by Flynn
Get paid to like casts, recast, and follow creators.
→ Launch post

Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. Do your own research. Tokens are volatile. Links are provided so you can verify and learn more.

Rainbow x Clanker

ReadMe Tuesday Special

Support dialog