This paper proposes a reproducible, auditable, and governable annual-frequency macro framework—the User-Ownership Wealth Flywheel (WF)—designed to study how user-side equity distribution can be integrated into a stable growth mechanism under hard budget constraints. The model explicitly couples three feedback loops: (i) an income loop, where asset-backed user equity (ABUE) converts profit claims into cash-equivalent consumption capacity; (ii) a valuation–wealth loop, in which market capitalization affects consumption through the wealth effect; and (iii) a collateral–credit loop, where pledgeable assets expand credit but are disciplined by valuation-based gating and exposure-linked haircuts. To ensure institutional discipline, the macro recursion is hard-coded to consume only finalized, period-level summaries (MVD/MVD+), enforces a hard-budget red line, prohibits external asset injection (Source0), and applies a one-way tightening operator (OnlyDown) that prevents violations from generating higher multipliers. Diffusion of participation is upgraded from an exogenous schedule to an NPV-driven diffusion mechanism, closing a falsifiable loop from value creation to adoption and back to growth. The framework collapses degrees of freedom into two identified composite parameters governing income and wealth channels, allowing transparent calibration and robustness analysis. Results are reported only over a 0–30-year horizon to reduce long-run extrapolation bias. Minimal theoretical properties—bounded diffusion, multiplier stability, hard-budget invariance, and forward invariance under enforcement—are established. A public-data appendix provides a limited empirical plausibility check on valuation-state dependence of the wealth effect. The contribution is not a reduced-form causal estimate, but an institutional macro specification that makes amplification governable, auditable, and empirically falsifiable, offering a reproducible bridge between user-ownership mechanisms and macroeconomic dynamics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Topo Labs CY (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: