Clearly having reference points/investment milestones are...

Clearly having reference points/investment milestones are crucially important (and I thank you for outlining yours), but onemarket is going for network effects and therefore participants (ie Hadley’s user numbers) may be as important a milestone, as cash inflows. For all we know omn may deliberately have monetisation as a low priority while they build up network effects (WhatsApp being another good example of a very valuable company without monetisation, and Facebook took a long time to monetise). They may decide they’d prefer to be cash flow negative for 10 years while they build the network. By the sound of things onemarket wants to be like a Facebook or google and have potential advertising revenues, therefore I wouldn’t want cash/revenues to be the only factor one looks at.

The chance onemarket succeeds with such ambitions must be very very low, but the potential is at that (Facebook/google) end of the scale imo.

Onemarket definitely suits private equity more than as a listed company, but would it be fair for Westfield share holders to have missed out on that opportunity if it does succeed? Maybe that’s why the lowys went down this route because Westfield or URW shares holders would have been pretty aggrieved having owned and started the development, to have missed out on a company that becomes the next Facebook.