TLDR:
- Proposal RNGR-001 seeks to allocate $2 million from the treasury to halt the token’s price drop.
- Ranger Finance founders criticize the short-term focus and leave the decision in the hands of the market.
- Protocols like Flash Trade are adopting futarchy despite doubts regarding operational efficiency.
Following the launch of proposal RNGR-001 within the Solana ecosystem, a critical moment for crypto governance and futarchy unfolded this week.
Just days after concluding its ICO on MetaDAO, a faction of the community requested the use of $2 million from Ranger Finance’s treasury to buy back $RNGR tokens, as its price plummeted 80% from its initial value.
This initiative has revived skepticism over whether “ownership coin” models truly benefit protocols in the long run or simply serve to provide exit liquidity for disappointed investors.
Is futarchy a real solution or a failed experiment?
This week’s controversy centers on the efficiency of crypto governance and futarchy. In theory, this model allows prediction markets to guide protocol decisions, aligning token value with the execution of proposals.
However, critics argue that granting full control to token holders can incentivize policies that drain treasuries in favor of immediate gains.
Ranger co-founders, FA2 and Barrett, decided not to interfere, allowing the futarchic system to run its course despite labeling the proposal as disguised “exit liquidity.”
This conflict adds to the recent distrust in governance tokens following cases like $TNSR, which lost relevance after its parent firm was acquired by giants like Coinbase.
Despite the challenges, the trend toward crypto governance and futarchy remains steady. Platforms such as Flash Trade and Realms continue to integrate these forms of on-chain fundraising, seeking a definitive solution to the gap between company capital and token value.
For now, the Ranger Finance case will serve as a vital thermometer to measure the maturity of decentralized governance in 2026.
