@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
2−title = "Value Articles"
2+title = "Valuation Research Articles"
3date = "2022-04-27"
3date = "2022-04-27"
4[taxonomies]
4[taxonomies]
5grant_type = ["Bounty"]
5grant_type = ["Bounty"]
@@ -23,7 +23,11 @@ Create in-depth valuation models for Urbit address space, network effects, and c
24Understanding the economics of Urbit can be tricky; there are many different layers of analogy and historical comparison for how to value Urbit address space, network effects, and commercial potential. There is also potentially interesting territory around Urbit’s differences from previously existing infrastructure, land, etc paradigms, and the potential to unlock new forms of economic activity. Some thinking has been done here, including by [Tlon](https://urbit.org/blog/value-of-address-space-pt3) and by [Justin Murphy](https://www.otherlife.co/urbit/); but much more (and more detailed) work remains.
24Understanding the economics of Urbit can be tricky; there are many different layers of analogy and historical comparison for how to value Urbit address space, network effects, and commercial potential. There is also potentially interesting territory around Urbit’s differences from previously existing infrastructure, land, etc paradigms, and the potential to unlock new forms of economic activity. Some thinking has been done here, including by [Tlon](https://urbit.org/blog/value-of-address-space-pt3) and by [Justin Murphy](https://www.otherlife.co/urbit/); but much more (and more detailed) work remains.
26−We’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 a committee of community members (not the Urbit Foundation or Tlon).
26+We’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:
27+- 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+- 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.
29+- 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.
30+- 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.
28Some possible avenues of inquiry:
32Some possible avenues of inquiry: