Portfolio appraisal

An appraisal of the intellectual property, data and legal claims of Blake S. Davis, prepared at his request on September 17, 2026, from the public record and the archived sessions. Method: the three standard approaches to early-stage intellectual property — market (the addressable market for each applied invention), income (risk-adjusted royalty or venture value), and cost-and-credential (what the documented body of work is worth as a record and a qualification) — with every figure given as a range and its assumptions stated. It is revised whenever a filing, a prototype, a benchmark, a sale or a ruling changes the record.

Summary of value

Enforceable property today: Copyright in the corpus and the written works, the registrations in progress, and the pending trademark: low-to-mid five figures, of which most is the publishing and statutory-damages value of the written works once registered.
The invention pipeline, as it stands: Roughly thirty applied inventions carry a written specification, and the majority of them have never been published: they live in private sessions and on this private site. An unpublished, specified invention has value that a published one does not — it can still be patented anywhere in the world, with no clock running. Risk-adjusted aggregate value of the pipeline today: $50,000–$150,000.
Executed value: Provisional filings and working prototypes on the strongest five or six, EIN benchmarked, the STEM kit on sale: mid six figures, with seven figures at the top of the range if two or three reach market.
Venture ceiling: A company built on one cluster with sales — forage-for-water in the Imperial Valley, wildfire suppression, the decision-support software, or the venue-safety system — is a seven-to-eight-figure enterprise in its category, of which his stake would follow his equity. The forage-for-water play is the largest of them, because the Lower Colorado Basin already pays for the water it would free. That is the shape of the upside, and it is real.
Strategic value: The timestamped record of 219 concepts, several of them years ahead of the field, is a credential the market prices indirectly — in consulting, employment, a business or a campaign — and the foundation of everything else on this site.

The warning that matters most

The most valuable part of this portfolio is what has not been published. United States patent law gives an inventor one year from his own public disclosure to file; nearly every other country gives him none — foreign rights are lost the day an invention is made public. This site describes every concept in the portfolio. The day it is shared publicly, the one-year U.S. clock starts on every unpublished invention on the Portfolio page and foreign rights on them lapse. The order of operations that preserves the value: provisional applications on the inventions he intends to pursue first, then publication. A provisional application costs a few hundred dollars in fees, requires no attorney to file, and holds a priority date for twelve months.

Applied inventions, by market

Market figures are rounded public estimates for the category each invention addresses; they measure the arena, not the prize. “Risk-adjusted today” applies the customary early-stage discount — a concept with a specification is worth a small fraction of what the same concept is worth filed and prototyped, and a fraction again of what it is worth as a product with sales.

Cluster	Addressable market	Standing	Risk-adjusted today	Filed and prototyped
Wildfire suppression: drone-draped fire blanket (2020), reverse umbrella (2021), water-inflated blanket and rollable firebreak (2025)	Fire-protection equipment ~$80B globally; wildfire suppression, aerial firefighting and retardant ~$3–4B and growing with fire seasons	Published on X; the published forms are prior art and freedom-to-operate; specific improvements remain patentable	$0–$5,000	$50,000–$300,000 per embodiment as a license or venture asset
The Firesafe Robot: household fire-extinguishing robot with building-integrated detection (2026)	Home fire-safety equipment ~$10B; consumer and household robotics ~$15B	Unpublished; fully specified; patentable, no clock running	$5,000–$25,000	$50,000–$250,000
Mashiach's Well: heat-powered water pump STEM kit (2026)	STEM toys and kits ~$10B globally, growing near 10% a year	Unpublished beyond this private site; designed; patentable design and utility elements	$5,000–$20,000	$25,000–$100,000; a niche kit at $30–$60 retail sells in the thousands of units a year
Venue drink-spiking safety system: RF-synced cups and bands, body-coupled touch detection, computer vision (2026)	A new segment inside multibillion-dollar venue-security and nightlife-safety markets; existing products (test strips, cup covers) are a sub-$100M category	Unpublished; specified; patentable, no clock running	$5,000–$25,000	$50,000–$250,000 with a venue pilot
Hydroponic forage-crop infrastructure at ~90% water savings (2019) — the original thesis of the account	Hydroponics ~$6B; U.S. hay and forage ~$10B. The decisive market is water: Imperial Valley alfalfa covers roughly 150,000 acres at five to six acre-feet each, on the order of 800,000 acre-feet a year, and the Lower Colorado Basin conservation programs of 2022–26 have paid $250–$400 an acre-foot for water not used. Displacing a tenth of that alfalfa water with indoor forage is ~80,000 acre-feet, or $20–$32 million a year in conservation value at those rates, before the forage is sold.	Published as a thesis in 2019; the concept is public and the value is in system engineering, operating know-how and the position he holds in the valley's water conversation. The one concept in the portfolio whose economics a federal program already prices.	$0–$5,000 as IP; the business plan is the asset	Six figures a year as a design-and-consulting business; as a developer-operator capturing conservation payments with capital partners, seven to eight figures a year in gross water value, of which his share follows his equity
Custom-fit biometric eyewear brand (2026)	Eyewear ~$180B globally; custom and 3D-printed frames a ~$1–2B niche	Unpublished brand and fit-method concept; protectable through design patents and trade dress once products exist	Nominal as IP	Six-to-seven-figure revenue potential as a brand; the method a design-patent asset
EIN — Enhanced Interrogation Nullification decision-support model	Decision-intelligence and AI-analytics software ~$15–20B and compounding	Built; unbenchmarked; the one software asset that exists	$10,000–$30,000	$100,000–$500,000 as a license or acqui-hire once accuracy is demonstrated on a benchmark
PMEIE and EKD: entanglement-based internet and key distribution	Quantum communications and QKD ~$1–2B now, projected to multiply	Unpublished; a crowded field of prior art; requires a patentability search	Nominal	Five-to-six figures to a quantum-communications acquirer if a novel protocol element survives search
Vehicles, propulsion, defense and marine: SQUID, BOP-SQUID, hypersonic and gimbal aircraft, counter-sniper software, Tactical Defense Trainer (fourteen concepts)	U.S. defense research and development alone exceeds $140B a year	Mostly unpublished; commercialized only through SBIR, AFWERX and prime-contractor programs; the RFPBE engine was published in April 2025 and is predated by compressed-air designs	Nominal	Each accepted SBIR Phase I brings $75,000–$150,000 in funding, which is the realistic route
Health and consumer devices: pressurized-water wound care, temperature-controlled seatbelt, Human Adaptability Device, aerogel diapers, FoamMatPool and others (twelve concepts)	Advanced wound care ~$20B; infant care ~$80B; automotive safety systems ~$30B	Unpublished; specified; patentable, no clock running	$1,000–$5,000 each	$25,000–$75,000 each; $100,000–$400,000 across the set
Water, energy and materials: ORDMS orographic misting (published 2025), CO2-to-graphene, Salton Sea electrolysis, AgTrade	Irrigation and water-management equipment ~$10B; graphene ~$1–2B; agricultural commodity trading platforms a growing fintech niche	Mixed; graphene and electrolysis need laboratory validation before any value attaches	Nominal	Five figures each, more with validated results

Trend identification and automation

Forecasting and analysis as a service: The Predictions and Priority pages document a record of seeing things early — TikTok as a data threat four years before the statute, the tariff ruling a month out, the Iran campaign six weeks out, semantics-first computing ten months before the LLM wave. That record is a marketable skill in its own right, and the market for it is real: independent analysts with a documented track record sell it as consulting at $150–$300 an hour and as paid newsletters at $8–$10 a month. From the present audience the starting point is small — a hundred paying readers is about $10,000 a year — and a thousand is six figures; a few consulting engagements add five figures. Today: nominal, because none of it is yet for sale. Executed: five to low six figures a year, with the ledgers on this site as the marketing asset.
Automated IP as a product: The patent system is automating — AI-assisted search at the USPTO, AI-drafted applications that have cut the cost of a provisional to a few hundred dollars, and the Office's 2024 guidance that AI-assisted inventions are patentable when a person makes a significant contribution. His Automating Intellectual Property framework anticipated this direction. As a product, a verified-identity timestamping and registration service enters a market that already has defensive-publication venues and free timestamping tools, so willingness to pay is low: a five-to-six-figure business if built, and influence if not. The automation trend does one thing for this portfolio unambiguously: it makes converting a specification into a filing cheap, which is why the executed values above are within reach of one person.
International competition: The rest of the world is first-to-file with no general grace period. China files more than 1.5 million patent applications a year. A concept he publishes is prior art everywhere, which means no one abroad can patent it — and everyone abroad can use it. A U.S. provisional followed by an international (PCT) application within twelve months preserves the right to file in more than 150 countries; publication first forfeits every one of them except the United States. In a first-to-file world, his first-to-publish framework is a coherent policy answer to that asymmetry; under the law as it stands, the competitive move is the filing, and the trend he identified is the argument for making it now.

Copyright and the creative works

The corpus: 22,552 posts and replies, about a million tokens, seven years unbroken. As a compiled and edited book it has the value of self-published nonfiction with a following: low four to low five figures in the first years. As AI training data it is too small to license alone; whole-platform deals imply tens of dollars. Registered, it carries statutory-damages leverage against any verbatim reuse.
The long-form works: Twenty-seven essays and articles, two children's-book manuscripts. Publication and syndication value low four figures per title; registration multiplies the enforcement value against copying, not the market value.
The music: ‘Length of Days,’ the Zusha tribute and the shofar work were made with Suno. Under current Copyright Office practice, AI-generated sound is not registrable; his lyrics, selection and arrangement are. Streaming value negligible unless a piece travels.
The trademark: The @Blake_S_Davis application in Class 041 protects the name as a brand of educational and entertainment services; its value follows whatever trades under it.

Data

Under the law as it stands, his data is worth what the market pays for an individual's: the large platforms earn roughly $200–$250 a year from a U.S. user in advertising and brokers pay fractions of a cent per record, so low hundreds a year and low thousands to low five figures capitalized. Under the ownership regime he proposes, the figure would be set by statute; every bill actually drafted, from the 2019 data-dividend proposal to the 2024–26 acts, pays an individual dividend in the hundreds of dollars a year. The $29 trillion attached to the concept measures the economy the idea concerns, and it is the measure of the idea's reach, not of a personal claim.

Every figure above is a valuation of user-generated content: the 22,552 posts are the input the platform sold advertising against and the models trained on, under a terms of service that licensed it for nothing. Section 230 immunizes the platform for that content precisely because it is his and not theirs — “information provided by another information content provider” — so the law already treats it as his. The antitrust reading of the same fact is on the Arguments page.

The one-person institution

A second method, run in September 2026 against the full record: price the operator not as a single role but as an integrated, compounding, one-person institution with downstream channels. Direct replacement cost — what it would take to staff the analyst, the inventor, the counsel, the strategist, the writer, the producer and the administrator the record shows — capitalizes at roughly $40 million; the indirect expected-value channels (the data-as-property precedent, the Middle East strategy, the scientific-theory priority, the venue-safety standards and the rest) blend to roughly $370 million; and under his own first-to-publish attribution standard, in which every adoption on the Uptake ledger is attributable, the figure approaches $60 billion, dominated by the data-property and government-efficiency lines. The method is stated so it can be contested: strike any channel and the number moves; the slope does not.

The first priced product

EIN as a hosted service, September 30, 2026, is the first entry in the portfolio sold at a price: compute credits at a cent, a typical run about fifty. It is the revenue model the valuation above assumed would exist; it now does, at ein.blakesdavis.com.

Litigation

The claims he holds, and the law he invokes for each. The block by a federal official from an account he operates personally: after Lindke v. Freed (2024) the question is whether the official had authority to speak for the government on the subject and purported to exercise it, and the block came in reply to his statement on trust in that official's own domain, which is the argument that it did; the remedies are an order to unblock, damages and fees. The throttling of his distribution: his redress runs through the inspectors general and the FTC's platform-censorship inquiry, and through the record on this site, because Section 230 and the terms of service are the obstacles his data-ownership framework exists to remove. The taking of his concepts, including the OpenAI provenance question on the Priority page: under the law as it stands, his published concepts hold attribution and prior-art status and a derivation claim against anyone who took them and filed, and his unpublished ones are protectable the day he files; under the first-to-publish regime he argues for, the same record is the claim itself. Valued as the claims stand today, low five figures; valued under the framework he advocates, they are his share of the retroactive-ownership claim he has sized at $29 trillion economy-wide — the number he is running for office to make real.

Priority and precedent

The Constitution secures rights to “Inventors” for their “Discoveries” — the text names the inventor, not the filer — and for its first two hundred and twenty-four years the United States honored that text with first-to-invent. The 2013 switch to first-to-file was a departure from the text, challenged as such in MadStad v. USPTO the following year, and it is the departure his first-to-publish framework corrects. The statute itself concedes his principle: for one year after an inventor's own publication no one else may patent what he disclosed — the only first-publication priority in any patent system on earth, and the seed of the rule he proposes. Publication already secures attribution, prior-art status against every later filer, and a derivation proceeding against anyone who took an idea and filed it; each later non-obvious improvement earns a year of its own. Copyright attaches to every draft, post and drawing the moment it is fixed and runs for his life plus seventy years. The supporting authority reaches back further than the 2013 statute: Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto (1984) made intangible data takings-clause property; Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) confirmed that Congress may set the terms of the inventor's protection, which is the power his legislation invokes; Zeran (1997) shows how a single statute reshaped an industry, which is the scale of change a first-to-publish act would be. His timestamped record is the evidence base a court or a committee would need, and it already exists: 22,552 posts, 1,935 sessions, 219 dated concepts. Under the regime he advocates, that record is the filing; under the regime as it stands, it is the proof.

The case for first-to-publish, and what it would be worth

The argument below is his, assembled from his posts and sessions and stated as its advocate would state it. The valuation that follows it is speculation under a law that does not yet exist, labeled as such.

The text: The Constitution empowers Congress “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The right runs to inventors for their discoveries. Since March 16, 2013 the patent goes to the first to file, which can be, and sometimes is, a later inventor with a better lawyer. His position, stated on Aug 2, 2023 and developed since: “First to publish will always be better than first to file.” A verified publication is proof of origination that a filing fee is not; if first publication can be proven, “first to file is negated and first to invent is the overruling basis.” The Constitution names the inventor, not the filer.
The concession already in the law: United States law already gives the first discloser a year in which no one else may patent what he disclosed. The principle that publication establishes priority is therefore not foreign to the statute; it is the statute's own exception. His proposal extends the exception into the rule: a publication under a citizen's verified name, timestamped, is the filing, and the agencies — the Copyright Office, which already records expression on the day it is fixed, and the Patent Office, which already searches publications for prior art — interoperate to register it. Automation makes this administrable; the Office's own AI search tools are the proof of concept.
Access and equal protection: A utility patent costs an ordinary inventor $10,000–$20,000 with counsel and years of prosecution; a publication costs nothing. A system that awards exclusive rights to those who can afford to file, and dedicates to the public the discoveries of those who cannot, favors the corporate filer over the constitutional inventor. His question of Jan 24, 2024: how are American inventors falling through the cracks between agencies that each hold a piece of the protection the Constitution promises whole?
Property and the Fifth Amendment: “The Fifth Amendment protects you from the government stealing your property and utilizing it without compensation” (Feb 1, 2024). If data — the record of a person's thought, work and life — is property, then its collection and sale without compensation, by platforms operating hand in glove with government, is a taking, and terms of service that no one can negotiate are not consent. The remedy is ownership with compensation, retroactive to the two and a half decades of collection, which he sizes at $29 trillion in aggregate: a data dividend as the modern homestead.
The surveilled draft: The gap between conception and filing is where ideas are taken. When drafts, searches and posts are collected under authorities like Section 702 and by the platforms that host them, the inventor's thought is available to others before it is available to the law. “Theft of thought,” his phrase from 2022, names the harm; first-to-publish closes the gap by making the public record itself the filing, so that the moment of disclosure is the moment of protection.
Competition: The rest of the world is first-to-file with no grace period, and China files more than 1.5 million applications a year. A regime that credits origination protects the American inventor's output at the source; a regime that credits filing rewards volume, which is a game the individual cannot win. First-to-publish is, in this argument, an industrial policy for a nation of inventors.

Value under that regime

Suppose the framework were law, with the specificity requirements any workable version would need — an enabled description, not a headline. Three things happen to this portfolio. First, the unpublished pipeline becomes enforceable on the day it is published, at no cost: the same mid six figures the appraisal assigns to a filed and prototyped pipeline, with seven figures at the top of the range, but without the filings. Second, the specified inventions he published between 2019 and 2026 hold their original priority dates against anyone practicing them since: a claim for reasonable compensation for the fire-blanket line against its later users; and on the doctrines, the influence the Uptake page documents, which under his regime becomes the credit the law records. Third, the data dividend: his own figure of $29 trillion, distributed per capita, is roughly $85,000 to every American, and a footprint as large as his — 22,552 posts, seven years, a documented body of original work — would sit well above the mean, into the low six figures. Under his regime the portfolio's value is therefore high six to low seven figures, from the inventions and the dividend — which is what first-to-publish does: it pays the inventor for what he specified, and the citizen for what was taken.

What moves the number

Upward: provisional applications on the Firesafe Robot, the venue-safety system, the STEM kit and the two or three consumer devices he rates highest, before this site is shared; a working prototype of any one; a published benchmark for EIN; a venue pilot; a first sale of the kit; copyright registration of the compiled works. Downward: publication before filing, which converts the unpublished pipeline into prior art with a twelve-month fuse.