To @Doug 's point, I think this is where there may be some tension between VitaDAO’s valuation versus innovation in funding longevity research.
I would suggest that our portfolio should reflect the fact that we are trying to get as much promising research its first chance to develop. With only ~5-6m available to start, we are not a “serious player” in the funding world - at least not yet - and do not have the capacity currently to go beyond smaller initial stage equity investments, or IP build-out. So I would say that Conviction/Probability of Success as @Doug noted above, is the most important factor on his list.
On the “business” side - I think there is both an optical and a practical approach to this. Funding good teams, and getting incremental wins in the form of research outcomes/IP will show that a DAO can be an effective partner in funding this kind of research. Showing some sophistication in terms of deal structure (IP/equity) and strong treasury management is going to show the legitimacy of VitaDAO as a vehicle for cooperative investment ventures: DAOs have had a troubled past - we have the responsibility to raise the bar.
Our sweet spot for involvement is in the pre-clinical space; it also puts us furthest from most forms of exit event or revenue stream. That means for VitaDAOs operations to continue, we must balance between self-funding through treasury management revenue streams, issue more tokens, or we are fortunate enough to have an early licensing/sale of IP in one or more projects.
In the absence of IP ownership by VitaDAO, which I think is the preferred vehicle for long-term value creation , I think equity makes sense when the science/team is strong with a high probability to succeed or if an opportunity is close to a revenue or exit event. So if a David Sinclair or one of the well know names are involved and we want to be seen as being part of the win optically, then equity may be the path.
As to the ratio of how much we spend from our current funds, that is a financial modeling exercise (which I am happy to contribute to). The decision criteria should include how well do we think we can perform in treasury management in terms of raising recurring revenue from fees, arbitrage, etc. The next question becomes when do we go for the next raise of capital - this will be where the tension between some token holders will manifest.
From a DAO valuation point of view, the valuation of IP is harder to pin down than the valuation of equity.
Once we establish our going concern budget requirements, and model the revenue streams from our current assets, the rest will be fairly easy to model and do some sensitivity analysis on.