~$5tn governed payment volume — the contingent-payability slice across four verticals
Celium's economic TAM is not the gross spend envelope across its four verticals (~$25tn), but the filtered subset where what becomes payable materially depends on evidence, verification, milestones, acceptance logic, holdbacks, or dispute resolution. That filtered governed-payment volume is estimated at ~$5tn globally. At 0.75% effective take on the serviceable slice, the SAM is ~$40bn. Celium's 2035 model target ($191.8M ARR) is 0.47% of that SAM.
~$5tn
Economic TAM (GPV, 2026)
filtered governed-payment volume
~$40bn
SAM (2026)
serviceable geographies, 0.75% take
$191.8M
SOM 2035 (model)
473 logos, 0.47% of SAM
Click each layer to understand the methodology
Economic TAM — Governed Payment Volume~$5tn GPV
Filtered subset where payability materially depends on evidence, milestones, acceptance logic, holdbacks, or dispute resolution. Not the gross cross-vertical spend envelope (~$25tn).
↓ serviceable geographies & verticals, 0.75% effective take
SAM — Serviceable Addressable Market~$40bn ARR
Serviceable GPV (~$5.2tn) × 0.75% blended effective take, filtered to geographies Celium can serve within the planning horizon
↓ realistic capture rate — 473 logos by 2035
SOM — Financial Model Target (2035)$191.8M ARR
Base case — 473 logos, $191.8M ARR, ~0.47% of SAM. Built bottom-up from logo counts × ACV per vertical.
Economic TAM — definition
The correct hierarchy: Economic TAM (~$5tn GPV, filtered contingent-payment subset) → SAM (~$40bn ARR, serviceable geographies at 0.75% take) → SOM ($191.8M, bottom-up model target). The ~$25tn gross cross-vertical envelope is context — not the TAM. The $5tn figure is the defensible investor-safe number for payments in scope where Celium's architecture applies.
Four verticals — GPV, SAM, and sequencing rationale
Nature is the wedge, not the ceiling. Construction has the largest GPV ($13.3tn) and the highest SOM upside, but requires the most integration work. The sequencing — Nature → IT → Government → Construction — is driven by integration complexity and proof requirement, not market size.
SAM sensitivity to take rate — three scenarios, 2026–2040
Take rate
SAM 2026
SAM 2030
SAM 2035
SAM 2040
Celium SOM 2035 as % SAM
0.50% (base)
$25.9bn
$31.5bn
$40.4bn
$52.0bn
0.47%
0.75% (effective)
$38.9bn
$47.2bn
$60.6bn
$77.9bn
0.32%
1.00% (upside)
$51.9bn
$63.0bn
$80.7bn
$103.9bn
0.24%
These are SAM figures — the serviceable slice of the ~$5tn governed-payment economic TAM. The 0.75% effective take is the midpoint, reflecting a blended rate across Tiers 1–4. At any of the three take rates, Celium's 2035 SOM target is below 0.5% of SAM — conservative by design.
SOM progression — model vs top-down
Target geographies
The model ARR ($191.8M in 2035) is 0.47% of the $38.9bn SAM. The model is bottom-up: it counts actual logos × ACV per vertical. By 2040, $843M ARR is still only ~1.2% of the then-SAM — the constraint is execution capacity, not addressable market.