I see in @OpenLedger that "finance isn't limited by the cash you have, it's limited by the obligations you're carrying."
Two people with $100,000 aren't necessarily the same. One has no ties. The other is shouldering debt, liquidity commitments, and a bunch of obligations on the back end. Same assets, but a completely different future structure.
The more I read @OpenLedger , the more I see they're looking at this issue from a different angle.
Most of today’s financial systems and AI focus on asset balances and optimizing PnL. They know what they own, but they don't really get that each decision creates new obligations that stick around afterward.
The weird thing is that the most crucial part of a trade often isn't in the execution, but in the constraints that arise after the trade is done.
If you only look at assets without considering obligations, AI might be spot on at each step but still miss the mark at the systemic level.
With #OpenLedger , capital isn’t just what the system owns.
It's also the obligations that the system has to carry on after every decision.
A trade doesn’t end at execution.
It leaves behind constraints that continue to influence the subsequent states.
Thus, the most important part of a financial state isn’t just the current value, but the commitments that still loom behind it.
AI finance then isn't just a matter of asset management.
It becomes a matter of managing the constraints that the system itself creates.
Assets tell AI where it stands.
Liabilities dictate where it goes next.
And perhaps that's one of the reasons why $OPEN sees AI finance differently from most systems out there.
Two people with $100,000 aren't necessarily the same. One has no ties. The other is shouldering debt, liquidity commitments, and a bunch of obligations on the back end. Same assets, but a completely different future structure.
The more I read @OpenLedger , the more I see they're looking at this issue from a different angle.
Most of today’s financial systems and AI focus on asset balances and optimizing PnL. They know what they own, but they don't really get that each decision creates new obligations that stick around afterward.
The weird thing is that the most crucial part of a trade often isn't in the execution, but in the constraints that arise after the trade is done.
If you only look at assets without considering obligations, AI might be spot on at each step but still miss the mark at the systemic level.
With #OpenLedger , capital isn’t just what the system owns.
It's also the obligations that the system has to carry on after every decision.
A trade doesn’t end at execution.
It leaves behind constraints that continue to influence the subsequent states.
Thus, the most important part of a financial state isn’t just the current value, but the commitments that still loom behind it.
AI finance then isn't just a matter of asset management.
It becomes a matter of managing the constraints that the system itself creates.
Assets tell AI where it stands.
Liabilities dictate where it goes next.
And perhaps that's one of the reasons why $OPEN sees AI finance differently from most systems out there.