Manifestation Markets are a complex and novel funding Mechanism I have made to address the token market lemon problem. You can read more about the mechanism here:

https://manifestation.market/

There are several other concurrent innovations happening in the early stage funding space. I thought it might be reasonable to compare them to help better elucidate why I think this is the particular mechanism that might make a difference in token capital market allocation.

To start off when it comes to evaluating any funding model it helps to start off by evaluating it from the lens of a founder, as these are the ultimate end users.

The world of funding platforms has exploded. There are now several different offerings, from traditional product crowdfunding to equity crowdfunding to token launch platforms.

These funding options while all offering the same commodity (“capital”) are actually thus far quite differentiated. Now wether that’s due to our mid-century capital market controls or something else is an exercise I’ll leave for the reader.

On the left side you have the traditional crowdfunding options. Vehicles that are associated with more traditional ventures and are overall less crypto-native. Contrast this with those on the right: MetaDAO and Pump.fun which are entirely crypto-native.

In the center there is Republic, which while deeply invested in crypto takes a more traditional institutional approach. It appears more in the business of working with more traditional institutions and retail. YC, and A16Z while not crowdfunding are targeting the same set of LPs as something like Republic while offering founders a much more hands on experience. Given both of their impact on the ecosystem it seems not wrong to give them an honourable mention.

Each of these options has carved out a specific niche in the current funding ecosystem. Kickstarter & Indiegogo do pre-seed, and seed level non equity funding, for creative projects. WeFunder has taken the middle of the market of equity crowdfunding, whereas Republic has positioned itself as the more premium equity crowdfunding platform.

When it comes to the cryptio native options the choices are relatively lacking. Pump.fun is a great business, take fees from filth. There’s a lot of it so in aggregate you can make a ton, but as a place meant to attract founders and capital it amounts to raising from other people at the blackjack table.

MetaDAO is interesting and the only one of these which I see as a true competitor. This is because in a sense it is a spiritual cousin. Both Manifestation Markets, and MetaDAO are downstream of ideas around how to combine dominant assurance contracts (DACs) and prediction markets. MetaDAO using the proven mechanism of futarchy, while Manifestation Markets chooses to make an entirely novel mechanism, that combines features of DACs, and prediction markets.

Extending our analysis to what types of capital sources these different platforms offer we can see the market opportunity start to come into focus.

There is the gaping hole in the more crypto pilled but not selling shitcoins to retail. Now traditionally this role has been filled by the crypto-vcs. But a simple analysis that they actually mirror the tradfi ecosystem and don’t fully fill this role either.

This takes of to our next distinction which is between things that invest in crypto and crypto-native capital markets.

For Aspiring Early Stage founders in crypto unless you are currently riding a hype cycle wave, pumping a shit coin, or have contacts at a tier-1 crypto vc you’re SOL.

Which bring us to the other issue in the current funding ecosystem. The majority of the current crypto native financial infrastructure isn’t being built on ETH.

This is the positional bet that I’m making with Manifestation Markets. That Ethereum native capital markets are: a solvable problem, and a problem worth solving. Next week we will dive into the technical bet we are making with Manifestation Markets.

Manifestation Markets are a complex and novel funding Mechanism I have made to address the token market lemon problem. You can read more about the mechanism here:

https://manifestation.market/

There are several other concurrent innovations happening in the early stage funding space. I thought it might be reasonable to compare them to help better elucidate why I think this is the particular mechanism that might make a difference in token capital market allocation.

To start off when it comes to evaluating any funding model it helps to start off by evaluating it from the lens of a founder, as these are the ultimate end users.

The world of funding platforms has exploded. There are now several different offerings, from traditional product crowdfunding to equity crowdfunding to token launch platforms.

These funding options while all offering the same commodity (“capital”) are actually thus far quite differentiated. Now wether that’s due to our mid-century capital market controls or something else is an exercise I’ll leave for the reader.

On the left side you have the traditional crowdfunding options. Vehicles that are associated with more traditional ventures and are overall less crypto-native. Contrast this with those on the right: MetaDAO and Pump.fun which are entirely crypto-native.

In the center there is Republic, which while deeply invested in crypto takes a more traditional institutional approach. It appears more in the business of working with more traditional institutions and retail. YC, and A16Z while not crowdfunding are targeting the same set of LPs as something like Republic while offering founders a much more hands on experience. Given both of their impact on the ecosystem it seems not wrong to give them an honourable mention.

Each of these options has carved out a specific niche in the current funding ecosystem. Kickstarter & Indiegogo do pre-seed, and seed level non equity funding, for creative projects. WeFunder has taken the middle of the market of equity crowdfunding, whereas Republic has positioned itself as the more premium equity crowdfunding platform.

When it comes to the cryptio native options the choices are relatively lacking. Pump.fun is a great business, take fees from filth. There’s a lot of it so in aggregate you can make a ton, but as a place meant to attract founders and capital it amounts to raising from other people at the blackjack table.

MetaDAO is interesting and the only one of these which I see as a true competitor. This is because in a sense it is a spiritual cousin. Both Manifestation Markets, and MetaDAO are downstream of ideas around how to combine dominant assurance contracts (DACs) and prediction markets. MetaDAO using the proven mechanism of futarchy, while Manifestation Markets chooses to make an entirely novel mechanism, that combines features of DACs, and prediction markets.

Extending our analysis to what types of capital sources these different platforms offer we can see the market opportunity start to come into focus.

There is the gaping hole in the more crypto pilled but not selling shitcoins to retail. Now traditionally this role has been filled by the crypto-vcs. But a simple analysis that they actually mirror the tradfi ecosystem and don’t fully fill this role either.

This takes of to our next distinction which is between things that invest in crypto and crypto-native capital markets.

For Aspiring Early Stage founders in crypto unless you are currently riding a hype cycle wave, pumping a shit coin, or have contacts at a tier-1 crypto vc you’re SOL.

Which bring us to the other issue in the current funding ecosystem. The majority of the current crypto native financial infrastructure isn’t being built on ETH.

This is the positional bet that I’m making with Manifestation Markets. That Ethereum native capital markets are: a solvable problem, and a problem worth solving. Next week we will dive into the technical bet we are making with Manifestation Markets.