Scenario · migration economics · chains three tools

Migrate or Stay: The Discount-Rate Verdict

Three tools trace Paper D's migration-economics argument in order: the closed-form patience threshold that sets the crossover discount-plus-hazard rate for migrating to an IMBH platform over staying home and densifying, the gamma-discounting correction for a civilisation that is uncertain about its own discount rate, and the concrete wait-or-act verdict once a real engine (or the lack of one) enters the picture. Two profiles show both directions the chain can resolve.

No backend · No tracking · Works offline · v1.0 · 2026-07-23
⚙ Pick a civilisation profile

Both profiles share the same patience threshold (the destination-gain and transit-survival fiducials in Step 1 are unchanged); only the discount-rate prior in Step 2 and the engine available in Step 3 change.

01
patience-threshold · Paper D §5–6 · the migrate-versus-stay crossover
How patient must a lineage be to migrate?

At the fiducial destination gain (G = 10⁹, a power-ratio, no fuel stack assumed), transit survival probability (p_s = 0.5), and bare transit-plus-construction time (τ = 10⁵ yr, no braking), the closed-form threshold gives ρ* = 2.00×10⁻⁴ yr⁻¹, a half-life of 3.46×10³ yr. A lineage whose combined discount-plus-hazard rate sits below that clears the bar for migration over densification; the seed-and-stay hybrid band extends the same conclusion out to 1.69× that threshold. This value carries forward unchanged into Step 2, which asks whether ordinary discount-rate uncertainty alone can put a lineage under it.

Open Patience Threshold Calculator → Theoretical (decision model)
Step payoff
The threshold is fixed by the environment, not by the lineage's psychology. Step 2 asks what a lineage actually believes about its own patience, which is where the two profiles diverge.
02
gamma-discounting · Paper D §7 · Weitzman gamma-discounting under rate uncertainty
Does uncertainty about the discount rate clear the bar?

A lineage uncertain between two possible discount rates values the far future by the expectation of the discount factor, not the expectation of the rate, and that certainty-equivalent rate declines toward the lower rate in the prior as the horizon lengthens. Under the patient profile (ρ₁=10⁻³, ρ₂=10⁻⁶, equal weight, t=10⁵ yr) the naive mean is 5.00×10⁻⁴ yr⁻¹ but ρ_eff falls to 7.93×10⁻⁶ yr⁻¹, well under the 2.00×10⁻⁴ yr⁻¹ threshold from Step 1: migration is favored under uncertainty alone. Under the impatient profile (ρ₁=10⁻², ρ₂=10⁻⁴, 70% weight on the higher rate, t=10⁴ yr) ρ_eff only falls to 2.20×10⁻⁴ yr⁻¹, still above the same threshold: this lineage has not bought its way to patience.

Open Gamma Discounting Calculator → Theoretical (Weitzman 1998, 2001)
Step payoff
The gap between the two profiles is small in the inputs (a shorter horizon, more weight on the impatient rate) but decisive in the output: one profile clears the threshold, the other stays pinned just above it. Step 3 asks what that means once a concrete engine is on the table.
03
workflow-wait-or-act · aestivation vs. IMBH ergosphere · the concrete verdict
Given a real engine, wait or act?

The workflow's own four-stage comparison (Drake prior, Sandberg aestivation gain, Landauer-limited IMBH ops, and the Bennett-corrected ratio) delivers the practical version of the same question. With the patient profile's large engine (30,000 M☉, a* = 0.9, B = 10⁶ T) the act strategy wins by 7.23×10¹⁰× (7.93×10¹²× under the Bennett critique): a lineage that has already cleared the patience threshold and holds a real IMBH platform should act now, not aestivate. With the impatient profile's small engine (1 M☉, a* = 0.01, B = 1 T) the same comparison flips: aestivation wins by 1.75×10¹⁴× (4.73×10¹⁴× under Bennett), since an engine too weak to outrun the CMB cooling toward the Landauer floor is not worth running at all, regardless of what Step 2 said about patience.

Open Wait-or-Act Workflow → Theoretical (Fermi/Aestivation) Established (Landauer, Hawking)
Step payoff · the chain closes
Patience and power are separate questions that both have to clear before migration beats staying home: a lineage can be patient with a weak engine, or impatient with a strong one, and either mismatch changes the verdict.
⚖ Why these three tools are the argument's spine

Paper D's migration argument runs in one direction: a closed-form threshold set by the destination and the journey (§5–6), a correction for what a real lineage can actually know about its own discount rate (§7), and a concrete comparison against the alternative of waiting out the universe's cooling (the aestivation literature the workflow chains against). The three tools here follow that same order.

What the two profiles show together is that the threshold from Step 1 is necessary but not sufficient on its own: clearing it under discount-rate uncertainty (Step 2) still has to be paired with an engine capable of using the destination (Step 3). The patient profile clears both bars and should act; the impatient profile clears neither and should wait, independent of which single number looks most favorable in isolation.

For the full derivation, including the threshold's logarithmic insensitivity to the destination-gain multiplier and the gamma-discounting horizon dependence, see the companion papers this chain draws from at the papers index. For a different chain through the same decision-theory family, see Scenario: Background-Free.

EPISTEMIC TIERS: Established = peer-reviewed physics within the standard formulation. Debated = active disagreement in the published literature. Theoretical = published framework, awaiting decisive observation. ✦ Speculative = published conjecture, no strong empirical support yet.