mirror of
https://github.com/zoo-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-10-30 14:56:54 +00:00
79 lines
3.0 KiB
TeX
79 lines
3.0 KiB
TeX
\section{Risk-Return Analysis}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:analysis}
|
|
% ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Project Archetypes}
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\caption{Risk-return profiles for BIB project archetypes (10{,}000 Monte
|
|
Carlo runs, 10-year horizon).}
|
|
\label{tab:riskreturn}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
|
|
\toprule
|
|
\textbf{Archetype} & \textbf{E[IRR]} & \textbf{$\sigma$[IRR]} &
|
|
\textbf{P(loss)} & \textbf{Sharpe} \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\emph{Low risk}} \\
|
|
\quad PA maintenance & 4.2\% & 2.1\% & 3\% & 1.14 \\
|
|
\quad Invasive removal & 5.1\% & 3.4\% & 7\% & 0.91 \\
|
|
\quad Habitat restoration & 5.8\% & 3.8\% & 9\% & 0.95 \\
|
|
\quad Watershed protection & 4.7\% & 2.5\% & 4\% & 1.08 \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\emph{Medium risk}} \\
|
|
\quad Species reintroduction & 7.3\% & 6.2\% & 18\% & 0.82 \\
|
|
\quad Corridor creation & 6.9\% & 5.7\% & 15\% & 0.84 \\
|
|
\quad Reef restoration & 8.1\% & 7.4\% & 22\% & 0.78 \\
|
|
\quad Community conservation & 6.4\% & 5.1\% & 13\% & 0.86 \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\emph{High risk}} \\
|
|
\quad De-extinction support & 12.4\% & 14.2\% & 38\% & 0.66 \\
|
|
\quad Deep-sea conservation & 10.8\% & 11.6\% & 31\% & 0.70 \\
|
|
\quad Climate refuge creation & 9.6\% & 9.8\% & 27\% & 0.71 \\
|
|
\quad Novel ecosystem design & 11.2\% & 12.8\% & 34\% & 0.67 \\
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Sensitivity Analysis}
|
|
|
|
Key return drivers in order of sensitivity:
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item \textbf{Outcome probability}: +10\% baseline success raises
|
|
expected IRR by 1.8--2.4 percentage points.
|
|
\item \textbf{Outcome payer commitment}: Firm commitments reduce
|
|
return variance by 40--60\%.
|
|
\item \textbf{Monitoring reliability}: Higher oracle confidence
|
|
reduces dispute costs and accelerates payment release.
|
|
\item \textbf{Token liquidity}: Active secondary markets reduce the
|
|
illiquidity premium by 1.5--2.0 percentage points.
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Transaction Cost Comparison}
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\caption{Transaction costs: traditional trust fund vs.\ tokenized BIB
|
|
(\% of total capital).}
|
|
\label{tab:costs}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
|
|
\toprule
|
|
\textbf{Cost category} & \textbf{Traditional} & \textbf{BIB} \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
Legal structuring & 8--12\% & 2--3\% \\
|
|
Fund administration & 3--5\% & 0.5--1\% \\
|
|
Monitoring \& reporting & 5--10\% & 3--5\% \\
|
|
Payment processing & 2--3\% & 0.1--0.3\% \\
|
|
Audit \& compliance & 3--5\% & 1--2\% \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
\textbf{Total} & 21--35\% & 6.6--11.3\% \\
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
Tokenized BIBs achieve a median 62\% reduction in transaction costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
% ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|