There is a significant risk of definitional conflict. The market specifies 'Cap's governance token,' but public sources (e.g., OAK Research) highlight Cap's core design philosophy as 'governance-free' and based on immutable contracts. If the project launches a pure 'utility/yield token' and explicitly disclaims governance functions, or adheres to its philosophy by not launching a token at all, the market could technically resolve to 'No' based on literal interpretation, causing disputes over whether the primary protocol token counts as a 'governance token'.

April 28, 2026 - April 29, 2026, the YES prices of all mid-to-high valuation options like $250M, $500M, $1B, and $4B surged collectively from extreme lows (1c-15c) to the 40c-50c range. This was caused by extreme liquidity drain or order book manipulation, resulting in a flattened probability distribution that defies mathematical logic. April 1, 2026 - April 3, 2026, the price of the '$50M' option rose from 72c to 85c, as the market consensus on the project's baseline valuation strengthened, prompting investors to buy it as a high-probability safety cushion. Feb 9, 2026 - Feb 10, 2026, the price of the '$150M' option surged from 11c to 22.5c, as the market began digesting leaked information regarding the project's 'presale valuation target of $150M-$250M FDV', leading to a repricing of probability in that range.

There is an extreme internal logical divergence and distortion within the market. According to current pricing, the market implies the probability of FDV exceeding $4B (47%) is nearly identical to exceeding $250M (50%). This implies a mathematically absurd 3% chance of the FDV landing anywhere between $250M and $4B. This irrational probability distribution is severely disconnected from the project's actual fundamentals and is purely driven by irrational trading amidst illiquidity.