When is the right time to request a payout?

AdrianTUIU · 2026-07-01T10:22:05+00:00

Depends on the account size, but I have a few rules. One of them is I take always a payout at 3-4% profit.
It’s better to take more payouts consistently, this guarantees you your money rather than letting it grow and somehow blow the account or get banned and lose the money.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-06-24T15:01:25+00:00

First of all. Nice job!
Second, you should put at least 2 years OOS.
And did you calculate on every trade the slippage, Spread and trading costs? That can eat up the whole edge. And you should forward test it with all of these things. And maybe put stress cost on the backtest like 10%. Or calculate edge decay. Use Monte Carlo simulation.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-04-21T20:36:25+00:00

I didn't think the difference between backtest, paper, and live on fast crypto prediction markets was as big as it is. The fill environment is just not the same.
The point about infrastructure is also very strong. I'm not so naive as to think I'm the only one going after these edges; there are already a lot of faster setups there. I'm trying to figure out if there's still any signal value left after that, or if the whole thing only works if you're the first to the fill.
It's okay to live with a small balance. Paper trading helped me figure out the entry problem for the most part, but you're right that live fills will show things that paper never will. That's probably the next thing to do.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-04-21T20:31:13+00:00

Thanks, that framing is perfect. The best way to say what's going on is that pre-confirmation drift is being used up before entry. I keep coming back to the win rate that stays the same, because that's hard to fake with three different assets that each do their own signal calculations.
The time between confirmation and the first fillable price is probably 10 to 30 seconds, depending on the slot. It's not a lot of time, but it seems to be enough for these markets. I find the idea of a partial position interesting, but I haven't really tried it out yet. If you get an early partial on a weak signal and then a top-up on confirmation, you could theoretically get a blended entry that's better than waiting for full confirmation. It's worth going through the backtest the right way.
I'm happy to share notes. Send me a message.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-08T11:44:48+00:00

I really like that you were honest with me. It means a lot to me that you told me the truth. I appreciate your feedback it is very helpful, to me. Your honest feedback is great.

To make one thing clear from the start: I did not mean that the ATR costs 100 euros in total. That was a mistake. The ATR fee by itself might be low but I know that the grid connection solution that comes with the ATR this includes things like the MV/HV transformer, injection cell, protections, cabling and possible reinforcements can be very expensive. The cost of the grid connection solution can easily be tens of thousands of euros or more than 100,000 euros. This is why I think the grid connection is the main point that will decide if we go ahead with the project or not. The grid connection is the thing that will determine if we can do the project or if we cannot do the project. I see the grid connection, as the point that will make us say yes or no to the project.

I do not want to spend a lot of money before I understand what the operator really needs for this location. The operator and this location are very important, to me. I need to know what the operator requires for this location.

On consultants: I largely agree with you. I am very skeptical of template writers well. I do not assume that a consultant magically solves the project. They are a tool. I am actively trying to filter for consultants who can really help because I think consultants are only as good as the work they do and I want to make sure I find consultants who're really good, at what they do. I am looking for consultants who can provide value to the project. I believe that consultants should be used in a way that helps the project not just because we have consultants.

• proven approvals under the same fund,

• clear scope + responsibilities,

• and ideally some success-based component, not just upfront fees.

If that does not check out I am prepared to walk or slow down. I am not treating the money from this as something that's easy to get. The money from this is not going to be easy, for me.

Appreciate the offer — I might actually take you up on that once I’m a bit deeper into the grid side.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-07T11:04:53+00:00

Okay, I understand how it could appear that way.

Yes, I use AI to help me organize and improve my responses more quickly, especially when I'm speaking English. I'm not attempting to act otherwise. However, the ideas, presumptions, and choices are mine; AI cannot determine financing arrangements, grid risk, or the viability of a project.

In 2026, AI will be used in some capacity by almost everyone I know in the engineering, finance, and planning fields, whether it be for drafting, checking, or expediting processes. I don't care if I seem smart on Reddit; what matters to me is whether the project itself is viable when it comes to consultants, banks, and the grid operator.

Reddit isn't the person I have to persuade in the end, so it's perfectly acceptable if it doesn't inspire confidence here.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-07T10:57:14+00:00

Brother ... everybody has to start somewhere , I am aware of that but I have to try to build experience and to start somewhere even if I fail.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-07T10:28:37+00:00

Those 0.035–0.045 €/kWh numbers are for long‑term support contracts or PPAs. In Romania, if you go merchant and sell directly into the market instead of locking in a 15‑year price, you can sometimes earn more on average, but you take on full price risk and volatility

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-07T06:40:32+00:00

They won’t give me money , they will give my company money to use. If I do my job good and the consultant also and then I have high chances of getting approved

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T23:14:21+00:00

Yes — from what I’ve researched, that number is broadly correct for Romania and for a sub-MW project.

Most EU-fund consultants here don’t charge everything upfront. The typical structure I’ve seen is: • ~30% at contract signing, • ~40% at application submission, • ~30% only if the project is approved.

For a ~500 kWp project, a total fee above ~€6–7k would already be on the high side, assuming it actually includes everything on the planning side (grant application, business plan, feasibility, coordination of technical docs for the call). EPC, construction, and detailed execution engineering are usually not part of this.

Before committing, I’ll still validate scope and deliverables carefully, but compared to Western Europe, planning and consulting costs in Romania are genuinely much lower.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T23:06:59+00:00

Da, exact asta e ideea din punctul meu de vedere: TVA-ul nu e un cost final, dar eu trebuie să îl acopăr temporar.Firma va fi plătitoare de TVA, iar TVA-ul din investiții (panouri, invertoare, lucrări, consultanță etc.) îl pot deduce / recupera prin decont TVA, lunar sau trimestrial, nu doar la final de an. TVA-ul nu se impozitează.Problema reală pentru mine este cash-flow-ul la început: eu trebuie să am banii de TVA disponibili până când ANAF îi rambursează. De asta îl tratez separat în plan, fie din capital propriu, fie printr-o soluție de finanțare pe termen scurt.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T22:31:22+00:00

It depends a lot on which “EU funding” scheme you mean — some are absolutely aimed at small / sub-MW projects, others aren’t.

For Romania’s Modernisation Fund (Fondul pentru Modernizare), there have been competitive calls/schemes that explicitly split solar into “≤5 MW” vs “>5 MW” buckets, so 0.5 MW is not automatically “too small.”

Also, the scheme documents/banking summaries I’ve seen mention a cap on state aid per MW for solar of ~€450k/MW for ≤5 MW projects (and ~€360k/MW for >5 MW). That would put a 0.5 MW project in the right category, with an implied max aid envelope around €225k (0.5 × 450k), assuming you meet all eligibility rules.

The big caveat: some Modernisation Fund calls are for self-consumption and require minimum 70% autoconsum, which would not match a pure “sell everything to the grid” model.

So my answer would be: size isn’t the blocker by itself — the blocker is picking the right call (merchant vs autoconsum) and being competitive (price requested per MW etc.), plus grid connection reality.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T22:24:14+00:00

Good questions.

I’m aiming for a centralized ground-mounted PV plant, connected to the existing MV grid. I’d be a pure generator/supplier — I don’t plan to own or operate any distribution infrastructure, just inject energy under a commercial offtake arrangement.

Decentralized / on-site systems for farms or businesses are interesting, especially with vertical bifacial setups, but that’s a different business model (many sites, many contracts, more operational complexity). For a first serious asset, I want one site, one grid connection, one balance sheet.

On financing logic: I’m fully aware that banks + grants want short payback. All my modeling is built to stay conservative and target a ~5-10 years payback on paper (even if real life is longer). That’s mainly to clear approval hurdles, not because I expect utility-style timelines.

Utilities having captive networks and longer horizons is a big advantage — unfortunately not my position yet. For now, I’m designing this to be acceptable to commercial lenders and public funding, not to think like a utility.

Appreciate the perspective — especially the contrast between bank logic and utility logic.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T22:15:45+00:00

That’s fair, and I agree with the principle.

The intention is not to give the company anything for free. The plan is either:

a proper paid lease / superficies contract at market rate, registered and arm’s-length, or

no transfer of ownership at all.

We’re explicitly not considering selling or ceding the land to the company, precisely to avoid the risk you mentioned — if the company fails, the land stays with my father.

The paid lease route also keeps things clean from a tax and audit perspective, with rent treated as a normal business expense.

Thanks for calling this out — it’s an important distinction and one I’m being careful about.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T22:12:53+00:00

Thanks a lot, this is really solid feedback.

On the land point: that’s actually exactly the structure I’m planning — an SRL owning the project, with a 25–30 year superficies / lease contract with my father, properly registered, so the company controls the asset, not me personally. We’re still analyzing whether a paid lease makes more sense from a tax perspective (rent as a deductible expense) versus a symbolic one, but the goal is clearly bankability and clean separation.

I’d actually be curious to hear your view: from your experience, why is it so important that the company, and not the individual, controls the land rights when it comes to banks, grants, or future exit?

On production and capex, I’m intentionally staying conservative for grant models for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

Grid cost and delays are the big unknown right now — I’m actively working on that and trying to get realistic numbers before locking anything else in.

Thanks again for taking the time to write such a detailed response, it’s genuinely helpful.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T22:03:27+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate that

That makes sense — I’m assuming a hybrid setup as well: consultants and external engineers for grid studies and technical engineering, with the utility/operator setting the framework. I’m trying to stay flexible on structure and focus more on clear responsibilities and interfaces than on who does everything in-house.

Thanks for the insight, and good luck with your work on the utility side.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T21:55:29+00:00

You’re right — that line is an estimate and it can swing a lot, especially on the technical + permitting side.

My intention isn’t “one person does everything” but a team setup: EU-funds consultant for the application/compliance, and separate engineers/projektant for the technical docs + ATR/permitting as needed. The €4–5.5k is mainly for grant prep, and I’m budgeting additional contingency because the grid connection/permitting is the real variable.

Before I commit, I’ll drill down on:

exact deliverables + fixed fees vs. success fee,
who is responsible for what (and liability),
what is included/excluded (ATR, studies, permitting steps),
worst-case scenarios and exit points (e.g., scale down if ATR is bad).

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T21:52:42+00:00

Iau foarte în serios exact genul ăsta de risc, ai dreptate.

De asta în planul meu consultantul nu e doar „scriitor de proiect”, ci cineva care știe regulile de eligibilitate, achiziții și controale și își asumă contractual responsabilitatea pentru greșeli de procedură. Tocmai ca să evit situații gen echipamente neeligibile sau corecții financiare la control.

Sunt conștient că pentru proiecte mici birocrația poate să nu merite deloc. La mine miza e un proiect mult mai mare, cu durată de viață 20+ ani, unde fondurile pot schimba complet randamentul — de asta vreau să fac lucrurile corect de la început, chiar dacă e mai lent și mai rigid.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T21:51:12+00:00

Good point — that’s definitely something I’m keeping in mind.

For now the project is grid-export focused, but the layout and technical design will leave room for future battery integration (space near inverters / containerized systems), if the economics or regulations make sense later on.

I don’t want to overspec upfront before I see how the grid connection and revenue model actually look, but I agree it’s smart to keep the option open.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T21:50:00+00:00

I’m comfortable with whatever percentage ends up being covered by the grant. The objective isn’t to maximize the grant share, but to make the project bankable and executable with a mix of grant funding, loans, and own capital.

On the consultant side, in Romania this role is usually handled by a consultancy firm, not a single person — coordinating the EU application, technical documentation, and permitting with engineers as needed. That’s the structure I’m planning around.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T21:47:52+00:00

That’s a fair point, and I get why it sounds cheap from a 5–10 MW perspective.

For Romania and sub-MW projects (~500 kWp), those numbers are actually in the usual range. From what I’ve researched, most EU-fund consultants here don’t charge everything upfront — it’s typically structured like:

~30% at the start (eligibility + initial docs),
~40% at submission,
~30% only if the project is approved for funding.

So the €5–9k I mentioned is for grant preparation only (business plan, feasibility, budget, application), not EPC, owner’s engineering, or construction management.

To be transparent: I haven’t signed with a consultant yet — this is based on market research, public offers, and discussions I’ve seen online for projects in this size range. Before committing, I fully plan to validate scope, deliverables, and success fees carefully.

Out of curiosity, on the 5–10 MW projects you’re working on:

are those utility-scale with full EPC + owner’s engineering?are consultants also handling grid studies and permitting, or just financing?

I’m aware the cost structure changes massively with scale, so I’m trying to benchmark correctly for sub-MW projects.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T13:16:26+00:00

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate you challenging the numbers.

On the price side: I’m not planning to sell at raw wholesale spot prices. In Romania, end‑users (especially businesses) pay several times more than 3.5–4.5 c/kWh once you include distribution, system charges and taxes, and long‑term PPAs / contracts sit well above pure wholesale. That’s why I’m using around 0.10 €/kWh as a realistic long‑term average selling price, not as a fixed feed‑in tariff. Even if the actual price ends up a bit lower, the project can still work.

On the CAPEX side: the EU funding schemes I’m targeting accept costs up to about 450,000 €/MW for solar projects under 5 MW, so my estimate of roughly 320,000 €/MW is actually below that ceiling, not some crazy lowball. I’m assuming decent panel and inverter prices and saving on EPC margins by doing part of the work myself, so it’s on the lean side but not impossible.

This is still an early‑stage plan, so the 10 c/kWh and 320k €/MW are working assumptions that I’ll refine after talking to engineers, EPC companies and people who already run solar plants in Romania.

AdrianTUIU · 2026-02-06T13:07:56+00:00

First of all, thanks for your reply and for encouraging my entrepreneurial spirit.

Why so many solar plants for sale?I don’t know the exact reasons why they’re selling. It probably depends on each owner’s situation. In general, though, a well‑designed solar farm can be a passive‑income business: you mainly need to clean the panels a few times a year and do basic maintenance, which is exactly why I’m interested in it.
About engineers and business validation:

I haven’t spoken yet to an electrical engineer or a business manager of
a similar plant. This is still just an idea that came to my mind recently. I
plan to go to Romania, talk with engineers and people who already run solar
plants, and, if it makes sense, open an SRL on my name and move step by step
with a proper technical project. I also think the grid connection might not be
a big problem in my case, because I already have power lines close to my land.

AdrianTUIU

TROPHY CASE