241 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
241 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
# SCENARIO-MERCHANT-0003
|
||
## The FAENVS Offer
|
||
### Status: Canonical Scenario Seed
|
||
### Layer: OTIVM (Roman Merchant)
|
||
### Purpose: Merchant-opportunity scenario driven by credit deployment, distress finance, AVCTORITAS leverage, and non-cargo NEGOTIVM
|
||
### Repository Path: docs/scenarios/SCENARIO-MERCHANT-0003.md
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 0. Design Intent
|
||
|
||
Not every profitable NEGOTIVM moves cargo.
|
||
|
||
This scenario validates that a MERCATOR may profit by deploying liquidity, reputation, and legal position into a distressed market without conducting ITER.
|
||
|
||
The participant should learn that capital can move faster than wagons.
|
||
|
||
This scenario exists to validate:
|
||
|
||
- finance as a parallel economic layer
|
||
- AVCTORITAS as usable capital
|
||
- default and collateral risk
|
||
- social cost of predatory lending
|
||
- liquidity trade-offs versus cargo ventures
|
||
- scenario chaining after 0001 and 0002
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. Canonical Identifier
|
||
|
||
| Field | Value |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| Scenario ID | `SCENARIO-MERCHANT-0003` |
|
||
| Title | The FAENVS Offer |
|
||
| Token | `faenus_offer` |
|
||
| Domain | merchant |
|
||
| Repeatable | yes |
|
||
| Hidden Truth Variants | yes |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2. Setting
|
||
|
||
| Parameter | Value |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| Primary City | Capua |
|
||
| Merchant Origin | Ostia |
|
||
| Scenario Trigger | recent industrial fire / contractor distress |
|
||
| Counterparty Type | timber contractor, forge clan, workshop owner, transport syndicate |
|
||
| Venture Form | loan, partnership, advance purchase, debt acquisition |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 3. Historical Basis
|
||
|
||
Roman commerce extensively used private credit, partnership arrangements, delayed settlement, and lending at interest. Enforcement depended not only on law, but on witnesses, status, patronage, and reputation.
|
||
|
||
Attitudes toward lending were mixed: common and necessary, but socially suspect when seen as exploitative.
|
||
|
||
This scenario is an analogue synthesis, not a claim of one recorded transaction.
|
||
|
||
Confidence: Medium
|
||
Sources: Roman legal history; Cicero correspondence; scholarship on Roman credit networks and private finance.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 4. Visible Event
|
||
|
||
A distressed contractor seeks immediate liquidity after recent losses.
|
||
|
||
Observed signs may include:
|
||
|
||
- unpaid workers
|
||
- halted rebuilding
|
||
- discounted inventory sale
|
||
- urgent meetings with creditors
|
||
- family silver pledged
|
||
- public denial of insolvency
|
||
- requests for short-term capital
|
||
|
||
Need is visible. True solvency is not.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 5. Hidden Counterparty Truth Variants
|
||
|
||
| Token | Description |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| recoverable_shortfall | temporary cash gap, viable business |
|
||
| concealed_insolvency | collapse already inevitable |
|
||
| asset_rich_cash_poor | valuable collateral, no liquidity |
|
||
| politically_protected | repayment likely through influence |
|
||
| fraudulent_borrower | seeks funds with no intent to repay |
|
||
| honest_but_unlucky | good risk harmed by disaster |
|
||
| rival_backing_pending | alternative finance imminent |
|
||
|
||
Signals only. No certainty.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 6. Merchant Actions
|
||
|
||
| Action | Description |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| short_term_loan | lend cash at agreed return |
|
||
| secured_loan | lend against pledged assets |
|
||
| advance_purchase | pay now for future stock at discount |
|
||
| partnership_finance | fund rebuild for share of profits |
|
||
| debt_claim_purchase | buy existing debt cheaply |
|
||
| decline_offer | preserve liquidity for cargo ventures |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 7. Immediate Effects (0–7 days)
|
||
|
||
| Effect | Direction |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| contractor liquidity | up |
|
||
| merchant liquidity | down |
|
||
| worker confidence | possible up |
|
||
| rumor volume | up |
|
||
| rival lenders | up |
|
||
| price of pledged assets | re-evaluated |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 8. Secondary Effects (7–30 days)
|
||
|
||
| Effect | Direction |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| rebuild speed | up or down |
|
||
| repayment probability | resolves gradually |
|
||
| merchant reputation | up or down |
|
||
| access to future deals | up or down |
|
||
| legal disputes | possible |
|
||
| cargo opportunity cost | up |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 9. Tertiary Effects (30+ days)
|
||
|
||
| Effect | Direction |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| durable patronage ties | possible |
|
||
| recurring income stream | possible |
|
||
| asset seizure | possible |
|
||
| political enemies | possible |
|
||
| elevated AVCTORITAS | possible |
|
||
| damaged standing as usurer | possible |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 10. Scenario Chain Logic
|
||
|
||
If SCENARIO-MERCHANT-0001 or 0002 occurred recently:
|
||
|
||
- distressed borrowers more common
|
||
- collateral cheaper
|
||
- demand for liquidity higher
|
||
- default risk also higher
|
||
- profitable terms available sooner
|
||
|
||
Shock events should create finance opportunities.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 11. Parameters With Confidence Tags
|
||
|
||
| Parameter Token | Type | Confidence | Basis |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| principal_amount | finance | High | direct contract term |
|
||
| interest_rate | finance | Medium | negotiated / context dependent |
|
||
| repayment_term_days | temporal | High | direct contract term |
|
||
| collateral_value | asset | Medium | appraisal uncertainty |
|
||
| borrower_reliability | actor | Low | inferred reputation |
|
||
| legal_enforceability | institutional | Low | status + witnesses + politics |
|
||
| default_probability | risk | Low | composite estimate |
|
||
| reputation_cost | social | Low | context dependent |
|
||
| liquidity_locked | finance | High | merchant capital committed |
|
||
| future_deal_access | social | Low | downstream effect |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 12. Relations
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
borrower_distress ↑ -> credit_demand ↑
|
||
credit_demand ↑ -> offered_return ↑
|
||
merchant_auctoritas ↑ -> borrower_quality ↑
|
||
merchant_auctoritas ↑ -> default_probability ↓
|
||
interest_rate ↑ -> reputation_cost ↑
|
||
collateral_value ↑ -> downside_risk ↓
|
||
liquidity_locked ↑ -> cargo_venture_capacity ↓
|
||
recent_fire_scenarios == true -> profitable_offers ↑
|
||
legal_enforceability ↓ -> collateral_importance ↑
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 13. Replayability Controls
|
||
|
||
Randomize:
|
||
|
||
- borrower truth state
|
||
- amount requested
|
||
- collateral quality
|
||
- hidden rival lender
|
||
- magistrate alignment
|
||
- repayment punctuality
|
||
- witness reliability
|
||
- broader market recovery speed
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 14. Repository Use
|
||
|
||
Internal simulation substrate. Not player-facing text.
|
||
|
||
Use to validate:
|
||
|
||
- finance without cargo movement
|
||
- AVCTORITAS utility
|
||
- actor reputation systems
|
||
- legal uncertainty
|
||
- liquidity opportunity cost
|
||
- scenario compounding across economic layers
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 15. Canonical Success Condition
|
||
|
||
If the participant stops asking:
|
||
|
||
“What can I carry?”
|
||
|
||
and starts asking:
|
||
|
||
“Whose need can I price?”
|
||
|
||
then the scenario is functioning correctly.
|