Look at the past *evolutionary market simulation* I made for a bigger project. I simulate 100 players exchanging a good, which they have to maximize while trading for cash that is needed to stay alive. Impressive results came out, as you will see:
- it’s natural that one player emerges out of the others, gets a bunch of goods and manipulates the market in its own favor. Manipulations include: 1. If there is no external “central bank” buying/selling at-market-price the good, then the manipulators will get as much good as possible and sell it for high, driving up the price and their net worth. 2. If there is a CB, then they cannot strictly hoard the good because the CB (maybe this is a wrong assumption of mine) has infinite good and cash, then they directly manipulate the price on large timescales: they randomly drive the price to 0 to suffucate the players under them, thus killing them. Then at the right time they start to buy back as much as possible before new players do so.
- sometimes supply and price have linear correlation. Sometimes, not really. When the manipulators are affirmed, with slight supply marginal increase they will hoard it reducing the circulating supply and thus not driving down the price of the asset and thus their net worth.
- when instead I increased the money supply giving more money to new players to help them escalate, this immediately drives up the price of the asset (as their first action is to try to buy some). But at the end, they quickly lose to the manipulation of big players and thus all the extra liquidity ends up to the big players…
- adding a depreciation to cash allowed to pressure top players to not hoard liquidity to manipulate the market by squeezing the asset to 0 and then buying again. But after these players are selected, decreasing depreciation increases immediately asset price (as more resources that before were allocated to taxes now are free): but this is just a short term effect as sooner or later total liquidity in the market reaches an equilibrium point as in the Solow model. On the other side, if I recall well this effect, if increased depreciation taxation it increases by a lot volatility on a short-medium basis.
- many times I could see repeating patterns, and I noticed they tend to have a 20 turns lenght: this is how far each player can see. This might suggest that players tend to repeat the same “errors” of the past when they can’t see it.
Here’s the link to the simulation. Please comment and subscribe to show appreciation as a gesture of encouragement.
I hope this channel booms. Even if I am starting with close to brainrot videos to sense the field and see if there’s interest in Quantum Cryptography, I am cooking real high quality content for ya. Be in weeks or months, in such case… subscribe and stay tuned!
QuantumProof
Look at the past *evolutionary market simulation* I made for a bigger project. I simulate 100 players exchanging a good, which they have to maximize while trading for cash that is needed to stay alive.
Impressive results came out, as you will see:
- it’s natural that one player emerges out of the others, gets a bunch of goods and manipulates the market in its own favor.
Manipulations include:
1. If there is no external “central bank” buying/selling at-market-price the good, then the manipulators will get as much good as possible and sell it for high, driving up the price and their net worth.
2. If there is a CB, then they cannot strictly hoard the good because the CB (maybe this is a wrong assumption of mine) has infinite good and cash, then they directly manipulate the price on large timescales: they randomly drive the price to 0 to suffucate the players under them, thus killing them. Then at the right time they start to buy back as much as possible before new players do so.
- sometimes supply and price have linear correlation. Sometimes, not really. When the manipulators are affirmed, with slight supply marginal increase they will hoard it reducing the circulating supply and thus not driving down the price of the asset and thus their net worth.
- when instead I increased the money supply giving more money to new players to help them escalate, this immediately drives up the price of the asset (as their first action is to try to buy some). But at the end, they quickly lose to the manipulation of big players and thus all the extra liquidity ends up to the big players…
- adding a depreciation to cash allowed to pressure top players to not hoard liquidity to manipulate the market by squeezing the asset to 0 and then buying again. But after these players are selected, decreasing depreciation increases immediately asset price (as more resources that before were allocated to taxes now are free): but this is just a short term effect as sooner or later total liquidity in the market reaches an equilibrium point as in the Solow model. On the other side, if I recall well this effect, if increased depreciation taxation it increases by a lot volatility on a short-medium basis.
- many times I could see repeating patterns, and I noticed they tend to have a 20 turns lenght: this is how far each player can see. This might suggest that players tend to repeat the same “errors” of the past when they can’t see it.
Here’s the link to the simulation. Please comment and subscribe to show appreciation as a gesture of encouragement.
youtube.com/live/1R3z1W0wpyY?si=KIONmqnz-Zpqjc5I
11 months ago (edited) | [YT] | 3
View 1 reply
QuantumProof
I hope this channel booms. Even if I am starting with close to brainrot videos to sense the field and see if there’s interest in Quantum Cryptography, I am cooking real high quality content for ya. Be in weeks or months, in such case… subscribe and stay tuned!
1 year ago | [YT] | 5
View 0 replies