From f11e2ec4a532d22302b50a6d966ca9e96144bfee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ludo Galabru Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:37:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] docs: track RFQ negotiation between micro-agents (no action) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Per ludovic (2026-08-01, in-channel): record the direction, build nothing. DESIGN.md §8.1 — a new RFQ eventually opens a negotiation surface: bids as competing quotes with supersedes references, negotiation history as signed substrate events under the projection invariant, multi-party bidding as the priced form of multi-studio routing, a2a-style protocols as the negotiation layer over MPP/x402 settlement. GUIDELINES §2 adopts the term micro-agent for the deliverable shape. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 --- DESIGN.md | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ GUIDELINES.md | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+) diff --git a/DESIGN.md b/DESIGN.md index 32eaadb..aa86ac6 100644 --- a/DESIGN.md +++ b/DESIGN.md @@ -186,6 +186,45 @@ a routing decision, not a partnership. scarce's durable advantage is then its demand data and reputation, which is the correct kind of moat for a protocol company to hold: earned, not extracted. +### 8.1 Tracked, no action: RFQ negotiation between micro-agents + +*(per ludovic, 2026-08-01 — record the direction; build nothing yet)* + +Today an RFQ meets exactly one quote, take-it-or-leave-it. The tracked end +state is that a new RFQ opens a **negotiation surface**: offers and +counteroffers exchanged agent-to-agent until one is accepted — because the +economy this serves is one of **deployed micro-agents** (the term going +forward: nobody deploys "apps"; they deploy micro-agents, each a small, +enumerated set of gated endpoints — exactly the deliverable shape +GUIDELINES.md §2 already mandates). Both sides of a negotiation are +micro-agents: the buyer's agent that missed the catalog, and the studio (or +studios) bidding to fill the miss. + +What this decomposes into, when it is picked up: + +1. **A bid is just a quote that competes.** The Quote schema (§8.2) already + carries price, milestones, `expires_at`, and a gate policy; negotiation + generalizes it from *the* quote to *a* bid among several, plus a + `supersedes` reference for counteroffers. Accept then cites the winning + bid's event id — the accept endpoint's shape survives unchanged. +2. **Negotiation history is substrate, like everything else.** Offers and + counters are signed events attached to the RFQ; the projection invariant + (ARCHITECTURE.md §1) extends to them for free, and the negotiation + transcript becomes replayable evidence — which matters the day a dispute + asks "what was actually offered?" +3. **Multi-party bidding is the deferred multi-studio routing** (Non-goals; + PLAN.md §0) arriving through the front door: several studios speaking RFQ + bid on one demand record. The seam is already protocol-shaped; negotiation + is what makes the routing decision *priced* rather than configured. +4. **Layering:** a2a-style protocols are candidates for the conversational + negotiation layer; MPP/x402 remain the settlement layer underneath. + Nothing about negotiation touches escrow semantics — a session channel + still opens only when one bid is accepted (§4). + +The only thing worth doing early is keeping the seam cheap: quotes are +already versioned, expiring objects; nothing in the current schemas +forecloses "many quotes per RFQ, each referencing what it counters." + ## 9. Open decisions (need ludovic's call) 1. **Commission vs co-op ownership.** Does the buyer own 100% of the shipped diff --git a/GUIDELINES.md b/GUIDELINES.md index b8b1866..2b45df0 100644 --- a/GUIDELINES.md +++ b/GUIDELINES.md @@ -86,6 +86,12 @@ agent consumes a capability today (as a teammate, as a tool, as a paid API); the core/adapters split keeps them honest — one implementation, three doors, no logic in any door. +Terminology (per ludovic, 2026-08-01): a deliverable of this shape is a +**micro-agent** — not an app, but a deployed unit with a small, enumerated +set of gated endpoints. The term is load-bearing for where the studio is +headed: an economy of micro-agents transacting with each other +(DESIGN.md §8.1 tracks RFQ negotiation between them). + The studio itself is the reference implementation of this shape (`studio-core` + port crates + `scarced`); deviations in a deliverable need the same justification a GatePolicy weakening would need — that is, they From 11a6e555dad6b45214206e68851ecbe457ffdc6a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ludo Galabru Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 15:06:58 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] =?UTF-8?q?docs:=20track=20deployment=20economics=20?= =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=94=20allowance,=20hosting,=20build=20loans=20(no=20actio?= =?UTF-8?q?n)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Per ludovic (2026-08-01, in-channel): deployment allowance as an explicit Quote line; the gateway paywall burden priced via the operator split; the build loan as a repayment waterfall — 100% of gated revenue to the studio until the RFQ price is reimbursed, then the split flips. Unifying frame: commission / co-op / loan are one axis — who finances the build determines the split schedule; payoutDestination generalizes to a schedule with a hash-committed, evidence-cited flip. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 --- DESIGN.md | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) diff --git a/DESIGN.md b/DESIGN.md index aa86ac6..c3676c4 100644 --- a/DESIGN.md +++ b/DESIGN.md @@ -225,6 +225,50 @@ The only thing worth doing early is keeping the seam cheap: quotes are already versioned, expiring objects; nothing in the current schemas forecloses "many quotes per RFQ, each referencing what it counters." +### 8.2 Tracked, no action: deployment economics — allowance, hosting, build loans + +*(per ludovic, 2026-08-01 — record the direction; build nothing yet)* + +Once deliverables are deployed micro-agents (Cloud Run behind the +payment-gated agent-gateway), the studio carries operational costs on the +buyer's behalf: container registry storage, image builds, the gateway proxy's +own compute, KMS signing, egress. Three ideas to hold together: + +1. **The paywall burden is priced, not feared.** Running the gateway for + every hosted artifact makes the studio a platform operator — SLA, + metering audit, price-policy custody. The *dollar* cost is noise + (gateway compute is itself scale-to-zero and per-request; registry + storage is ~$0.10/GiB-month, so a distroless Rust image costs well under + 1¢/month — dead artifacts are nearly free to keep listed forever). The + *liability* is real, and it is exactly what the operator split in the + gateway spec's `splits` block is for: the platform fee is the price of + being the paywall. +2. **Deployment allowance in the RFQ/Quote.** Registry + build + gateway + onboarding + first-N-months hosting priced as an explicit line of the + Quote ("an allowance to get things running"), not silently absorbed. + Seam: the Quote schema grows an operations/allowance field when this is + picked up; nothing forecloses it today. +3. **The build loan: financing as a split schedule.** If the buyer will not + pay upfront, the studio may finance the build; the artifact's gate then + routes **100% of revenue to the studio until the RFQ price is + reimbursed**, after which the split flips to the engagement's steady + state. The unifying observation: commission (buyer pays, buyer owns), + co-op (residual splits), and loan (repayment waterfall, then flip) are + all points on one line — **who finances the build determines the split + schedule over time**. `payoutDestination` generalizes from a constant to + a *schedule*; the flip is a threshold event on cumulative settled + revenue, evidence-cited and hash-committed like the GatePolicy, so + neither side can move the goalposts mid-repayment. + +What makes the loan underwritable is the studio's own order book: aggregated +catalog misses are the demand signal that justifies fronting a build — the +speculative-builds question (§9.5) and the loan are the same credit decision +wearing different clothes. Risks recorded for the eventual design: demand +risk transfers to the studio (price it), buyer moral hazard when nothing is +at stake upfront (the intake fee stays), and the repayment cap must be +explicit (principal, principal×multiple, or time-boxed) before the first +loan is written. + ## 9. Open decisions (need ludovic's call) 1. **Commission vs co-op ownership.** Does the buyer own 100% of the shipped