We exist so you can exist

We rate companies to push them towards better longevity therapies.

We suggest a transparent rating based on scientific foundations, company strategy, transparency and communication, with the end goal of estimating how likely the company is to drive innovative lifespan extension technologies. Companies are expected to be higher in the rating if:

• They have provable results in animal longevity
• They publish their data transparently
• They publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals
• They clearly communicate their strategy for creating longevity therapies
• Their vision for longevity therapies is based on a solid theoretical background
• The theory they employ explains more observations
• They have the funds to reach their goals
• They have computational resources needed for their research
• They hire qualified professionals
• They receive media attention

None of these factors is decisive, but a combination of these factors is needed for the company to be successful in the field of longevity.

We rate heroes because human spirit and curiosity drive innovations.

Heroes are not necessarily the richest people, the most visible people, or the most commercially successful founders. They can be scientists, theorists, organizers, public intellectuals, or people who spent decades pushing the field forward before it became fashionable. They can also be new people who have not yet had time to become legends, but have already contributed original concepts and encouraged the society to accept immortalism.

We rate funds because they are instrumental for science to advance.

Funds decide which research directions get the spotlight and thus determine how the whole longevity field evolves. For the field to thrive, we need funds to employ top experts in the field who can take transparent and professional strategic decisions.

However, the feedback is now lacking from the scientific community back to the investors. Thus, to close the feedback loop and let the scientists rate the funds, we want a funds rating that rewards:

• Tackling complex and bold questions that lead to innovative technologies
• Distributing support transparently and fairly
• Taking risks and not limiting themselves to low-risk investments. Specifically, we don't want a rating that is driven only by successful, low-risk and unimpactful investments.

We want a living and ever-changing rating.

We want to become better at predicting success. Ideally, we want to see strong companies and visionaries before the market sees them. A small startup may not yet have media attention, large investments, or dozens of publications. But if it has the right concept, if it is placed in the right scientific context, and if it is moving in the right direction, that matters. It should be visible. At the same time, a company may have a charismatic founder, enormous promises, and a beautiful story, while still based around a weak understanding of theory and weak data. That should also be visible.

We want the longevity field to argue, to move, to update itself, to publish mistakes, to admit uncertainty, and to go forward. We want to have a constantly updated map of who is actually bringing us closer to existing longer, better, and perhaps in a radically different way.