How Vera picks and weights a plan

Vera picks and sizes names from 12 months of real numbers, then scores the risk. It is a model, not a forecast.

Vera builds a plan from numbers you can pull yourself: 12 months of real daily closes for every asset in the universe, live prices, and a live check that each name can actually be bought right now. She reads that table, picks names against your goal, sizes them so no single name can sink the plan, and scores the risk. Everything she reads is real. What she does with it is a model, not a forecast.

What she reads before she picks anything

Four numbers per asset, computed from the last 12 months of the real underlying ticker’s daily closes:

Number	What it tells her
1-year return	The longer trend
3-month return	Whether that trend is still alive or rolling over
Annualized volatility	How violently the price moves
Worst peak-to-trough drop	How bad the worst stretch actually got

She also gets the live price for each asset and, for the names she shortlists, a quote probe confirming the trade would fill. Assets whose public ticker is not the same instrument, mostly tokenized private companies, have no honest history, so they carry no numbers and Vera treats them as a small thematic slice at most, never a core holding.

How names get picked and sized

Picking is judgment against your goal, constrained hard. Vera may only allocate across assets that are buyable right now, and weights must sum to 100. Past that, the numbers set the shape: cautious goals lean toward low-volatility, shallow-drawdown names and broad index funds; growth goals favor names where the 1-year and 3-month trends are both positive, because a fading 3-month behind a big 1-year is momentum rolling over.

Sizing is the part that is not discretionary. Positions are sized inversely to volatility, so the wilder a name moves, the smaller its slice. That is why a plan built around one volatile stock still ends up with most of its weight somewhere calmer.

Two things then happen before you see the draft. Any pick with no live executable quote is dropped and its weight redistributed, so Vera never proposes something that fails at invest time. And legs are capped so each one is worth its own transaction: no venue rejects a size, but every leg costs gas Monvera sponsors, so a small amount buys fewer names rather than many slices too small to be worth it.

You

Put $200 into AI companies, nothing too wild

Vera

Six names, about $33 each. I skipped two of the AI set: one has no honest 12-month history and one has no live quote right now. Weights are inverse to volatility, so the steadiest name carries the biggest slice.

The risk read

Every plan carries one blended risk score from 0 to 10000, and it is the number Vera signs. Roughly:

Kind of holding	Typical score
Broad index funds	3000 to 4500
Single technology stocks	5000 to 7000
Crypto	7000 to 9000

The plan’s score is the blend across its holdings, checked against a ceiling. If it exceeds the ceiling the plan was built under, the transaction reverts rather than recording an over-risk plan.

Each holding also gets a one-line reason, grounded in those same numbers. If a reason calls a name steadier than most of its sector, that traces back to its measured volatility, not to vibes.

Where this can be wrong

The inputs are backward-looking, all of them. Twelve months of closes describe how an asset moved; they say nothing about how it will move. A plan Vera scores as steady can still fall hard, because these are real companies at real prices, and prices fall. You can lose money on any plan she builds.

The scoring is calibration, not prediction. A 4000 does not mean “will drop less than a 7000 next year”. It means “this mix has historically moved less violently than that one”. Markets change regime, and a name that was calm for 12 months can gap on a single earnings call.

She is also working with an incomplete picture on purpose. She sees prices, not balance sheets, not filings, not the news you read this morning. She has no view on what happens next week.

Why a wrong call still matters

Because the assessment is recorded on-chain in the same transaction as the buys, the calls that went badly stay on the record beside the ones that went well. That is the honest version of a track record: not a claim that Vera is right, but a record you can check her against. How it is written and read is covered in what Monvera records on-chain.