This is an interesting idea. I am now curious if there is a formalization of this idea of variable value which seems to be a function of some kind of friction/

This is an interesting idea. I am now curious if there is a formalization of this idea of variable value which seems to be a function of some kind of friction/work requirement. And I imagine is a function of scale relative to the context. What I mean is, if you're an auction house or a major museum, with an operating budget in the $100Ms or more, at some point it is at least cognitively simpler (if not prudent) to accept a certain amount of shrinkage/fraud/loss etc., which you might prevent with even minimal effort, because the minimal effort is too costly in some other way. Cognitively. Administratively. Whatever. I remember learning from relatives who had worked in the FBI that their had been in their day thresholds for what level of check fraud merited investigation. Below a certain level it was not a good use of limited resources to waste time chasing it. This has an interesting follow-on effect, that it was worth consistent effort to obscure that actuality and promote belief in a much more comprehensively aware and interested (and competent) FBI than existed, because that was itself effective in discouraging a certain amount of crime. "Not worth the risk" is miscalculated when you overestimate the risk. And you have little ability to test the system. I find this interesting because it is a reminder that e.g. value is not BS, exactly; but it's multidimensionally contingent and contextual. Which I guess you can see in other places all the time but this is an interesting angle. Not least because it suggests where to look for rich veins of "arbitrage," the places you can exploit differences in relative value. A la Superman III!