Sampo WG Season 1 Funding Proposal

These are all complicated questions. There are 3 traditional methodologies for accounting for intangibles

  1. cost value (the easiest as it’s just add up inputs)
  2. discounted cash flow … this presumes you have a cashflow which for gravity and praise I don’t see a business model … is it subscription, % of DAO activity, or SaaS … also as social good, a straight charge might not be appropriate
  3. market value … the cost-benefit of replacing it with another system … again not a great metric of value but the sharemarket is an example which is a voting machine in the short-term and weighing machine in the long, so markets do work (for carefully delineated meanings of market)

Having done the Techstar Venture Deals course, I’m sceptical of the traditional valuation techniques espoused by VCs since they are insiderer portfolio finger-in-air numbers and not realised value. So the global potential value is probably there but realising a fraction of it for early proponents is the unknown. As example, the car created white flight to suburbs, massively increasing property values. so wealth was generated but as Buffet said, if you’d invested directly in car manufacturers you’d likely gone bankrupt.

Well, if the returns are so attractive then why not individuals stake their TEC tokens? There could be proposals to spin out either of Praise / Gravity into a services entity and initial pundits can get a % of any gross revenue (like a patent royalty - net tends to be too hard).

@Kojak It looks like you want to take the role of a general partner within a limited liability partnership where you round up a bunch of passive punters to bet $TEC on your picks cum milestones. Or am I wrong?

1 Like

Great get this response from@drllau. Dr Lawrence and myself complement each other in so many ways. Add in @Solsista and others we could really brew up something very potent.
quoting drllau:
These are all complicated questions. There are 3 traditional methodologies for accounting for intangibles

1. cost value (the easiest as it’s just add up inputs)
2. discounted cash flow … this presumes you have a cashflow which for gravity and praise I don’t see a business model … is it subscription, % of DAO activity, or SaaS … also as social good, a straight charge might not be appropriate
3. market value … the cost-benefit of replacing it with another system … again not a great metric of value but the sharemarket is an example which is a voting machine in the short-term and weighing machine in the long, so markets do work (for carefully delineated meanings of market)

Having done the Techstar Venture Deals course, I’m sceptical of the traditional valuation techniques espoused by VCs since they are insiderer portfolio finger-in-air numbers and not realised value. So the global potential value is probably there but realising a fraction of it for early proponents is the unknown. As example, the car created white flight to suburbs, massively increasing property values. so wealth was generated but as Buffet said, if you’d invested directly in car manufacturers you’d likely gone bankrupt.

After completing my Masters in Economics, and a 3 year post graduate diploma in Finance before a 2.5 year MBA in Finance, I worked as Economist for 8 years in one of the largest fertiliser companies in India, where one of my prime responsibilities as part of the Projects team was to do the Social Welfare Cost Benefit Analysis of very large projects, to get government clearances. Early 80s. So the concept of valuation of intangibles and qualitative aspects is not unknown to me. This was before I did my Financial Engineering from Indian School of Business/UCLA after owning and running two brokerage firms of two exchanges for 15 years.

With ubiquitous tokenisation partly inspired by @Solsista 's notion of godlike properties of tokens and research papers like this and this one from Dr Jason Potts of RMIT, the understanding now is: its now much easier to value intangibles or for that matter any tokenisable object. Anything really.

Yes, staking one’s tokens is a definite possibility and the high returns both from the phenomenon of ubiquitous tokenisation and also: the community which the token serves for Gravity and Praise can almost always afford high interest costs because the returns to these services for the community are very high. I had given the example of how an African village, the installation of a well to supply potable water could afford interest costs of 20% or even more, when the market interest cost in Kenya is 12%. This is what cryptos makes possible.

Similiar opportunities exist for Gravity, Praise and most of the value add activities of the TEC ecosystem, because they are so innovative and cutting edge.

Not punt on $TEC itself, but on the projects which can emanate from within the TEC, ecosystem and its proximity, through the utility token $TECKY Please do read the The Commoners Strategy which tries to address most of the additional problems the TEC/Common Stack ecosystem faces.

Especially the fact that $TEC’s PAMM ( primary automatic market maker/Augmented bonding curve) has no mechanism for evaluating the underlying value of $TEC. In traditional financial ecosystem we have various models and techniques from quarterly earnings, other reporting systems, various markets. In what is proposed in the The Commoners Strategy, the putative utility token $TECKY will help in surfacing every realisable value and also drive the demand for $TEC as $TECKY CAN ONLY BE TRADED FOR $TEC.

And of course one need not emphasise the need for healthy speculation in any market based system. Punting you may look at it in a derogatory way.