A logical analysis of past relationship failures. How weak BATNAs lead to zero-sum exploitation, the conflict between ‘Greedy Algorithms’ and long-term compounding, and why risk symmetry (Skin in the Game) is the only valid basis for trust.

Revisiting my old blog posts, I realized my past relationships weren’t just “unlucky”—they were systemic failures in game theory.

I used to view these interactions through the lens of romance and emotion. Now, I view them through the lens of BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and system architecture. This is a post-mortem analysis of why things went wrong, why I was “exploited” (in a game-theoretic sense), and the new protocol I’ve established for the future.

1. The Call Option and Liquidity Crisis

In previous relationships, specifically the long-distance dynamic, the power structure was asymmetric.

She held a Call Option on me.

  • The Asset (Me): I was locked in, providing emotional liquidity, waiting for her to “exercise” the option to move to my city.
  • The Premium: Near zero.
  • The Strike: She retained the right, but not the obligation, to commit.

I was suffering from a liquidity crisis—my time and focus were frozen—while she minimized her risk.

2. The Power of BATNA

Negotiation power is derived entirely from your BATNA.

  • Her BATNA: High value. Staying in her comfort zone, surrounded by friends, while still receiving my remote attention.
  • My BATNA (at the time): Low value (perceived). Loneliness in a big city.

Because her alternative to our “agreement” was better than mine, she controlled the game. The moment I initiated the breakup, I essentially sent a SIGKILL to a zombie process.
“Pending” consumes more RAM than “Terminated.”

While the result was negative (breakup), the system load (anxiety) dropped immediately because the uncertainty was resolved.

3. The Honeypot: A Cost Function Mismatch

The subsequent financial loss (the fraud incident) was a more brutal lesson. It wasn’t just bad luck; it was a Social Engineering Attack that exploited a vulnerability in my “Kernel”—my empathy.

The attacker used extreme language (“I’ll be your dog,” etc.) to signal submission.

  • My Protocol: I assumed dignity is a high-cost resource. I thought, “If she sacrifices this much dignity, she must be sincere.”
  • Her Protocol: Dignity had a marginal cost of zero. It was Cheap Talk.

I mistook her Cheap Talk for Proof-of-Work.

This resulted in a Zero-Sum Game (or negative-sum). She gained resources, I lost resources, and my trust database was corrupted.

4. Greedy Algorithms vs. Long-Term Compounding

Why do people act this way? It’s not necessarily malice; it’s an operating system issue. They are running a Greedy Algorithm.

  • Greedy Algorithm (Them): Make the locally optimal choice at every step. Grab the immediate benefit (money, attention) regardless of future consequences. It works well in the short term but gets stuck in “local maxima.”
  • Dynamic Programming (Me): I optimize for the global maximum. I have a career, assets (house/car), and I am compounding my skills in AI and Full Stack development.

The Asset Class Difference: Their primary asset (youth/novelty) follows a Logarithmic Decay curve. My primary asset (competence/resources) follows an Exponential Growth curve.

The pain I felt came from a mismatch in time horizons. I was investing for 20 years down the line; they were day-trading.

5. The New Protocol: Risk Symmetry

Going forward, “Unconstrained Altruism” is deprecated. The new standard is Risk Symmetry, or as Nassim Taleb calls it, Skin in the Game.

“If I am to feel pain, you must share an equal downside risk.”

This is not cold; it is the only way to maintain a healthy system.

  • If a partner’s BATNA is always superior to mine, entropy takes over. The system naturally slides toward greed, laziness, and disrespect.
  • Mutual Non-Cooperation (walking away) is a valid Nash Equilibrium. It prevents exploitation.

Rationality is a form of kindness. By enforcing boundaries and requiring valid “collateral” (actions, not words), I protect myself from loss and prevent the other person from indulging in their worst instincts.

Conclusion: Never enter a game where you are the only one with something to lose. Monitor the BATNA constantly. Trust, but only verify against shared risk.