Loading...
Loading...
The first IRSA paper that doesn't argue for a position — it builds a tool. A four-method valuation framework for donating stranded knowledge assets to the public commons. Designed to be used today by tax attorneys, appraisers, and commons institutions without needing to accept any broader theoretical position.
Billions of dollars in knowledge assets — failed clinical trials, shelved patents, unreleased documentaries, government grey literature — are stranded in institutional portfolios. Their private value is declining but their social value remains significant. The reason they aren't donated: no one knows how to value them for tax purposes. This paper provides the methodology. Four valuation methods — CTR (Cost-to-Recreate), CLV (Comparable Licensing Value), OV (Option Value), and SVD (Social Value Discount) — across five asset classes. No theoretical commitments required. Just a stranded knowledge asset, a qualified appraiser, and this methodology.
Knowledge comes in two kinds: published and absorbed, or filed and forgotten. The second category is enormous, institutionally invisible, and growing.
The data is stranded — not destroyed, not usable. Negative results that could prevent duplicate spending sit in regulatory filing cabinets.
Technology transfer offices focus on the 5% with commercial potential. The rest accumulates in institutional portfolios with no path to use.
Government-funded research is formally published but practically invisible. No discovery infrastructure. No indexing beyond the agency that commissioned it.
The term for these is stranded knowledge assets — intellectual property whose private value is declining or zero, but whose social value remains significant or is growing. They are not waste. They are capital trapped in the wrong container.
IRS qualified appraisal standards (IRC Section 170, Treasury Reg 1.170A-13) work well for conventional IP — patents with licensing history, software with market comparables, trademarks with royalty streams. For non-standard knowledge assets, these methods collapse. No comparable transactions. No income history. No market benchmarks.
Qualified appraisers lack established methods for non-standard IP. No professional body has published guidance. Appraisers either refuse the engagement or apply inapplicable methods.
The donor bears the full cost of establishing fair market value. For conventional assets, this is routine. For stranded knowledge assets, the documentation cost often exceeds the expected tax benefit.
Non-cash charitable contributions above $5,000 require qualified appraisals (IRC Section 170). Non-standard IP donations attract disproportionate audit risk because revenue agents lack valuation benchmarks.
The result: transactions that would be beneficial, legal, and rational don't occur. The valuation gap is not a market failure in the classical sense. It is an infrastructure failure — the absence of tools that would make a functioning market possible.
Each method addresses a different failure mode in existing valuation practice. They can be used individually or in combination depending on the asset class and available documentation.
What would it cost to produce this knowledge from scratch? Based on documented production costs adjusted for inflation and technological change.
Mechanism: Sum original labour, equipment, materials, and overhead. Adjust for inflation. Discount for technological change (some methods are now cheaper to replicate; others are more expensive because the equipment no longer exists).
Best for: Failed clinical trials, academic research datasets
What do similar assets license for in arm's-length transactions? Uses comparable licensing deals in adjacent fields as benchmarks.
Mechanism: Identify comparable IP in adjacent fields with documented licensing history. Adjust for market size, asset age, and specificity. Apply standard IP valuation discounts for non-exclusivity.
Best for: Shelved corporate patents, software tools
What is the probability this asset becomes valuable if released to the commons? Uses Black-Scholes-inspired optionality framework for knowledge assets.
Mechanism: Model the asset as a real option. The underlying is social utility (not market price). Volatility reflects the breadth of potential use cases. Time to expiry is effectively infinite for knowledge in the commons.
Best for: Early-stage research, assets whose value depends on future conditions
What is the social utility that market price does not capture? Quantifies non-market value: educational use, downstream research enablement, cultural preservation.
Mechanism: Start from replacement cost or comparable value. Add social multiplier for: educational use (citation potential), downstream research enablement (combinatorial value), cultural preservation (heritage premium). Discount for accessibility barriers.
Best for: Media and documentary catalogues, government grey literature
The framework is not abstract. It maps specific valuation methods to specific classes of stranded knowledge assets, each with distinct documentation requirements and appraisal considerations.
90% of clinical trials fail. The data is not destroyed — it is stranded. Negative results prevent duplicate spending and inform future trial design. Private value: near zero. Social value: significant and growing.
Universities transfer only a fraction of their IP. Research tools, datasets, and methodologies sit in institutional portfolios with no commercialisation path. Shelved, not because they are worthless, but because they are not profitable.
Corporations maintain patent portfolios as defensive assets. Many patents cover innovations the company will never commercialise. They are held to prevent competitors from using them — a private function with zero social return.
Production companies hold unreleased documentaries, archival footage, and partially completed projects. Rights complexity and distribution economics make release unviable. The cultural and educational value remains.
Government-funded reports, datasets, and technical publications that are formally public but practically invisible. No discovery infrastructure. No indexing. Published to satisfy a requirement, then filed.
Three targeted recommendations aimed at revenue authorities. Each is designed to reduce transaction friction without requiring legislative change — they can be implemented through administrative guidance and revenue procedures.
Revenue authorities should establish safe harbour valuation thresholds for knowledge asset donations to qualified commons institutions. Below the threshold, donors may use simplified methods (e.g., documented CTR) without triggering enhanced scrutiny.
Create a designation for institutions equipped to receive, curate, and redistribute knowledge assets. This reduces the documentation burden by shifting asset stewardship assessment from the donor to the receiving institution.
Revenue authorities should formally recognise the four valuation methods (CTR, CLV, OV, SVD) as acceptable methodologies for non-standard IP charitable deductions. This provides appraisers with institutional cover and reduces engagement refusal.
This is the first IRSA paper that is purely infrastructural.
Layer 1 papers argue for how the world should be organised — Circulatory Economics reframes economic measurement, Regenerative Capital Theory redesigns how capital flows. Those papers require you to accept a theoretical position.
This paper hands practitioners the tools to begin building it. You do not need to accept any claim about circulatory economics, regenerative capital, or institutional architecture to use this framework.
You need a stranded knowledge asset, a qualified appraiser, and this methodology. That's it.
The full working paper: valuation methodology, asset class analysis, documentation templates, and policy recommendations.
View PaperSee how VUC connects to the broader IRSA corpus. Standards papers operationalise what Layer 1 papers theorise.
Explore the Theory