The article explores how MetaDAO’s Ownership Coins, through a “Seed Round IPO” model, could become a key pathway for crypto’s resurgence. The author argues that AI has lowered barriers to entrepreneurship, while Ownership Coins provide founders with a new distribution tool: tokens. Traditional equity IPOs are increasingly resembling extraction events, making it difficult for retail investors to participate in high-quality companies like OpenAI. However, the integration of Ownership Coins with prediction markets offers an alternative path that enables capital formation to continue while preserving investor protections. The author anticipates a shift in tide: retail investors will direct their funds toward companies they like and use, sharing in upside gains through a “user–owner” mechanism. Once an Ownership Coin’s market capitalization surpasses $100 million to $1 billion, the condition for “upside” will be met, potentially ushering in an era where seed-stage companies trade publicly.Article author, source: knimkar
I don’t believe perpetual contracts, stablecoins, or prediction markets will bring crypto back. The real condition for a “crypto comeback” is simple: on-chain assets must emerge that people believe they can profit from—and that simply aren’t available anywhere else.
I believe the most likely path to achieve this again is an emerging trend I call the "Seed Round IPO": creating public trading markets for early-stage companies using @MetaDAOProject's Ownership Coins combined with decision markets.
My judgment is based on the following beliefs:
1/ I expect that more people will attempt to start businesses in the future.
Because AI models are drastically reducing the time and cost of creating things. This goes without saying.
2. For many—and even most—companies, acquiring distribution capability is the hardest thing to achieve.
In this close-quarters battle, Ownership Coins provide founders with a new distribution tool: tokens. Anyone who has spent time in the crypto industry knows how powerful the “user–owner” mechanism is. Someone who already loves your product becomes an extremely passionate advocate when they can also share in its upside gains. A cynical crypto veteran might say, “We’ve already seen how ICOs ended.” But what Ownership Coins represent differs significantly from what previous tokens represented.
3/ I believe that the continued expansion of the private equity market will increasingly make public market participants uncomfortable.
Traditional equity IPOs now look increasingly like extraction events (just look at the SPCX structure). It’s essentially moving the BN ICO to the NYSE. People have already discussed ad nauseam the issue of retail investors being unable to participate in OpenAI/Anthropic—unless they have access to those absurd SPVs, retail access is virtually impossible—so I won’t rehash it here.
4/ Today, retail investors can access a wide range of highly volatile, gambling-style financial products.
0DTE, mobile casinos, sports betting, prediction market-based sports betting, and perpetual contracts. They have long been conditioned to chase high-variance outcomes. Rather than continuing to play games with purely negative EV, I can easily imagine the tide turning the other way: retail investors directing their money toward companies they like, use, and are willing to support—and where they may even have an edge, precisely because they are heavy users.
Current securities laws make it virtually impossible for early-stage companies to trade publicly. Ownership Coins and prediction markets offer an alternative path: they enable capital formation to continue while preserving certain investor protections. MetaDAO is increasingly demonstrating this.
In summary, I believe Ownership Coins meet the needs of the growing entrepreneur community (corresponding to 1/ and 2/) while also offering investors, particularly retail investors, a unique opportunity (corresponding to 3/ and 4/).
Remember, encryption relies on the two strongest driving forces, in order:
A/ Up (see Bitcoin)
B/ Enable people to access financial products they truly want but were previously unable to obtain (see Tether, Hyperliquid)
In my view, MetaDAO and Ownership Coins have already provided a solution for B/: enabling people to access the "seed round IPO" of early-stage companies. Now we are simply waiting for the market capitalization of one Ownership Coin to reach over $100 million to $1 billion, thereby satisfying condition A/.
If MetaDAO achieves a sufficiently large outcome, I believe the way early-stage companies raise funds will be transformed.
If this sounds unlikely, consider this: IPOs themselves are already evolving to include retail allocations, and I believe this trend will only continue. What I’m saying is that this trend will next spill over to seed-stage companies. Think of it as a more mature version of the 2017 ICO boom.
I can't wait anymore. We're really coming back.
Appendix: Yes, yes, I know you want to say "adverse selection"
I acknowledge that the history of crowdfunding and launchpads hasn’t been great, and adverse selection issues always seem to surface in one form or another; I also acknowledge that what I’m saying now is, “This time is different.” But I genuinely believe this time is different. Below, I’ll address some common objections to Ownership Coins in turn.
Adverse selection [1]: Good founders will pursue the traditional VC route; only poor founders will opt for a seed-round IPO.
Yes, that’s the biggest risk. Top VCs don’t just pick winners—they create winners. I believe you’ll see “good VCs” increasingly participating in seed-stage IPOs, and MetaDAO’s issuance is already clearly moving in this direction (VC + retail). So I think truly high-quality seed-stage IPOs will likely feature a mix of branded VCs and retail investors. The bookbuilding and underwriting process for IPOs is already a mature procedure—we’re simply applying it to companies at an earlier stage.
Adverse selection [2]: Good founders will not be willing to let decision markets limit their decision-making authority.
This issue requires a longer discussion, but briefly, I believe that over time, we will gradually find a balanced design for the decision market that is favorable to both investors and founders. MetaDAO is already continuously refining the decision market design based on feedback (for example, proposals put forward by the team now have a slight advantage). I’m not certain what the optimal parameters for the decision market will ultimately be, but I believe this direction can be incrementally optimized.
Adverse selection [3]: The equity market is larger and has a much higher ceiling than the token market. Outstanding founders are unwilling to limit their upside potential.
Of course, but I believe that as long as an asset is strong enough, market participants will buy it, whether it's equity or a token. Bitcoin has grown into a trillion-dollar asset; Hyperliquid has also become a major asset, and so on. Again, the mere fact that something is rising is an incredibly powerful driver.
Adverse selection [4]: Good founders won’t choose to make their assets publicly traded, as it would be a distraction.
The benefits of the "user–owner" relationship may outweigh the distraction costs of owning a publicly traded asset. At least in my view, this is not an obvious conclusion: whether or not one owns a publicly traded asset truly makes a significant difference in the final outcome. I have repeatedly observed that pressure brings out diamonds. After speaking with the founders of MetaDAO, I feel many people see it as both a scoreboard and a source of motivation.
Ownership Coins are just a way to circumvent securities laws.
Yes, that’s true. But in my view, this isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. The most successful products in crypto often have a strong element of regulatory arbitrage, and that’s precisely part of why they succeed.
Retail investors are too impatient for VCs.
Retail investors indeed lack patience, but I don’t think that matters much. For them, volatility is the product itself. And the early stages of a company’s lifecycle are inherently filled with significant volatility. My point isn’t that retail investors will become skilled at venture capital investing; I simply believe they will participate—and likely do so on a large scale.