v1.1 — The Value Capture Lemma and asset-level value capture

v1.1 — The Value Capture Lemma and asset-level value capture

Date: 2026-05-14

v1.0 established that Privacy, Proofs, and Compute are indispensable digital capacities. It did not establish the step that turns indispensable utility into monetary premium. v1.1 supplies that step and makes it falsifiable.

The Value Capture Lemma

• From Utility Demand to Monetary Premium (§6.2) — a formal statement of the conditions under which demand for a capacity accrues to a scarce native asset rather than to the providers of that capacity. Utility alone is insufficient: most useful services never become money because their demand accrues to operators, not to an asset.
• Why Users Cannot Simply Bypass the Asset (§6.3) — the anti-bypass conditions. Value capture survives only where required fees, burns, collateral, and issuance discipline cannot be routed around by rational users.

Eighth Store-of-Value requirement

• Asset-level value capture joins the Store-of-Value requirements framework, expanding it from seven to eight. A system can satisfy every technical requirement and still fail this one.

§8 reframed: Proofs as Attestation Money

• The chapter formerly titled “Proofs as Truth Money” becomes “Proofs as Attestation Money.” Proofs do not establish truth about the world; they establish that a specified computation was performed correctly over specified inputs. The rename removes an overclaim that v1.0 made in passing and aligns the chapter with the objection response added below.

Red lines expanded from five to eight

• The falsification framework gains three additional red lines, extending the conditions under which the thesis should be treated as failed rather than merely early.

Four new objections and responses

• “Utility does not imply money.” — conceded and formalized; this is precisely why the Value Capture Lemma exists.
• “The asset can be bypassed.” — answered with the anti-bypass conditions.
• “The asset will be co-opted, not bypassed.” — the wrapper/custody objection, first raised here and later developed into the Wrapper Dominance Ratio in v1.2 and the Market Realization Plane in v1.3.
• “Proofs do not prove truth.” — conceded; the §8 rename is the structural response.

Editorial note

This release is additive with one correction: the §8 title change narrows a claim rather than extending it. All other v1.0 claims stand. The PDF, checksums, and versioned web sections (/v/1.1/...) reflect this release.