Trade Value Rework: trade value as market currency

[Lude]

Hi,

Ended up in a discussion about this yesterday, and I think this is an idea worth looking at so I'll post it here.

Trade Value as a system is ok in my opinion (some hate it) but I think it has it's flaws and could be improved. Fundamentally, trade value was a resource added to the game that just gives you some of the other resources you can get through other routes, and is normally less productive (until recently with the merchants buffs). So it doesn't have a distinctive role.

The market changes have made energy credits extremely powerful. In the early days of Stellaris, energy credits were mainly used to keep things running (maintenance) and a few other things. Now they can be used to buy any resource, in a relatively efficient way, at any time, and you can sell anything you want to get them, on top of all its other purposes (buying things, terraforming, buffs from enclaves etc.). The market is also extremely OP, you can build an extremely unbalanced empire and compensate through the market. It's only balanced because anyone can do this.

My suggestion is to give trade value a unique role - instead of simply exchanging in to energy / CGs / unity using trade policies, trade value could be the currency through which other resources can be purchased on the market, instead of energy credits. Energy credits would be purchaseable on the market for their primary use, maintenance and so on, and other resources could be sold for trade value, which could then be used to buy any resource you want, but naturally it's less efficient than producing this TV directly due to market fees and price changes.

This would give the two resources completely separate roles, instead of just being different ways to get the same resources from your pops. It would give the option of investing in TV generation with your empire, which would give the flexibility to exchange that for other resources, or focus on energy credits and making the resources directly, which would be more productive but you don't have the same flexibility and ability to specialise (by running deficits on some resources and compensating using the market). The market system can adjust in a normal way - if you buy too much stuff with TV, prices will rise on those resources, if you keep selling main resources, the price of TV will rise too. With the current system, we're going to be in a situation where either TV or energy credits is better to produce, rather than a mix of both - with this system they would have separate roles.

Obviously there's a lot to think about with a rework like this, e.g. what will Gestalts do as they don't have TV, how will it be balanced etc - solutions can definitely be found here. But I think as a concept it would make the game make a lot more sense, especially for new players, and it could improve balance as well if done right.

Any thoughts?

 

[GOLANX]

As it is now Technicians are just Money Printers which is an odd thing for a Reactor to be making, why am I making money out of coal dust why not plant husks?

 

[StellarXe]

I agree, it doesn't make sense that Energy Credit could be used to buy something, instead they can make Trade value viable with the idea you have suggested.

However, I am afraid that Trade Value could be redundant at late game, unless there's Jobs / action / edict /diplomacy or anything that constantly consume certain amount of Trade Value. Otherwise it will quickly pile up in late game.

If they are going to rework any of the economic, they also have to code AI on how to use it which will be a huge task. I hope they will touch on Trade Value on next expansion or by any chance an economy reworks/overhaul. Current resource system is quite lacking as well to make it complex and fun. Maybe they could use of some economy ideas from their mobile game, Stellaris : Galaxy command.

 

[HFY]

Yeah, TV should be a thing in itself.

Energy should be used for upkeep (ships, planetary structures, and space constructs), some types of upgrades, and terraforming.

If they are going to rework any of the economic, they also have to code AI on how to use it which will be a huge task.

AI needs to be re-coded anyway, might as well build the better AI for a better economic system.

 

[drawar]

In fact, it is very simple. Each empire non-gestalt by trade value would generate a currency specific to its empire.
This currency makes it possible to trade with its internal market.

The internal and galactic market could coexist, each with their advantages and disadvantages.

The national currency could be used to buy galactic currency. The more one buys galactic currency with its currency, the more the galactic currency will cost and vice versa.
This exchange rate could possibly also be influenced the global demand / supply of galactic currency.

Galactic Currency can also be obtained directly by selling Resources in the Galactic Market. So we don't need to add a particular mechanism for gestalts.

Empires could also exchange their national currency, but a foreign currency would have no use except to be exchanged with another empire or to buy galactic currency.

A suzerain with his dependencies, a federation or the galactic empire could impose a common currency.
The galactic empire would use galactic currency.
The galactic community could also vote a monetary union to replace all the currencies of the members of the community with the galactic currency, if this resolution is passed, the internal market is removed for the members.


Obviously the market could be improved too, I had discussed this in another topic: Market Rebalance, Introducing Market Caps

Seems unnecessarily complicated to me.
The big problem right now is the way the price is calculated, especially in the difference between sporadic massive sales and monthly sales.

If we had to change the system. I would think more of a lot buy and sell system.

We can discuss whether we should put a limit on the number of lots we can buy or put up for sale. And how does this limit increase, if we put a limit?
Just like if we also put a limit on the volume of sales, a kind of commercial storage capacity, and how to modify this, as by Trade Hubs, Commercial Zones/Commerce Megaplexes.

Each purchase and sale of a lot is taxed with a fixed value + a value as a percentage of the value of the lot.
It would be more expensive to buy 5 batches of 1000 foods than a batch of 5000 foods, it would be more profitable to sell a lots of 5000 foods than 5 lots of 1000 foods.

The system would not be instantaneous. The market updates at the beginning of each month and transactions will take place at this time.
The sale of resources therefore does not give credits immediately. Maybe put an option to have an immediate payout, but you would only receive a certain percentage of the real value of the lot.
A seller receives credits that when his lot is sold, this value may differ from the value when his lot is put up for sale, if the lot is sold after the first month.
For the buyer, the delivery of the resources will take a certain time, the duration may vary depending on various factors. Issuing a purchase advice immediately debits the credit, this amount is refunded (tax included) if it is canceled by the player or if the purchase order cannot be satisfied during the transaction session at the beginning of the month.

There would be a significant change for monthly sales and purchases.
These transactions involve a long-term commitment: 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 months. Taxes are lower for long commitments.
Failure to respect a commitment will result in penalties. For example, a cost in credit to be paid to the market or an increase in market taxes for the empire.
There is an option to authorize automatic renewal. You can also change the duration of the commitment, but this will not take effect until the next renewal of the commitment.

At the start of each month, the market creates several lots of resources. The number and size of the lots vary according to various factors with a random part. These lots represent private organizations and etc.

Then the market starts trading.
Purchase requests are processed by priority: monthly, then by seniority. So better to issue buy and sell requests at the beginning of a month than at the end of the month just before the market update or create monthly demand.
The lots will also be sold by priority.
The lots created by the market have the lowest priority.
However, the system first seeks to exchange requests for purchases and equivalent sales. For example, if there are 5 purchase requests for 1000 foods, 5 batches of 1000 foods will take priority over a batch of 5000 foods.

Then the market takes the next step. This step attempts to satisfy purchase requests by priority (monthly, then seniority) either by grouping together several lots for sale, or by buying only part of a lot for sale.

If there are still purchase requests, but no more lots for sale. Purchase requests are canceled and buyers are refunded.

Then, the market passes a second stage, the market emits for each resource a certain purchase request (varying according to various factors, therefore a random part) that it will try to satisfy with the remaining lots in order of priority.

If lots have remained unsold or partially unsold, they will remain on the market for the following month.

At the end of the transactions, the market will adjust the price of each resource according to supply and demand, and a random share for the magnitude of these changes.
The price will be mostly influenced by supply and demand from empires. If the two are balanced, the price of the resource will tend towards its normal value. If in order to meet the empires' purchasing demands, the market must use the lots that it issues itself, this will tend to raise prices, if despite this the market fails to meet the purchasing demands, the effect on the price will be even greater.
Likewise, if the empire sales lots are bought by the market, this will tend to lower the prices, if there are still lots left afterwards, the effect on the decline will be even greater.

The higher the price of a resource is compared to its normal value. The more the market will create batches of sales of this resource, to simulate the development of private organizations for the production of this resource and the less that the market will issue purchase requests for this resource. The reverse when the price is lower than normal.
Perhaps to put a certain delay in these effects or gradual.
This, plus the effect of empires will tend to make the market a chaotic taking a while to act, which could make it a bit 'chaotic'.

Perhaps it could be interesting that resource prices have impacts on empires.

For example, the more the price of food and consumer goods rise (above certain thresholds), the more unhappy pops could be, or even reduce population growth.
But it does increase the trade value produced by the pops.
The opposite can happen if the prices are lower.
In either case, it could affect stability, in one case the pops are unhappy, in the other the industrialists.

If the price of the mineral is high, it could affect the production of robot, alloy and consumer goods. Maybe also the maintenance of the buildings.
A high price of alloy could affect the speed of ship construction or their maintenance costs.

Maybe just allow the empire to have an internal market in addition to having access to the galactic market.
We could seek to isolate our internal market for example to avoid suffering penalties because of the imbalance of a resource on the galactic market, if we are autonomous for this resource.

You can allow or prohibit the trade of every resource in the galactic market. If a resource is prohibited, it unlocks its purchase and sale on the internal market of the empire which will function as the galactic market for this resource. So like the galactic market, the internal market will create lots of sale of resources prohibited from trade and demand for purchases, depending on various factors including obviously the size of the empire. But obviously, the domestic market will be less able to meet the empire's buying and selling demands, as its capacity will be reduced.
If prices are imbalanced in the internal market of an empire, the empire will suffer the effects of the imbalance in the price of this resource.

Also, every resource banned from trade will raise taxes on the galactic market. And will expose the empire with protectionist measures to sanctions from the Galactic Community, if free trade is promoted.
Can go as far as the expulsion of the empire from the galactic market for example.

An empire can also decide to withdraw from the galactic market for a loss of influence and a trade value penalty, but reinstating it will be expensive in influence and credits, and cannot be done for 10 years.
Again, the Galactic Community could sanction this protectionist, if free trade is promoted. And the empire could be exposed to a trade war casus belli to force open trade.

Yeah, that sounds complicated, but it just seems simple in my head ...

The idea of lots is also to make people think when buying and selling on the market.

Indeed, if we have a limited number of lots (not counting the fixed taxes for each lot), therefore a limited number of sales/purchase slots for our empire, that forces us to think again. I need 150 minerals. I buy 150 or I anticipate my future needs.
I have a surplus of alloys, I sell them immediately in anticipation of my future need for credit or I sell in large quantities later with the risk of not finding a buyer quickly?
It can also have a maximum size for a lot, so also the risk of having to use multiple locations later to sell these alloys.

The idea of also putting a delay in the deliveries of resources for the buyers and the delay of payment for the seller also goes in this direction.

Just like the limited capacity of the market, the market can absorb surpluses or deficits of goods from empires, depending on the size of the galactic economy and the size of the numbers.
If you need 50,000 alloys, you may have to buy them over several months (not counting delivery times) with perhaps a risk of disrupting the functioning of the galactic economy ... But that will depend the size of the market and the volume of sales and purchases in the market.

By making the Galactic Market update once a month, it also gives players more time to take action. The price is low, can I buy it even if I don't need it immediately? The price has just gone up, am I selling part of my stock? Without having to constantly check the market. All that would be missing is a bar for market price fluctuations so as not to have to open the page every month. XD

Afterwards, it is sure that it can do additional calculations, even if it is once a month with this idea.
After that, I don't know the size of the transaction volumes in the game and the computational cost. But I don't think it would be phenomenal and it can be optimized by improving the system.

 

[GOLANX]

In fact, it is very simple. Each empire non-gestalt by trade value would generate a currency specific to its empire.
This currency makes it possible to trade with its internal market.

The internal and galactic market could coexist, each with their advantages and disadvantages.

The national currency could be used to buy galactic currency. The more one buys galactic currency with its currency, the more the galactic currency will cost and vice versa.
This exchange rate could possibly also be influenced the global demand / supply of galactic currency.

Galactic Currency can also be obtained directly by selling Resources in the Galactic Market. So we don't need to add a particular mechanism for gestalts.

Empires could also exchange their national currency, but a foreign currency would have no use except to be exchanged with another empire or to buy galactic currency.

A suzerain with his dependencies, a federation or the galactic empire could impose a common currency.
The galactic empire would use galactic currency.
The galactic community could also vote a monetary union to replace all the currencies of the members of the community with the galactic currency, if this resolution is passed, the internal market is removed for the members.


Obviously the market could be improved too, I had discussed this in another topic: Market Rebalance, Introducing Market Caps

Multiple distinct currencies is a lot of work to implement for not a lot of benefit, keeping it simple is much better for all involved even if it isn't very realistic.

 

[exi123]

While we are on it, trade value should also be an indicator of how much an empire can trade internally before the galactic market arrives. We need economic indicators to prevent exploits around the market. TV could be a non storeable resource for example, every action on the market lowers the output for a while, so the output gets consumed directly to play like some kind of wealth transfer to the market. Selling works vice versa, it increases the trade value over time in my empire and opens bigger windows for other transactions.

 

[Lude]

In fact, it is very simple. Each empire non-gestalt by trade value would generate a currency specific to its empire.
This currency makes it possible to trade with its internal market.

The internal and galactic market could coexist, each with their advantages and disadvantages.

The national currency could be used to buy galactic currency. The more one buys galactic currency with its currency, the more the galactic currency will cost and vice versa.
This exchange rate could possibly also be influenced the global demand / supply of galactic currency.

Galactic Currency can also be obtained directly by selling Resources in the Galactic Market. So we don't need to add a particular mechanism for gestalts.

Empires could also exchange their national currency, but a foreign currency would have no use except to be exchanged with another empire or to buy galactic currency.

A suzerain with his dependencies, a federation or the galactic empire could impose a common currency.
The galactic empire would use galactic currency.
The galactic community could also vote a monetary union to replace all the currencies of the members of the community with the galactic currency, if this resolution is passed, the internal market is removed for the members.


Obviously the market could be improved too, I had discussed this in another topic: Market Rebalance, Introducing Market Caps

I like the idea of each empire having their own internal currency, and a galactic one, and trading the internal for the galactic currency. It should work fine as this is how things work IRL as well. There wouldn't be any need for two currencies unless there are two markets though, and this could add a bit too much complexity to the game, trying to manage both galactic and internal market prices.

 

[NXAwesome1]

I really like this idea! I think with a few tweaks here and there it would make an Amazing feature that makes sense entirely!

 

[Lude]

Just as an add on to all this, I was thinking that there could be some correlation with admin capacity and the value of the internal currency. When admin cap increases it could cause inflation in the internal currency, and this would make the currency less valuable and raw materials more expensive. In turn this could make a smaller empire more viable than it is now because you as the government can have a bigger piece of the economy!

 

[Lude]

While we are on it, trade value should also be an indicator of how much an empire can trade internally before the galactic market arrives. We need economic indicators to prevent exploits around the market. TV could be a non storeable resource for example, every action on the market lowers the output for a while, so the output gets consumed directly to play like some kind of wealth transfer to the market. Selling works vice versa, it increases the trade value over time in my empire and opens bigger windows for other transactions.

I was thinking something along these lines, with the new mechanics, it would be much more effective to have monthly active trades rather than trying to create massive stockpiles because the trade value would have to be stockpiled as a resource (with a market fee penalty)

There could also be the possibility to run a deficit, just like a real government, and pay interest on the debt - and it would also have an impact on inflation. There could even be a modifier to pop happiness if inflation is too high. This would be quite fun to manage for a trade focused empire.

 

[GOLANX]

Just as an add on to all this, I was thinking that there could be some correlation with admin capacity and the value of the internal currency. When admin cap increases it could cause inflation in the internal currency, and this would make the currency less valuable and raw materials more expensive. In turn this could make a smaller empire more viable than it is now because you as the government can have a bigger piece of the economy!

Admin cap is going the way of the dodo thats not something you want to tie mechanics too, inflation could occur on the galactic scale as empires stockpile currency its built up based on the amount between all the empires, or at least half that half based on how much you have floating around in yours.

 

[goldennick94]

I certainly like this idea and I think it has quite a bit of merit, but I might be playing devil's advocate here for a bit. In my opinion, I think the energy credit thing does make sense from a flavor and a sci-fi point of view for economics.

If you think about it, what we deem as currency is by attaching value to it. Traditionally, in older civilizations, gold was considered one of the most iconic forms of currency because it's shiny and luxurious and also because it's resilient to tarnish and chemical change that make other metals less resilient. But it was by no means the only thing. Salt, spices, silk, rare natural materials were important depending on the circumstances and availability of those goods to other market and we used to have bartering systems that used those instead of currency. I think trade value attempts to accommodate all of those kinds of things that could be considered valuable as a singular game "economic unit" or currency.

The thing is, not all of those things are equally useful and have the same value to everyone. So what one empire's trade value "goods" is not necessarily equal to another empire's trade value "goods". Hence, I think that's why we have the current conversion systems into energy credits, unity, consumer goods, etc. It's an attempt to take these generalized sorts of goods and convert it into something that is more standardized in value.

Now you may be wondering why energy credits is considered the de facto currency of trade? Energy credits just represents collections of energy sources (like batteries, fusion cells, fuel, etc). Lots of sci-fi fiction seems to take the stance of it's the one thing everyone will absolutely *need* in the space age. You need to power ships and planets, to keep economies moving, etc. Thus it's makes sense as something everyone can agree to that has value.

 

[Bezborg]

Absolutely agreed. It was suggested before, many times, and it remains a good idea.

Trade value as currency for the market. Nothing more or less. Yes.

Tbh I think "energy" should stop being a resource and change into "capacity". A planet has an energy capacity, to upkeep buildings or pops or what have you. If not enough power - penalties to effectiveness. If excess - perhaps some bonuses, or "exprting it" for trade value (i.e. conversion)

A separate building slot for an energy grid and capital building.

 

[Lude]

I certainly like this idea and I think it has quite a bit of merit, but I might be playing devil's advocate here for a bit. In my opinion, I think the energy credit thing does make sense from a flavor and a sci-fi point of view for economics.

If you think about it, what we deem as currency is by attaching value to it. Traditionally, in older civilizations, gold was considered one of the most iconic forms of currency because it's shiny and luxurious and also because it's resilient to tarnish and chemical change that make other metals less resilient. But it was by no means the only thing. Salt, spices, silk, rare natural materials were important depending on the circumstances and availability of those goods to other market and we used to have bartering systems that used those instead of currency. I think trade value attempts to accommodate all of those kinds of things that could be considered valuable as a singular game "economic unit" or currency.

The thing is, not all of those things are equally useful and have the same value to everyone. So what one empire's trade value "goods" is not necessarily equal to another empire's trade value "goods". Hence, I think that's why we have the current conversion systems into energy credits, unity, consumer goods, etc. It's an attempt to take these generalized sorts of goods and convert it into something that is more standardized in value.

Now you may be wondering why energy credits is considered the de facto currency of trade? Energy credits just represents collections of energy sources (like batteries, fusion cells, fuel, etc). Lots of sci-fi fiction seems to take the stance of it's the one thing everyone will absolutely *need* in the space age. You need to power ships and planets, to keep economies moving, etc. Thus it's makes sense as something everyone can agree to that has value.

I agree, there's no problems with energy credits being a currency from a lore perspective, it makes plenty of sense. The problems are more gameplay related, with trade value being a parallel resource that overlap heavily with energy (as well as with consumer goods)

 

[GOLANX]

I certainly like this idea and I think it has quite a bit of merit, but I might be playing devil's advocate here for a bit. In my opinion, I think the energy credit thing does make sense from a flavor and a sci-fi point of view for economics.

If you think about it, what we deem as currency is by attaching value to it. Traditionally, in older civilizations, gold was considered one of the most iconic forms of currency because it's shiny and luxurious and also because it's resilient to tarnish and chemical change that make other metals less resilient. But it was by no means the only thing. Salt, spices, silk, rare natural materials were important depending on the circumstances and availability of those goods to other market and we used to have bartering systems that used those instead of currency. I think trade value attempts to accommodate all of those kinds of things that could be considered valuable as a singular game "economic unit" or currency.

The thing is, not all of those things are equally useful and have the same value to everyone. So what one empire's trade value "goods" is not necessarily equal to another empire's trade value "goods". Hence, I think that's why we have the current conversion systems into energy credits, unity, consumer goods, etc. It's an attempt to take these generalized sorts of goods and convert it into something that is more standardized in value.

Now you may be wondering why energy credits is considered the de facto currency of trade? Energy credits just represents collections of energy sources (like batteries, fusion cells, fuel, etc). Lots of sci-fi fiction seems to take the stance of it's the one thing everyone will absolutely *need* in the space age. You need to power ships and planets, to keep economies moving, etc. Thus it's makes sense as something everyone can agree to that has value.

Power isn't so easily transported, batteries wear out, you need a generator to burn fuel, Fusion cells need a reactor and may or may not be incredibly dangerous and volatile, power lines lose power over their stretch.

Pull out a dollar or Euro or whatever and take a good long look at it, it is a fancy piece of paper with fancy writing on it, what gives it value? It has value in you can use it to trade, outside of that you can wipe your butt with it, it intrinsically doesn't have any value. Now imagine instead of porting around a dozen slips of paper on your person your toting around a car battery, it's much less portable, it loses value over time as it charges and discharges energy, it's mildly dangerous as it contains electrical charge enough to kill a man, also Acids that are used by mobsters to dissolve their enemies. The paper doesn't have any value, you can't even turn it in for Gold, RN all modern currencies are fiat Currencies, there is nothing backing up the value of that slip of Paper.

It may sound crazy but it works, it is easily portable, doesn't lose value, infinitely replaceable, completely harmless. I just don't see Fiat Currency going away, it's made such a huge impact on the world economy.

 

[52flyingbicycles]

I was thinking about this post and had an idea to expand on it. What if trade value had something to do with planetary surplus/deficit? Right now, it's best to hyper-specialize every planet to do one or two things, but in real life places need diverse economies to thrive. Too much of one thing makes them very reliant on imports. All planets have a trade value, so any deficits the planet runs consume that trade value: how much trade is needed to sustain the planet. Essentially, planet trade value = trade value generated - sum of planetary deficits. Trade value for each deficit resource is its base market value: 1 for energy, food, minerals, 2 for CG, 4 for alloys, 10 for strategic resources. No conversion rate or market fee needed since the stuff is just getting moved around. So a planet with a 30 food, 10 mineral, 15 CG, 3 gas deficit consumes 100 trade value.

If trade value > deficits then the planet produces trade value like normal. If deficits > trade value, then the planet reduces the empire's trade value. In-universe this represents a planet's ability to coordinate and distribute the resources necessary for its production. A trade surplus means the planet contributes to the distribution of goods on other planets, trade deficit means the planet is reliant on other planets to control its economy. An empire's trade surplus is used to generate resources based on trade policy, and a trade deficit means consuming extra resources to maintain trade.

The more specialized an empire wants planets to be, the more trade hub planets it will need to coordinate the empire's resources. Generalist planets can make enough trade value naturally with pops and local clerks to cover their smaller deficits.

What of planet surpluses? Other planets consume them (and trade value) to cover their deficits, or the extra goes into the empire's reserves. Surpluses do not create trade value unless the empire sells from their reserves.

 

[Lude]

I was thinking about this post and had an idea to expand on it. What if trade value had something to do with planetary surplus/deficit? Right now, it's best to hyper-specialize every planet to do one or two things, but in real life places need diverse economies to thrive. Too much of one thing makes them very reliant on imports. All planets have a trade value, so any deficits the planet runs consume that trade value: how much trade is needed to sustain the planet. Essentially, planet trade value = trade value generated - sum of planetary deficits. Trade value for each deficit resource is its base market value: 1 for energy, food, minerals, 2 for CG, 4 for alloys, 10 for strategic resources. No conversion rate or market fee needed since the stuff is just getting moved around. So a planet with a 30 food, 10 mineral, 15 CG, 3 gas deficit consumes 100 trade value.

If trade value > deficits then the planet produces trade value like normal. If deficits > trade value, then the planet reduces the empire's trade value. In-universe this represents a planet's ability to coordinate and distribute the resources necessary for its production. A trade surplus means the planet contributes to the distribution of goods on other planets, trade deficit means the planet is reliant on other planets to control its economy. An empire's trade surplus is used to generate resources based on trade policy, and a trade deficit means consuming extra resources to maintain trade.

The more specialized an empire wants planets to be, the more trade hub planets it will need to coordinate the empire's resources. Generalist planets can make enough trade value naturally with pops and local clerks to cover their smaller deficits.

What of planet surpluses? Other planets consume them (and trade value) to cover their deficits, or the extra goes into the empire's reserves. Surpluses do not create trade value unless the empire sells from their reserves.

Hello, thank you for your contribution. I do like the idea of incorporating this with deficits however I think this particular idea might overcomplicate things a bit.

At the moment there is no need to concern the player with what deficits and surpluses do and don't exist on their individual planets. This is because resources are taken from a single pot, or alternatively you can think of this as the resources being exchanged 100% efficiently between planets so everything is outputting at maximum capacity and any resources requirements are fulfilled.

If such a system was implemented then the player would need to pay attention to the mathematics on every planet regarding surpluses, and this would complicate the game quite a bit without adding much in the way of fun.

What I do like the idea of is tying trade value with the global deficits. Trade value could be used to purchase the deficit resource from the internal market of the empire, so that penalties don't need to be applied. This can be separate from the galactic market, think of it as the government buying the resources it needs urgently with the surplus from trading with other empires. If there is no reserve of trade value, there could even be a deficit / debt system where penalties to all resource production gradually build up with the level of deficit as well as other empire modifiers.

Depending on how this is balanced it may be very beneficial to run a deficit, which to be fair would be realistic but probably too confusing to be fun in actual gameplay. So it should be balanced to be very punishing.

Also, there are many ways that the 3.3 system could be integrated with this trade value system. Perhaps Influence could be incorporated so that it will have some more purposes, allowing the empire to run a larger debt. Also planetary ascensions could have some impact on it as well.