By that measure Nobels are thousand of time less valuable than Sam Bankman Fried

He didn't say it's the only measure.

Nobel prize winners are bad example, because their work is usually theoretical, hard to put to use. If someone writes a paper tomorrow proving that faster-than-light travel is possible then the only immediate value it brings is that you now have a nice lecture to read in bed. There are still thousands man-years of work required before an actual spaceship will be available for sale in your local dealership.

Parasitic rents and many other market distortions/extortions exist.

Saying that something exists isn't a complete thought.

Statements in a conversations do not stand alone. Thoughts flow from one to another.

Thoughts can't flow if they aren't expressed completely. Insinuation can flow, but not open thoughts.

Alternatively, you could let people pay whatever they want for the product. That would also give you a very accurate and objective measure of how people value the product.

What? You don't think the two measures would converge? In either case, the one with more market power would use that to improve their side of the bargain? Who'd've thunk...

That would not tell you anything about how much someone values a product. Everyone will happily pay 0 for something they value at 10. It's a fantastic deal for them. Too discover the true value you have to raise the price until they refuse to pay it. Which is what a market is intended to do.

> If someone starts a company in their garage, and a decade later that company is worth few billions of dollars then that's the value this person brought to society - because people willingly paid them those billions of dollars for their product/service.

What was the value FTX or Theranos brought to society?

You'll note that when it goes wrong in each of those cases, we lock the perpetrators up in a box. And their company's value drops according to the new information.

Totally, because the _expected future value_ changes with the new information. If they had actually created something of value, that wouldn't change because of new information. But they hadn't, and yet their companies were worth billions.

"Provides value" is loosely connected to "expected future value", but it's certainly not the same thing.

I agree. Except creating something of value isn't the same as company value - company value should be derived from ability to make money at a certain rate while spending it at a certain rate. This does include what you say, but with some extra bits.

But back to your point: it is possible to simulate either or both of those things and have eager investors get in early, but that's why they (probably) get in for less money than if the company had done what it claimed. They took a risk, and taking a risk is one of the valuable contributions one can make to a company.