Understanding @flyingtulip_ new raise model; TLDR; Market Cap: $2k FDV: $175m Volume: $33.5m 2 weeks in (and brutal markets) and yet the token looks boring (by design). Volume is tiny (by design). Comparative projects that raised and TGE'd in the same time-frame are on average significantly down, and the reasoning is simple, bad markets cause people to exit/liquidate what they can, repay loans, and often move to cash in hand vs risk on strategies. If during these markets your only choice is "sell the token" that's the rational actor step. This new model on the other hand gives the holder choices; refund original investment (no loss), sell the Option instrument on the secondary market, withdraw the token and sell the token. So you can either always exit at investment $0.10, or sell Option (which trade at 4-6% premium on the Options marketplace), or sell in the secondary market (at $0.09844c as per below). The rational action is to try to sell the Option, and if you need liquidity sooner to simply refund. We can see this in the numbers. On the secondary market total volume has been what we have bought back (7.9m tokens [~$790k] almost exclusively), the only real sells here have either been users who were in profit from ETH price decrease, or users who were trying to influence outcomes in Polymarket. Now the next point to understand is "but why is secondary price $0.9844 instead of $0.10", the Options give the $0.10 refund, the secondary market has 2 primary influences, 1. NAV buyback (which creates a floor [limit order] at NAV price of collateral backing withdrawn tokens, NOT full system NAV. Full system NAV would be ~$0.101c, withdrawn collateral backing puts are ~$0.098c. So when a user withdraws FT, their Option refund turns into a buy limit order at NAV price), and 2. yield/revenue/fees buys which are market buys at SPOT. This function is also why the spread is quite high since #2 keeps filling limit sell orders, and #1 keeps eating market sells. Now if we look at the 2nd image, it shows a current investment value of ~$175m and at peak ~$207m. That's $32m in "volume" that would have otherwise sold on the secondary market, easy to see what would have happened to the token price. However now instead, they can simply exit not impacting ongoing holders (in fact to ongoing holders benefit, given now there is less circ supply). Lastly if we look at the Options market, then we have another additional ~$500k in sales at premium. So that explains volume, but then let's have a quick look at marketcap and FDV and why both are wrong. FT has no minting ability, so it has a fixed totalsupply of 10bn that can only burn. However, the only way tokens can actually be part of this calculation is via Option sales (which were available during the public sale), so that means only 1.758bn is actually supply and the FDV would be $175m, but then what is circulating supply? Circulating supply is "liquid FT", aka, FT withdrawn from the Option (forfeiting the refund), so current tradable FT is 4.8m or $480k market cap, but now again, this is technically not accurate, because for every outstanding FT there is a NAV bid offsetting it. So in really marketcap is; circulating tokens (4.8m) * price ($0.09844) - exited_nav_price ($0.098c) = $2,134.18 ($2k mcap). Holders who continue to wish to support the project are rewarded for longer participation with decreasing mcap and fdv, over and beyond price protection. This is very cool.(Andre Cronje)