How do you think we are “handpicking tokens”? We have defined an objective criteria (Token Inclusion List) and instantiated a Token List with 4 tokens that meet all of those criteria.
Revenue and Earnings are both very commonly used for index construction. For example, Tesla was not added to the S&P 500 until December 2020 because it did not meet the S&P 500’s criteria of needing 4 straight quarters of GAAP profits.
Personally, I thought that was pretty stupid (I have been a major TSLA holder since mid 2019), and think Revenue is the right fundamental metric for an industry like the Data Economy experiencing rapid growth.
Yes, the economic activity component in the Token Inclusion criteria absolutely limits inclusions by design. Augur and Gnosis were both excluded from the DATA Token List for either having insufficient on-chain data-based economic activity. We view exclusion of tokens that do not fit the Token Inclusion Criteria as a feature, not a bug.
I disagree strongly with this point. As I noted in my comment to @DevOnDeFi:
DATA as designed has a higher market capitalization than all components in MVI; Filecoin alone has a higher market cap than all components in MVI and has been live for 6 years. DATA would already meet your goal to have 8+ tokens if Ethereum and Set Protocol supported cross-chain interoperability.
Lowering the market capitalization still excludes interesting data-based projects like FOAM and Robonomics Networks, but these projects would still be excluded due to the economic activity criteria.
This is a good point. I don’t think we are trying to avoid LINK having an outsized weight in the index given how much greater it’s market cap is than everything else so much as give relatively more weight to projects with smaller market caps that nonetheless have great data economy fundamentals (NMR’s weight relative to OCEAN’s is the prime example of this phenomenon).