In a world in which people are willing to wildly speculate on stuff like NFTs and crypto, no one was willing to speculate on purchasing this data. That doesn't mean this data will never have value (which I stipulated in my original comment), but it is a clear indication that no one with the money to afford this data genuinely thinks it is worth the billions it would be if some of the fearmongers' claims were perceived as likely outcomes.
It may also be possible that the data's value is not realizable today, but can be in the future (in a way that does not benefit the people from which this data was derived).
This has played out in real time since the advent of stable diffusion and LLM ai - the data available on the internet was originally thought to be unmonetizable. Most people putting that data online simply thinks nothing of it, and let it be freely viewed.
Now, all of a sudden, these same people start complaining that their data are being used to train an ai (from which they obviously claim they want a piece of the profit off).
I expect genetics data to follow the same trajectory (and we just dont have any use for said data right now).
Yes, that is why I used the word "speculate". If there is a 10% chance this data explodes in value by 100x, then we could have expected that someone would have paid close to 10x the cost (minus the NPV of that money). The fact that no one did indicates a widespread belief that the odds of this hypothetical change happening are perceived to be low or that the value wouldn't actually increase that much after the change.
Your logic seems to be based on a belief in a perfectly rational and near-omniscient market. Given how much money is lost in various investments, how many companies fail, etc... I'm not sure such confidence is warranted, or safe.
Dismissing valid concerns about such data being sold and traded around as "fearmongering" also seems unfair. Given the
