1
Invariants via formulas: 333-day stability, mint coverage gates, Time Capital activation (no price impact), multi-asset liquidity/emergency segregation.
No tokens/investments/production — research artifacts only.
Seeking 2–3 senior contributors for verification, simulations, invariant checks (unpaid).
Details: https://github.com/ArturGrandi/gt1-implementation-reference/issues/1 Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18190386 EF ESP submission for GT 2.0 track.
Open to discussion.
The protocol (GT 1.0) is not a product, not an investment, and not a startup proposal. Semantics and economic invariants are frozen (v1.0). There is no tokenomics, no blockchain choice, no roadmap, and no implementation commitment.
The goal is to evaluate the internal consistency of the model: invariants, architectural boundaries, and failure paths under stress or partial failure.
Canonical paper (fixed reference): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18190386
Controlled reference implementation (entry point for reviewers): https://github.com/ArturGrandi/gt1-implementation-reference
Discussion is intentionally centralized in a single GitHub Issue to avoid fragmented feedback. I’m specifically interested in critique from protocol designers, systems engineers, and formal methods reviewers—especially around where the model may break or become underspecified.
I’m not looking for product feedback or future feature suggestions, only rigorous technical criticism.
At a high level, the idea is to index value issuance and economic contribution directly to time, with fixed temporal constraints, rather than to output, price, or currency supply.
For those who have worked on economic modeling, mechanism design, or simulation frameworks: what would be the most reasonable way to formalize such a model, and what pitfalls would you expect early on?