# Futarchy won't save DAOs

**Published by:** [tullu](https://paragraph.com/@tullu/)
**Published on:** 2025-04-14
**URL:** https://paragraph.com/@tullu/futarchy-won-t-save-daos

## Content

Deterministic Outcome Requirement Polymarket works well because markets resolve to binary or deterministic events. Example: Will Biden win the election? Yes/No — and after the event happens, it’s clear who won. In DAO token futarchy, you're trying to "resolve" to something fuzzy: Did this decision increase the token price? Problem: Token prices are messy, lagged, manipulated, and don't give you a clean deterministic endpoint. Plus, timing matters a lot: when do you measure the price post-decision? Immediately? After 24h? Over a 7-day TWAP? Decision Market vs Spot Market Discrepancy DAO decision markets simulate token price impact, but with poor liquidity and no real settlement, it becomes a self-referential game. People aren’t really incentivized to "predict correctly" — they’re incentivized to play the game for internal rewards, not external truth. The moment you exit the decision market and compare it to the spot market, you're exposed to:Thin liquidityManipulation ("fuckery")Whales arbitraging your decision outcomeNo arb constraints like TWAP / cooldowns / linear vesting, which were protecting you in the decision marketMetaDAO Implementation Weakness MetaDAO's approach lacks a clean way to measure the actual outcome. Without this, the whole thing risks being just a gamified voting mechanism, not a true prediction market or futarchy. Futarchy needs reliable endgames. Without reliable endgames, you get gamification, not governance. There must be a solution, or maybe polynya was right

## Publication Information

- [tullu](https://paragraph.com/@tullu/): Publication homepage
- [All Posts](https://paragraph.com/@tullu/): More posts from this publication
- [RSS Feed](https://api.paragraph.com/blogs/rss/@tullu): Subscribe to updates
- [Twitter](https://twitter.com/buidlIntern): Follow on Twitter