@@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ Understanding the economics of Urbit can be tricky; there are many different lay
2525
2626We’re interested in seeing detailed economic analyses of Urbit’s valuation on a macro scale. These can involve statistical models from areas often analogized to Urbit (such as network effects, land value, or NFT token economics), or they can propose new models or scenarios. We don’t ask that you come to any particular conclusion; all submissions will be reviewed by the Mars Invisible College Review Board along the following parameters:
2727- Does the submission employ a systematic valuation methodology? Ad hoc analyses or purely verbal analyses without some kind of coherent first-principles framework will be rejected.
28−- Is there consideration of plausible objections and counterarguments? A valuation model that does not consider or address obvious plausible objections or counterarguments will be rejected.
2928- Does the review show a qualitative familiarity with Urbit sufficient for a plausible valuation? A valuation model that is purely quantitative and implausibly out-of-touch with relevant realities of the Urbit network will be rejected.
3029- Does the review demonstrate familiarity with basic economics and finance? Clever frameworks that reveal significant ignorance about basic finance and economics—to a degree that would make them unintelligible or obviously erroneous to valuation experts—will be rejected.
3130- Is the submission's spelling, grammar, organization and presentation of professional quality (at least that of an a paper in a college class)? Submissions that do not meet a professional level of legibility will be rejected.