zeroclick. / futures
Deterministic counterfactual · shareable query

Move the levers. See what survives.

This lab runs the same quarterly engine as the published scenarios. It starts from the coordinated-open ledger, changes only the five controls below, and recomputes the market on the server—no LLM and no interpolated chart.

Your assumptions
20% → 40%
off → on
0% → 60%
1% → 20%
1.0× → 3.0×
2029Q2 result
22.0%agent share of online GMV
24.6%attempts that settle
21.6%online GMV retained by merchants
Your counterfactual against the three published scenarios
0%6%13%19%25%forkYour run 22%Coordinated open 22%Fragmented open 20%Walled gardens 16%2026Q32027Q12027Q32028Q12028Q32029Q12029Q2
Your runCoordinated openFragmented openWalled gardens
Why attempts end this way in 2029Q2
settled25%
no instrument24%
no rail25%
runtime blocked1%
seller capability gap20%
abandoned6%
Illustrative seller exposure · $10M annual online GMV

Where the opportunity leaks.

This translates your aggregate run into one same-mix merchant for intuition. It assumes equal order value across successful and failed attempts; it is not a seller forecast, profit estimate or valuation.

$9.0Magent-routed demandequivalent annual demand reaching agents, capped at seller GMV
$6.8Mlost before settlementno instrument, no route, capability gap or abandonment
$0.0Mmodeled channel valueplatform take on transactions that settle
$2.2Mmerchant proceedsagent GMV after modeled platform take

Watch the buckets separately. Better discovery reduces invisible demand. WebMCP, browser harnesses and merchant protocols reduce execution loss. Open routing and direct merchant relationships change channel value.

The lab intentionally exposes only five legible levers. Seller-capability diffusion, buyer-instrument migration, settlement reliability and every other value remain at the published coordinated-open defaults. This is a model stress test, not a personalized prediction. Full ledger and ranges: footnotes.