onchain activism is here

yesterday we saw something unprecedented: rainbow issued an open letter to $clanker holders offering to acquire the company in a structured all-token deal 

this wasn’t a casual blog post, it was a third attempt after private talks failed. when clanker management declined, rainbow went public—effectively issuing a hostile takeover bid—asking token holders themselves to pressure management into accepting

for months, clanker’s community has voiced frustration at the lack of value accrual to the token. a vacuum that created this opening, where rainbow then stepped in with a clear message: if management won’t drive token value, we will

this is the first public attempt at activist tokenholder pressure—and it won’t be the last. and while i stand wholeheartedly at clankers side here & think the move was unnecessarily aggressive, i understand it, and it begs the questions: what if clanker was a dao? what if the token was deeply tied to protocol revenues already? and what if 51% of the holderbase agreed to the terms? 

further, does it even matter? why does rainbow need permission to fork & vampire clanker? what keeps people coming back to clanker in the first place? and do we really want to give token holders rights?

this is so-called "internet capital markets," and these are things i've been thinking about for awhile

it's also worth noting that we are deep in the process of establishing a consortium that, among other things, will work for & defend the ecosystem against these very things 

anyway, i looked back at some older posts & pulled some things that may be useful

1. on tokenholders as owners, the rise of tokenholder rights & open letters

https://x.com/0xbasil/status/1883225800536711651?s=46

i’ve written before that most crypto founders are not ready for the responsibility that comes with revenue-backed tokens:

“founders must be prepared to treat their token holders like shareholders—like owners, like their bosses. if they don’t like your direction, they will team up and attempt to take you down. activist funds will come in, write a hit piece, kill your token price, buy up half your float, or look to replace you via a public campaign.”

this isn’t hypothetical anymore. rainbow just showed us what that playbook looks like. if you give tokenholder rights, you must be prepared for tokenholders to act like owners.

2. on fleeting ideas, industry maturity & consolidation 

https://farcaster.xyz/itsbasil/0x3ab3562d

this also fits into a larger arc. i’ve said before that since the experimental defi summer stage, crypto has been entering maturity:

“as the market is captured, maturity is realized, fees are reduced.... innovation has slowed, competition has increased, and we’re moving toward an era of consolidation. growth will be m&a-driven. not all of us can win; there will be winners and losers. the only way to protect your token is to front-run consolidation with a locked flywheel at the network level.”

rainbow’s move is a textbook consolidation play. they’re trying to fold a stagnant token into their own system to capture liquidity, users, and narrative momentum. it won’t stop here—others will follow

under the guise of "an everything app," your partner becomes your enemy... the top of the funnel is a now a battleground 

3. on your token as the product & your product as the token 

https://farcaster.xyz/itsbasil/0x12d0c60c

this also validates another thesis: your token & your product are inseparable. the best marketing & business development departments are big market caps 

“nobody’s partnering with clanker if the token is sitting at $230k. traders and investors won’t engage with your product if the token is a ghost town. your product and token are deeply intertwined—it’s all connected.”

rainbow understands this. by making a direct offer to tokenholders, they’re acknowledging that control of the token = control of the product. though, clearly, those rights aren't there yet

4. control your fate

>on owning your own token & controlling your fate

https://farcaster.xyz/itsbasil/0x755dc9d6

finally, this moment underscores the importance of founders owning their token & controlling their fate:

“sub-$10m cap with minimal founder ownership is a strategic handcuff. you can’t raise, can’t defend, can’t negotiate. control enough supply to stay flexible—then lock it long enough to prove you’re serious.”

without meaningful ownership & strategic ammo, you’re vulnerable to exactly this kind of pressure

the takeaway

afaik, rainbow’s open letter is the first true act of onchain activism. it sets a precedent: if founders don’t deliver value, others will come knocking—sometimes politely, but evidently, increasingly not

this is why loyalty, alignment, and clear value accrual for holders matter more than ever. tokenholders aren’t just your community. they are your shareholders, your activists, your marketeers, your potential acquirers

if you don’t treat them like owners, someone else will

disclaimer: this is not in any way, shape or form a knock on clanker. posting only for posterity & learnings. i stand fully with clanker & i'm excited about working with them to build the future of our ecosystem

“sub-$10m cap with minimal founder ownership is a strategic handcuff. you can’t raise, can’t defend, can’t negotiate. control enough supply to stay flexible—then lock it long enough to prove you’re serious.” 

- @itsbasil