The problem with ascribing dollar values to data (a.k.a. facts) is that you can make up a million untestable hypotheses about how data could theoretically have

The problem with ascribing dollar values to data (a.k.a. facts) is that you can make up a million untestable hypotheses about how data could theoretically have worth. To give an extreme but illustrative example: let's say that by typing this comment to you, I raise the temperature in my router by a millionth of a degree, which alters the wind pattern in my room, which causes butterfly to flap its wings, which... you get the point.. causes a hurricane in some remote part of the world. Does this make the "expected value" of my comment negative billions of dollars? You can back this argument out to less extreme versions and see that it's very difficult to economically value a fact. E.g. what if the traders named in this article had 100X the capital on the line for the same trade. Is the data now 100X more valuable because of the added economic value they derived from it? What if their trade netted them more than the change in market cap?