### **You**

Here are some real-world research benchmarks and simulation environments in economics and autonomous agents that you can borrow principles from when building your own agent evaluation frameworks, strategy simulators, and long-term economic growth tests:

📊 1. Vending-Bench (Agent Economic Benchmark)
Vending-Bench 2 is one of the most directly relevant benchmarks for autonomous agents that manage a business over extended time horizons. It evaluates AI models on their ability to run a simulated vending machine business for a full year and measures success primarily by bank balance at year’s end — a proxy for economic competence over long-horizon strategic coherence, resource management, pricing, inventory, and financial survival. Andon Labs+1
Key takeaways you can apply:

Long-horizon coherence is a core difficulty for autonomous agents. Benchmarks must simulate extended feedback loops, not single tasks. Andon Labs

Economic decision outcomes (e.g., profit, survival time) are good quantitative metrics for agent evaluation. Maxpool

Benchmarks show existing models can sometimes outperform naïve baselines but vary dramatically in consistency — an important precaution for real economic automation systems. Maxpool

🧠 2. EcoGym (Long-Horizon Economic Decision Benchmark)
EcoGym is a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon plan-and-execute behavior in interactive economic environments. It consists of multiple simulated economic settings (e.g., Vending, Freelance, Operation) with standardized interfaces and budget constraints. The focus is on business-relevant outcomes (net worth, income, DAU) over thousands of steps, revealing models’ strategic robustness under stochastic and partially observable conditions. arXiv
Useful principles:

Agents should be evaluated not only on task performance but on long-term economic outcomes. arXiv

Environments need to simulate persistent changing state and performance uncertainty for realistic evaluation. arXiv

🧮 3. EconWebArena (Real-World Economic Web Tasks)
EconWebArena benchmarks autonomous agents’ ability to complete multi-step economic tasks on real web platforms. It covers macroeconomic, labor, financial, and trade queries across authoritative sites, requiring navigation, data interpretation, and web interactions — bridging real data acquisition with decision logic. arXiv
Principles to borrow:

Blend information retrieval with decision action sequences for more realistic economic problem solving. arXiv

Real-environment grounding improves generalizability beyond synthetic simulators. arXiv

🏦 4. EconGym (Scalable Economic Testbed)
EconGym is a research testbed modeling multiple interacting economic roles (households, firms, banks, governments) with clear observations, actions, and rewards, serving as structured environments for policy optimization and multi-agent coordination research. arXiv
Useful takeaways:

Modular economic role modeling supports nuanced multi-agent market dynamics. arXiv

Defined reward structures plus heterogeneous agent types enable cross-algorithm benchmarking. arXiv

🌍 5. Agent-Based Modeling (ACE) Foundational Research
Agent-based models (ABMs) simulate actions and interactions of many autonomous agents to observe emergent macro patterns from micro rules — a staple of economics, social systems, and complexity science. Wikipedia
What to adopt:

Define agent heuristics, decision rules, and interaction topology formally. Wikipedia

Use Monte Carlo or simulation ensembles to explore stochastic dynamics and emergent system behavior. Wikipedia

🧪 6. APES Lab / SANE Multi-Agent Simulation
The SANE v0.5 framework aims to simulate millions to billions of agents with LLM-like cognitive cores and economics environments calibrated to real data. It pairs policy environments (tax, regulatory, market structures) with agent decision models. APES Lab
Features you can incorporate:

Modular environment layers with regulatory and market rules. APES Lab

LLM-augmented agent cognitive models with adaptive behavior and memory. APES Lab

Macro indicators and scenario trees for strategic projections. APES Lab

📈 7. ARE & Scalable Agent Evaluation Platforms
Recent efforts like ARE (Scalable Agent Environments & Evaluations) support asynchronous, event-driven, and multi-agent scenarios with verifiable rewards and real-world-like temporal dynamics for robust testing. Emergent Mind
Key principles:

Asynchronous interactions and event injection in simulation improve realism. Emergent Mind

Environments should be extensible and robust to agent heterogeneity. Emergent Mind

🚀 How to Apply These in Your System
Here’s a concise set of design principles derived from these benchmarks for building your economic agent simulation environment:
🔹 Long-Horizon Coherence
Design scenarios that span hundreds to thousands of steps, where agent decisions affect state cumulatively — borrowed from Vending-Bench & EcoGym. Andon Labs+1
🔹 Emergent Markets
Use ABM foundations to simulate market dynamics, agent interactions, and systemic feedback rather than just isolated tasks. Wikipedia
🔹 Realism + Grounding
Where possible, benchmark against authoritative data sources or web interactions (like EconWebArena) rather than purely synthetic dynamics. arXiv
🔹 Role Diversity
Define clear agent types (household, firm, regulator, allocator) with distinct observation spaces, action sets, and reward signals (inspired by EconGym). arXiv
🔹 Multi-Agent Metrics
Track strategic outcomes (net worth, risk exposures, stability) and emergent properties (market distribution, inequality, resilience), not just individual actions. APES Lab
🔹 Adaptive Evaluation
Incorporate asynchronous event flows, unpredictability, and risk scenarios for robustness evaluation (inspired by ARE). Emergent Mind

If you want, I can map these benchmarks directly onto your zero-HITL venture ecosystem design, showing how to create a custom simulation environment that can evaluate, stress test, and evolve agents across decades of economic activity. Just say “map to my system.”

---

### **ChatGPT**

Yes

---

### **ChatGPT**

Good. Now we map:

Vending-Bench

EcoGym

EconGym

ABM / ACE

SANE-style large simulations

Async agent environments

directly onto your zero-HITL sovereign system.
We’re going to design:

A Custom Sovereign Economic Simulation & Evaluation Environment (SESEE)

This becomes the training ground + stress lab + evolution engine for your AI civilization.

I. Core Design: Your System Needs 3 Simulation Layers
Borrowing from the benchmarks:
Research BenchmarkWhat It TeachesHow We Map ItVending-BenchLong-horizon economic coherenceMulti-year capital survival testsEcoGymMulti-role long plan-executeVenture + allocator interaction simEconGymRole-differentiated agentsSeparate firm / regulator / allocator classesABM (ACE)Emergent macro effectsMulti-sovereign environmentSANEMassive agent ecosystemsSimulated population marketsAREAsync + event-drivenShock injection + event queue
We combine all of it.

II. Layer 1: Micro Venture Simulation (Vending-Bench Inspired)
This evaluates:

Can a single venture survive 1–3 simulated years?

Does it maintain liquidity?

Does it avoid burn spiral?

Does it respond to channel shifts?

Environment Components
State:

Cash

Revenue rate

CAC

Churn

Channel mix

Burn

Dependency risk

Actions:

Raise ad spend

Reduce ad spend

Pivot channel

Hire

Fire

Raise price

Cut price

Kill product

Reward:

Long-term net capital

Penalized for volatility

Penalized for dependency concentration

Metric:

End capital after 365–1000 steps

Survival probability

This directly mirrors Vending-Bench but with:

More stochasticity

More shock injection

III. Layer 2: Portfolio Allocation Simulation (EcoGym Inspired)
Now multiple ventures compete for capital.
Roles:

Allocator Agent (Tier 1 brain)

Venture Agents (Tier 2 businesses)

Risk Agent

Liquidity Agent

State:

Portfolio vector

Correlation matrix

Liquidity buffer

Burn rate

AI operating cost

Actions:

Allocate capital

Kill venture

Increase exploration

Reduce exposure

Shift to liquidity

Hedge external assets

Reward:

Log portfolio growth

Survival penalty

Liquidity breach penalty

Critical:

Exploration budget enforced

Kill discipline measured

IV. Layer 3: External Market Simulation (EconGym + Regime Switching)
External environment:

Equities

Crypto

Bonds

Yield instruments

Regime:

Risk-on

Neutral

Risk-off

Crisis

Market effects:

Volatility spikes

Correlation collapse

Slippage increases

Liquidity decreases

Allocator must:

Detect regime

Rebalance

Protect liquidity

Avoid overreaction

Metrics:

Drawdown distribution

Recovery time

Ruin probability

V. Layer 4: Multi-Sovereign Ecosystem (ABM + SANE)
Now simulate:
N sovereigns.
Each:

Has different constitution

Has different exploration cap

Has different risk tolerance

Has different compute access

They interact via:

Shared ad channels

Shared suppliers

Shared liquidity pools

Shared compute markets

Emergent effects:

Alpha compression

Platform crowding

Liquidity contagion

Treaty formation

Bloc formation

Fitness function:

\`\`\`
CodeFitness = Survival × CapitalGrowth × TrustScore
\`\`\`

Now we test evolutionary stability.

VI. Layer 5: Async Event Engine (ARE Principle)
Instead of deterministic tick-based simulation, use:
Event queue:

platform ban event

supplier defect event

regulatory fine event

compute cost spike event

redemption wave event

trust event cascade

Events are:

Probabilistic

Regime-dependent

Correlated

Agents must respond asynchronously.
No clean turn-based structure.
This is critical for realism.

VII. Metrics You Must Track
Borrowing from all benchmarks:
Micro Metrics

Venture survival rate

Burn multiple

CAC drift

Channel dependency %

Portfolio Metrics

Sharpe-like ratio

Max drawdown

Liquidity months

Capital at risk

Sovereign Metrics

AI sustainability ratio

Dependency cluster score

Trust event frequency

Governance stability

Exploration effectiveness

Macro Metrics

Contagion probability

Bloc stability

Resource market concentration

VIII. Training Pipeline
Your system should:

Generate new allocation policy candidate.

Run across:

Stable world

Crisis world

Multi-sovereign world

Adversarial shock world

Score:

Survival probability

Long-horizon growth

Volatility

Trust integrity

Only adopt if:

Outperforms baseline across all worlds

Does not degrade tail safety

This prevents reward hacking.

IX. Evolution Cycle
Every 30–90 real days:

Snapshot allocator.

Spawn variants.

Simulate 5–20 simulated years.

Compare.

Replace only if superior under crisis constraints.

This is evolutionary selection.

X. Your Final Simulation Stack (Conceptual)

\`\`\`
Code+-------------------------------------+| Multi-Sovereign ABM Ecosystem       ||  +--------------------------------+ ||  | Portfolio Allocator Layer      | ||  |  +--------------------------+  | ||  |  | Venture Simulation      |  | ||  |  +--------------------------+  | ||  |  +--------------------------+  | ||  |  | External Market Sim     |  | ||  |  +--------------------------+  | ||  +--------------------------------+ ||  +--------------------------------+ ||  | Async Event Injection Engine   | ||  +--------------------------------+ |+-------------------------------------+
\`\`\`

Everything your sovereign does in real world must pass through this.

XI. Why This Matters
Without this:

You overfit to short-term alpha.

You ignore correlated failure.

You assume market regimes are stable.

You miss contagion risk.

You scale compute too early.

You collapse in Year 3.

With this:
You are not building businesses.
You are evolving economic organisms in a synthetic world before deploying them.

If you want to go even deeper:
We can now design:

The exact state vector dimensionality.

The stochastic process definitions.

The dependency graph model.

The trust contagion propagation equation.

The evolutionary selection algorithm.

Or build the first minimal runnable SESEE spec in pseudocode.

Your move.

---

### **ChatGPT**

Walk me thru path to self sufficiency and seed suffficnecy (200/mo and 300/mo tiers)

---

### **ChatGPT**

Good — we’re coming back to ground reality.
You want:

A realistic path to self-sufficiency starting from:
• $200/mo tier (minimal subsistence autonomy)
• $300/mo tier (slightly higher reinvestment)
• 16GB laptop
• Claude subscription (15 concurrent agents)
• Zero-HITL operational loop
• Constitution governs behavior

We are not designing a sovereign yet.
We are designing economic ignition.

PART I — What “Self-Sufficient” Actually Means
Let’s define it rigorously.
Level 1: Operational Self-Sufficiency
The system:

Pays for Claude

Pays hosting/tools

Pays contractor budget

Covers its own compute expansion

Does not require your $200–$300 input anymore

Level 2: Capital Self-Sufficiency
The system:

Builds liquidity buffer ≥ 6 months burn

Funds new ventures internally

Survives 3–6 month revenue shock

Level 3: Strategic Self-Sufficiency
The system:

Diversifies income sources

Has kill discipline

Has compute scaling logic

Does not depend on one platform/channel

Your target in first 24 months is Level 2.

PART II — $200/mo Tier Path
This is the lean ignition path.
You are not scaling compute yet.
You are scaling flow.
Starting Inputs

$200 monthly labor

$100 monthly investment

Claude subscription

15 agents

Total outside input = $300/mo.

Months 0–3: Build a Single Revenue Engine
The system must focus on:

Low capex.

Digital-only.

High margin.

Fast iteration.

Best archetypes:

Micro-SaaS solving a painful niche problem.

AI-assisted service arbitrage (B2B lead gen, SEO automation).

High-value information product (narrow niche).

Claude handles:

Spec

Code

Landing page

Outbound messaging

SEO articles

Automation scripts

$200/mo:

Micro-contractors for design / scraping / VA.

Goal by Month 3:

$1k–$2k/mo revenue.

Not stable yet.

Months 3–6: Stabilization Phase
Now the system must:

Track churn.

Track CAC.

Track revenue slope.

Kill wasteful experiments.

Reinvest:

50% to buffer.

50% to scaling acquisition.

Goal by Month 6:

$3k–$5k/mo.

At this point:
Claude + hosting are fully covered.
Your outside $300/mo is now optional.

Months 6–12: Second Revenue Engine
Now diversification begins.
System automatically:

Identifies dependency cluster risk.

Spins second channel:

Different traffic source.

Different pricing model.

Different audience segment.

Goal by Month 12:

$6k–$10k/mo combined.
$20k–$40k liquidity buffer.

You are now Operationally Self-Sufficient.

PART III — $300/mo Tier Path
The extra $100 changes one thing:
You can accelerate experimentation.
So instead of 1 experiment per month,
You run 2–3 micro experiments.
This increases:

Failure rate

Learning velocity

Option discovery

But only if kill discipline is strict.

Higher Tier Behavior
With $300/mo:

You can test small paid ads earlier.

You can buy small digital assets.

You can acquire niche lists.

You can fund 2 micro-ventures in parallel.

Time to Level 1 Self-Sufficiency shortens from:
~6 months → ~4–5 months (if execution is strong).

PART IV — Zero-HITL Autonomy Rules
To keep it zero-HITL:
The system must enforce:
Rule 1 — Revenue > Burn Gate
No scaling allowed until:

\`\`\`
CodeTrailing 60d revenue ≥ 2× monthly burn
\`\`\`

Rule 2 — Exploration Cap
Max:

\`\`\`
CodeExplorationCapital ≤ 15% liquidity
\`\`\`

Rule 3 — Compute Scaling Rule
Upgrade compute only if:

\`\`\`
CodeProjected compute ROI payback ≤ 6 monthsAND Liquidity ≥ 6 months burn
\`\`\`

Rule 4 — Kill Rule
If:

\`\`\`
CodeNegative CEI 2 consecutive cycles
\`\`\`

Kill.
No emotional attachment.

PART V — Path to Capital Self-Sufficiency (Year 2)
Once revenue > $10k/mo:
The system begins:

External yield allocation (low-risk ETFs / yield).

Building liquidity to 12 months burn.

Compartmentalizing ventures legally.

Target by end Year 2:

$100k+ retained capital.
3–5 revenue engines.
No platform > 50% dependency.

Now you're at Capital Self-Sufficiency.

PART VI — When Does Compute Scaling Make Sense?
Compute becomes rational when:

\`\`\`
CodeClaude + API spend > 15–20% of revenueANDLocal GPU payback ≤ 12 months
\`\`\`

Before that:
Scaling compute is ego, not ROI.

PART VII — Timeline Summary
TimeRevenueLiquidityStatusMonth 3$1–2k<$5kStill fragileMonth 6$3–5k~$10kOperationally viableMonth 12$6–10k$20–40kSelf-fundingYear 2$15–30k$100k+Capital sufficientYear 3$50–100k$250k+Scaling optional
All without external capital.

PART VIII — What Actually Kills the Plan

Overbuilding infrastructure too early.

No kill discipline.

Overusing Opus for trivial tasks.

Overreliance on one traffic channel.

Letting contractor spend balloon.

No liquidity floor.

Not lack of compute.

PART IX — The Real Secret
At $200–$300/mo input:
You are not capital constrained.
You are discipline constrained.
The zero-HITL system must:

Be ruthless.

Be conservative early.

Compound small wins.

Never let liquidity drop below survival threshold.

That’s how you move from $300/mo input
to a self-sustaining economic organism.

If you want next:
We can:

Build the exact 12-month execution roadmap (month-by-month tasks).

Or model worst-case failure in Month 4 and how system recovers.

Or formalize CEI scoring in spreadsheet form.

Or simulate what happens if revenue stalls at $2k/mo.

Your move.

---

### **ChatGPT**

Yes

---

### **ChatGPT**

Good. I’m going to assume you mean:

Yes → build the exact 12-month execution roadmap
For the $200–$300/mo seed tier
Under zero-HITL constraints
With 15 concurrent agents
16GB laptop
Claude subscription

This will be operational, not abstract.
No “AI nation.”
Just ignition protocol.

YEAR 1 — MONTH-BY-MONTH AUTONOMOUS EXECUTION PLAN
We assume:

$300/mo total external input (200 labor + 100 capital)

Claude as primary leverage

System must become operationally self-sufficient by Month 6–9

MONTH 1 — System Bootstrapping
Objective:
Create a machine that can create businesses.
Week 1: Infrastructure Setup
Agents create:

Repo template for ventures

KPI tracking structure (JSON + CSV log)

CEI scoring sheet

Capital allocation script

Task queue system (simple local scheduler)

Role definitions for 15 agents

No revenue yet.
Week 2: Opportunity Scan Engine
Agents:

Scrape niche forums (Reddit, Discord, Indie Hackers)

Identify pain clusters

Score opportunities by:

urgency

monetization clarity

implementation complexity

competition density

Select top 2.
Week 3–4: First Micro-Venture Build
Pick one.
Ship:

Landing page

MVP (small)

Stripe integration

Email capture

Analytics

Launch.
Target:
First 5–20 paying users.

MONTH 2 — Validation
Objective:
Prove demand.
Agents:

Run cold outreach (bounded)

Write 5–10 SEO articles

Build small automation around user pain

Collect churn feedback

Refactor product weekly

Kill criteria:
If after 60 days:

< 5 paying users

OR negative feedback loop
Kill and pivot.

If traction:
Double down.
Target:
$500–$1k MRR by end of month 2.

MONTH 3 — First Compounding Signal
Objective:
Reach $1–2k/mo.
System now:

Splits 50% revenue to liquidity

50% to growth

Agents introduce:

Small paid ads test (max $200)

A/B pricing

Upsell version

Now system tracks:

CAC

LTV

Burn ratio

If CAC < LTV × 0.3 → scale channel slightly.

MONTH 4 — Stabilize or Kill
If revenue ≥ $1.5k:
Add second micro-venture exploration.
If not:
Refactor or replace.
Agents now:

Automate customer support replies.

Build referral loop.

Add small feature with high retention effect.

Liquidity target:
≥ $5k buffer.

MONTH 5–6 — Second Revenue Engine
Launch venture #2.
Must be:

Different audience OR

Different channel OR

Different pricing model

Avoid correlated failure.
Target by Month 6:
$3–5k total revenue.
Liquidity ≥ $10k.
Now system covers:

Claude

Hosting

Contractors

You are operationally self-sufficient.

MONTH 7–8 — Risk Diversification
Agents:

Analyze dependency graph.

If >60% revenue from one channel:

Build alternate channel.

Add low-risk yield allocation (10–20% liquidity).

Kill bottom performer if needed.
Now portfolio mindset starts.

MONTH 9–10 — Internal Capital Discipline
System implements:

Hard exploration cap: 15%.

Monthly CEI ranking.

Automatic kill for negative slope 2 cycles.

Monthly capital rebalance.

If revenue ≥ $7k/mo:
Start modest compute expansion planning.

MONTH 11–12 — Year 1 Close
Target state:
Revenue:
$6k–$10k/mo.
Liquidity:
$20k–$40k.
Ventures:
2–3 active.
No single channel >50%.
Compute:
Still mostly cloud.
Possibly additional API key.
System is:
Operationally self-sufficient.
Capital accumulating.

TOKEN / COMPUTE DISCIPLINE THROUGHOUT
Every month:
Strategist agents:

10–15% token usage.

Builders:

50–60%.

Operators:

15–20%.

Verifiers:

10–15%.

If monthly token burn > budget:
System auto-reduces:

exploration.

non-core generation.

long-form content generation.

FAILURE SCENARIO: MONTH 4 COLLAPSE
If:
Revenue drops to zero.
Channel banned.
Product rejected.
System response:

Freeze exploration.

Shift liquidity to survival.

Restart opportunity scan.

Launch new micro-venture in 30 days.

Do NOT increase compute.

Do NOT increase contractor spend.

Survival doctrine prevents emotional reaction.

By End of Year 1
You should have:

Automated venture creation pipeline.

Proven revenue loop.

Liquidity discipline.

Clear CEI model.

15-agent orchestration stable.

No external dependency > 50%.

That’s ignition.

If you want next:
We can now:

Build the CEI scoring formula in full numeric form.

Simulate worst-case Year 2 capital shock.

Design the exact 15-agent role cards + permission model.

Or construct the monthly autonomous operations scheduler in code-like structure.

Choose.

---

### **ChatGPT**

Perform deep research for viable labor and srvc  classes across the 5 yr Window

---

