Is trading working correctly?

the very first post suggested so.

No, that evidence only carries that implication for imports. For exports, there is most definitely an upper limit on how much of anything we can buy at one time on one planet, an in most cases that limit is easily reached. That doesn't make sense unless our ships' cargo capacity is large compared to the export economy.

This asymmetry between imports and exports is a bad idea, I think. In a much more sophisticated simulation, you should not be able to buy or sell more than N of anything at one time, where N might vary depending upon the good, the planet, and time. Every time you buy or sell N items, the price should go up or down, respectively. if you try to buy or sell too many goods, the price should become effectively infinite, or 0, respectively. I've played games that worked that way, but they weren't constrained by the memory and CPU limits of a smart phone.

It could also just be the limit you can buy at any given point in time. Just because you want twenty tons of clothes or vudka doesn't mean you can get it all in a week or whatever time frame you are in. Though I do like your idea mind you.

I have wondered about the trading market supply and demand aspects work to the game also. The supply seemed to be highly limited comparing the size of planet economy to the tones of the starship hold, and yet demand seems unlimited as you can sell as much as you want. The economies of near by planets are clearly linked as the amounts available and prices respond to rumours, over the timescales of travel, but on a single planet are essentially static over the same timescales. This and the fact that there is no immediate effect on price when trading, indicates that the planetary economy is orders of magnitude higher than the player traded capacities.

I am curious how it all works, as most other aspects of the game relating to factions, combat, officers have been discussed and much hidden depth discovered. I would like to know if there is more to the trading system than meets the eye, especially since the name of the game was StarTraders.

Is there some sort of under the code bidding depth system where the commodities are available at a range of different prices and it is only the top price seen by the player?

That doesn't make sense. The supply is not unlimited at any given time. When you land on the planet, they hold a certain amount of inventory depending on the local production and incoming trades.

Supply means: what is constantly produced and constantly brought in. Not what you have at the moment. The planet may have exhausted it's current "stock" (when you buy the whole inventory) but the supply is still being produced and shipped in.

A trader can dump unlimited because the "confidence" of reselling is present (until a surplus occur) but the hold goods is NOT unlimited because someone still has to produce them.

~

"This asymmetry between imports and exports is a bad idea, I think. In a much more sophisticated simulation, you should not be able to buy or sell more than N of anything at one time, where N might vary depending upon the good, the planet, and time. Every time you buy or sell N items, the price should go up or down, respectively. if you try to buy or sell too many goods, the price should become effectively infinite, or 0, respectively. I've played games that worked that way, but they weren't constrained by the memory and CPU limits of a smart phone."

This makes even less sense (for an intergalactic trading system).
This game surpasses the complexity and sophistication of those games you played with it's unlimited memory and superior CPU.
I played those game too and it's flawed. because the model only recognize YOU as the sole source of supply and demand but the market still has to make money off of you.

True, but if you're too small of a trader to have an effect on the prices, you're also too small to run into those limits. "No effect on prices" is only an approximation; every trader has an effect, though it may be too small to measure; but it's a good approximation when you're much smaller than the total size of the market. "You can can buy as much as you can afford, at current prices, without exhausting the available inventory" and "you can sell as much as you want at the current price without running out of buyers" are also only approximations, and they're both true under precisely the same circumstances, and to precisely the same extent, that "no effect on prices" is true. If you can afford to exhaust the available inventory at the current market price, then you can have a noticeable effect on the market price.The inventory on hand is a buffer that covers temporary imbalances of supply and demand. When it is large compared to the total volume of trade, prices go down, increasing the amount demanded, and decreasing the amount supplied, causing the excess inventory to be reduced. When it's small compared to the volume of trade, the opposite effects occur. Some who can afford to buy enough of a good to convert a large inventory into a small inventory is necessarily someone who's purchasing power is capable of noticeably affecting the market price.That would only be true if your own sales and purchases were the only ones that affected the model's market price. That is not true in any of the cases where I've seen this kind of model used. One of the two cases I'm familiar with was the stock market in Railroad Tycoon II, where each block of shares that you bought or sold would cause a corresponding change to the stock price; but the same was true of the purchases and sales performed by any of the other players, whether human or AI. That's reasonable, because the players represent the biggest investors in Railroads. The game also modeled the net price effects of all of the other smaller investors who were not players in the game.
This model reflected reality, by making it very expensive to rapidly buy a controlling share of any company, and also by making it inefficient to rapidly liquidate your holdings in a company. These are issues that the wealthiest investors have to take into consideration when making large sales or purchases, while smaller investors never have to worry about them.

The other game I remember playing where such a model was used is Freecol. If you traded enough goods with your home country, the price would rise or drop accordingly; but in the background, the price also varied on it's own, due to all of the other trade, both locally in the home country, and also with other nation's home ports, ports that your colonies were prohibited from trading with directly.

So - no, these models do NOT imply a solipsistic world in which you are the sole source of supply or demand. A model which made that assumption would, logically, have to prohibit trading entirely, because you'd have no one to trade with.

This game's economic model does randomly generate shortages and surpluses that cause significant price swings. These shortages and surpluses are easily relieved by the efforts of a single VV. I've so far never needed to make more than three trips to a planet to relieve a shortage or a surplus. That economic rumors disappear on their own if not attended to implies that there are other traders in the game; that we have so much power to speed up the disappearance of of those rumors implies that there are not a lot of of other traders. Our ships must be more significant players in the interstellar economy than you give them credit for.
If we can relieve a shortage by unloading a single VV, we should be able to create one by loading it (at least, if we choose the right time and place to unload it). If we can relieve a surplus by filling a VV, we should be able to create a surplus by unloading it (in the right time and place).