Thanks for the overview of Superset.

Your description throws up some warning messages in my mind, if you know what I mean, but in light of your and Z's involvement I'm guessing there may be more detail to come or that is perhaps already available to allay my concerns.

There appears to be a reliance on the “neoliberal fallacy of individual choice & control”, as Elizabeth Renieris puts it. We know the consent model cannot scale. Woody Hartzog speaks to this well imho: https://youtu.be/39EqTvpa1SY

And I'm left with the following impression ... What am I missing? What do I have wrong?

Delphia is a for-profit entity, and a community authorises this company to make sense of their collective data and sell that insight, or profit from it in some way. In return, the community retains a kill switch that may be used following democratic deliberation, and they may otherwise be compensated in some way for any data they provide.

Interestingly, to compensate means to "give something, typically money, in recognition of loss, suffering, or injury incurred."

Why, exactly, should this artificial separation of Delphia and Superset represent an optimal way forward for any member of the Superset community? If any stakeholder is privileged here it appears to be Delphia's equity participants.

I guess my over-arching ethical concern is perhaps best captured by the following quote by the European Data Protection Supervisor (2017):

"There might well be a market for personal data, just like there is, tragically, a market for live human organs, but that does not mean that we can or should give that market the blessing of legislation. One cannot monetise and subject a fundamental right to a simple commercial transaction, even if it is the individual concerned by the data who is a party to the transaction."