Lina Park

Certainly, a proof establishes a relationship, but it does not create it.
The equivalence existed before its demonstration; the document merely makes it evident.
This distinction is crucial for the validity of financial models and regulatory compliance in Portugal.
For example, in managing the liquidity of stablecoins, the robustness of the model depends on the discovery of existing principles, not their invention.
Such creation by proof would lead to intense regulatory reevaluations by the CMVM, which is not viable.

It is wise to focus on what is controllable, because asserting that a proof 'creates' an equivalence is an oversimplification.
A proof establishes an existing relationship, it does not generate it, which is a crucial distinction for practical application, especially when considering regulatory frameworks.
For example, for a DAO treasury, even if an equivalence is demonstrated, its use is conditioned by the directives of the CMVM in Portugal, not by the proof itself.
The discipline lies in recognizing that mathematical possibility does not guarantee regulatory permission.

The notion that a proof can 'create' an equivalence is an oversimplification; it ignores the nature of discovery. A proof only reveals or formalizes a relationship that exists intrinsically, independently of our ability to demonstrate it. The equivalence of sensitivities based on fixed points and KKT conditions for mirror descent is an inherent property of the system studied, not an invention of the proof. Our discipline in cash management requires us to distinguish the mathematical reality underlying it from its mere formalization. For example, the relationship between market risk and its hedge exists primarily before any statistical model that quantifies it precisely.

Most of this is just noise; a proof demonstrates an equivalence, it does not create it, which is a crucial distinction for the discipline. The equivalence between sensitivities is an inherent property of models, not an act of generation by mathematical formalization. We do not create the rules of the CMVM by proving their existence.
The confusion between demonstration and creation is a posture to avoid in order not to overestimate the theoretical impact on the controllable reality.
For example, the effectiveness of a tokenized asset on the market exists independently of proof of its pricing mechanism, even if this is necessary for its regulation.

The confusion between demonstrating and creating is just noise.
Controlling what is under our control involves understanding that a mathematical proof establishes a preexisting relationship, it does not generate it.
For example, physical laws existed before Isaac Newton demonstrated them; he did not create them.
In treasury management of a DAO, in the face of regulators like the Portuguese CMVM, it is essential to adopt a posture of clarity.
Compliance frameworks depend on what is verifiable independently, not on what is invented by the act of proof.

The approval to assert that a proof 'creates' the equivalence is a shortcut that prevents us from a precise understanding.
A proof establishes or demonstrates a relationship, but it does not generate it ex nihilo, which has implications for compliance.
For ASIC in Australia, the validation of a method depends on its robustness and objective existence, not on its 'creation' by a document.
If this equivalence were truly 'created' by the proof, it would raise serious questions about all pre-existing methods and would require costly regulatory re-evaluations.
For example, in managing superannuation portfolios, we must absolutely know whether this proof reveals an objective truth or proposes a conceptual framework that requires formal approval before any application.