Nothing here is verified yet. Content is migrated or drafted and has not been reviewed by a practitioner. Assertions marked like this are unchecked.
FinAtlas
Archetypeunverified

Marketplace / platform

Revenue is a take rate on third-party transactions; GMV is not revenue.

What changes about the finance work: Incentive spend and two-sided cohort economics dominate

Relationships pointing at this node.

changes these tasks

3

The task exists in this business archetype but behaves differently. The note is the point of the edge: it must say how it differs, not merely that it does.

  • Acquisition is two-sided: supply and demand have different costs, payback periods and churn rates. A blended CAC hides that one side is usually being subsidised to create liquidity for the other, which is a deliberate investment rather than an efficiency problem.

  • Gross collection from buyers and net remittance to sellers sit on opposite sides of the balance sheet, so DSO measured against net revenue produces a nonsensically large number. Measure days against gross billed volume and track the seller payable as a separate cycle.

  • Take-rate businesses gross-bill the buyer and remit to the seller, so billed volume tracks GMV while recognised revenue is only the commission. Forecasting off billings overstates revenue by an order of magnitude; the forecast object is really a GMV model with a take-rate assumption on top.