Assumptions

A larger common pool wins over many smaller ones

A single source with a single standard sounds intuitively better. It likely means more bang for the buck: fewer intermediaries, contract negotiations, due diligence, harmonization and reconciliation, and integration efforts.
Even if this is true, how do we know that the existing fragmentation is a problem worth solving? We can't just count on building a better market, because it's pointless if we never populate it. Can we build a product worth switching to?

Higher data accuracy is relevant

It's possible that the current accuracy of the available datasets already works well for our target market. In that case, can we demonstrate (significantly) better results, in terms of advertising ROI (e.g. as measured in conversions)?

We can change the market with the right incentives

Blockchain technology provides the bedrock on which to design custom economies. But are we underestimating the effort of modeling and validating the right set of incentives? Are we overestimating the impact they would have, or dismissing switching costs? How hard will it be to convince data providers to contribute?

We can significantly broaden the data market

We assume that if we make it easy enough to sell data, anyone in a position to collect data will start doing so. For example, any browser extension could open up a new revenue stream by starting to collect and sell browsing history, search intents, and purchase history.
Additionally, leveraging DeFi technology to enable data derivative markets would help us grow the data economy overall, increase data availability and liquidity, help with curation, and enable data use as collateral.
One objection could be that, if we don't build a strong privacy-focused brand, it's possible that folks might be afraid to integrate us out of fear of user backlash. The current regulatory uncertainty around personal data processing doesn't help us or prospective data producers either.
Last modified 7mo ago