I agree and would encourage potential investors to take into consideration base rates of startups reaching €1M+ on profits yearly when comparing this to other forms of investments. I spent 5 min prompting Claude to come up with a BOTEC based on this post, which I haven’t checked but could be an entry point to additional research.
Interestingly, Claude‘s numbers would actually suggest that BOAS is a higher EV decision (for some reason, it appears to double-count the risk; I.e., it took the EV which takes 60% failure into account and multiplied it again by 0.4).
Not that anyone here should (or would) make these decisions based on unchecked Claude BOTECs anyway; just found it to be an interesting flaw.
In addition to the previously mentioned mistakes, from an economist perspective it would be more accurate to use a ‘continuing value’ after using a ‘discounted cash flow’ for post 2029 profits, adding the lifetime of average foundation owned businesses. This would likely change results (possibly dramatically) while making them more accurate. Your BOTEC stops when BOAS reaches higher profitability in 2029, which is when most of the impact is just starting.
Again, this should be discounted for the risk, which your model has done (accidentally twice, which needs to be adjusted).
@Patrick Gruban 🔸 could you run the model with continuing values for stock market and BOAS, and remove double risk counting? I can check the BOTEC after to make sure it’s actually accurate.
My short Claude prompt was only intended as a conversation starter, so I’m happy this worked. I’m not considering investing, but if potential investors would like to carry this on and share here, this might be useful.
There is a mistake in this analysis, but I’m happy that by removing the mistakes we come out as a clear winner. - Double accounts for risk (in expected value, and then it applies risk again on the expected value, which already included an 80-90% risk/​failure rate) - Your analysis gives zero weight to the social cost of carbon and social return on investment, which in conservative scenarios return additional millions to society in our case, and in most stock market cases would have costs instead of benefits - We are not a consumer marketplace, and we are not in recycling
I agree and would encourage potential investors to take into consideration base rates of startups reaching €1M+ on profits yearly when comparing this to other forms of investments. I spent 5 min prompting Claude to come up with a BOTEC based on this post, which I haven’t checked but could be an entry point to additional research.
Interestingly, Claude‘s numbers would actually suggest that BOAS is a higher EV decision (for some reason, it appears to double-count the risk; I.e., it took the EV which takes 60% failure into account and multiplied it again by 0.4).
Not that anyone here should (or would) make these decisions based on unchecked Claude BOTECs anyway; just found it to be an interesting flaw.
@Kevin Xia 🔸 thanks for pointing out the mistake too.
In addition to the previously mentioned mistakes, from an economist perspective it would be more accurate to use a ‘continuing value’ after using a ‘discounted cash flow’ for post 2029 profits, adding the lifetime of average foundation owned businesses. This would likely change results (possibly dramatically) while making them more accurate. Your BOTEC stops when BOAS reaches higher profitability in 2029, which is when most of the impact is just starting.
Again, this should be discounted for the risk, which your model has done (accidentally twice, which needs to be adjusted).
@Patrick Gruban 🔸 could you run the model with continuing values for stock market and BOAS, and remove double risk counting? I can check the BOTEC after to make sure it’s actually accurate.
My short Claude prompt was only intended as a conversation starter, so I’m happy this worked. I’m not considering investing, but if potential investors would like to carry this on and share here, this might be useful.
There is a mistake in this analysis, but I’m happy that by removing the mistakes we come out as a clear winner.
- Double accounts for risk (in expected value, and then it applies risk again on the expected value, which already included an 80-90% risk/​failure rate)
- Your analysis gives zero weight to the social cost of carbon and social return on investment, which in conservative scenarios return additional millions to society in our case, and in most stock market cases would have costs instead of benefits
- We are not a consumer marketplace, and we are not in recycling
Could you adjust for the mistake please?