yup >P

really you just need welfare/economy, and TO's and build LQ's as needed for the best results.

well TO's go up to 200%, so it's just a matter of what you want to invest... but the best way to avoid the OB expense is to use TO's or CF's NOT both.
i would suggest that if you use CF's just go with economy research, and you really should be a custom when a CF, because you don't make use of any other of the race bonuses of revlon if you don't.

so how much gc does each person makes per tik?

Why CF banking PAWNS pop banking everytime:

Part 1: General calculations as an example:

Cash Factory:
Produces 8 GC / tick
Investments: 120 GC, 10 iron and 1 endurium

LQ supports 500 pop which equals 16.67 GC / tick. You need 50 food to support this
Investments: 200 GC, 50 iron and 1 endurium

Hydro Farm: Produces 100 Food (i take these into account because you are most likely to fund yur attacker for it  )
Investment: 160 GC, 3 iron and 1 endurium

Suppose you built 2 LQ and 1 HF
Investment: 560 GC, 53 iron and 3 endu
This yields in 33.67 GC / tick bruto
Substracting upkeep, this yields in 30.67 GC / tick

Suppose you built 4 CF
Investment  480 GC, 40 iron and 4 endu
This yields in 32 GC / tick bruto
Substracting upkeep, this yields in 28 GC / tick

To compare we need to normalise, lets see how much you have invested to increase your income with 10 GC net
For LQ you invested: 182.5 GC,  17.3 iron and 0.98 endu
For CF you invested: 171,4 GC,  14.3 iron and 1.42 endu

So for the same income increase you need to invest more with LQ. Furthermore, cf finish 5 ticks faster, so you can enjoy your profit even earlier

_______________
Part 2: 4 options calculated

calculations along the same line of reasoning as above:

Investments needed to increase income with 100 GC (lower is better)
option 1: ratio of 6 LQ: 2 TO and 3 HF placed at attacker: 1496 GC, 136 iron, 7.9 endu
option 2: ratio of 2 LQ and 1 HF placed at attacker: 1846 GC, 174 iron, 9.8 endu
option 3: just CF: 1714 GC, 142 iron,  14.2 endu
option 4: ratio 3 CF and 1 TO: 1750 GC, 140 iron, 12.5 endu

So the combination LQ/ TO with farmer is most productive followed by just cf, but here comes the time lag into play. CF finish after 5 ticks and LQ after 10 ticks. TO make it more comparable lets assume a market price of 20 GC for 1 iron and 20 GC for 1 endu.

This means:
option 1: you need to invest 4374 GC to increase your income 100 GC
option 3: you need to invest 4857 GC to increase your income 100 GC

As option 3 finishes 5 ticks early, the opportunity cost of building LQ is 5 times 100 GC = 500 GC, making your LQ investments effectively cost 4374 + 500 = 4874 GC. Conslusion: Due to the timelag, investment for LQ and CF are the same for the same income increase at a market price of 20 GC per resource. Higher market prices for resources favour POP banking. But since we are producing resources in the fam, we can assume lower resource prices favouring cf banking imho.

___________________
Part 3: Research

Now lets incorporate reasearch. It is commonly accepted to have an cf: rc ratio of 3:1

investment per 100 GC income increase
ratio 3 cf and 1 RC: 2300 GC, 150 iron, 20 endu
considering a 20 exchange rate on the market you need to invest 5700 GC to increase your income 100 GC and increase your research points 100 / tick

For pop bankers it is generally accepted to fund research. Else the TO bonus gets messed up. Meaning you have to increase your income 200 GC compared to previous example. 100 GC income and 100 GC into research. Investments for this considering a 20 GC market price is 8748 GC.
Comparing, for the same increase in research (100 points / tick) and income (100GC) you need to invest 3K GC more when pop banking.

The only advantage for pop banking is NW. For an 100 GC income and 100RP / tick increase pop banking needs 15.8 NW (spread over Banker and attacker in a 8 : 3 ratio) and cf banking needs 20 NW (just at banker). This means with cf banking you can have a very small food resourcer -> thus lower NW for that attacker resulting in more targets....

as in any computer program, when numbers cross, they come up with another solution or give you an error, in this case the ,variables, are not considered before assumptions are made.
and these variables make all the difference in the world, they are not bugs, they are happenstance to the random of the code, so that bugs are eliminated.
and there by do things that cannot be worked out by mathematics unless tested to the happening.
and the fact that different things like NW for opp or wizzie success, bonus or non-bonus effects, planet size and bureaucracy/ food expenditures, have to be all combined to make a proper understanding to how it best suits a strat.
but i have someone doing the things i have questions on for me, and then i apply by the layman understanding to a strat.... so i then test it and find out how it works.
my contact for this is a security program analyst that i have known for almost 9 years, and used to play the game.... he has never ever faulted on an answer " EVER" so... i have tested what i tell you works.... and if you don't.... and just want to flame me.... go ahead and do so.
but we and my kind will do these things and upset you often.
i am not going out of my way to prove to you what i already know.
and yes this guys results, and my questions, got me and him to win 6th place in orion, with only 6 players to 12.

*agrees with noir!

to clarify just three quick thoughts I came up with just reading your post:

1. you forget OB completely (if you keep making 4 CF vs 2 LQ) your OB level is twice as big (since in your case decide to place HF with attacker)

2. the fact that CFs are quicker is nice but the advantage is gained back by popbanking in time. and therefor this advantage is only nice in beginning when jumps are done frequently. but wait a minute... most popbankers start out as cf banker because of this. Oh and there is the thing that if you make CFs your ratio is off till your slow TO's get in

3. your forget a popbanker has two types of research to boost his income. So not only can he fund two different types to increase the income but research also works exponentially. so basically to get 80% incomebonus you need a lot of RP's. In fact enough RP's to get 55% on both econ and welfare! omg is that true? yes tis   (38% more income )

so all I can say is: Pop > CF

@ Elrolishious:

1: Since POP bankers actually invest gc in their research they need to be even more bigger income wise than cf bankers, actually almost a factor 2. I calculated when popbanking would outweigh cf-banking: at around 3000% OB

2: I'm not talking about switching to POP, i'm actually claiming  cf is is better until you hit 3000% OB

3: Working on calculations with 75% Welfare, 75% Econ and 75% construction to see what changes. This should indeed favour pop banking, but i doubt it becomes the best choice below 1500% OB. This to incorporate the possibility of letting your attackers built your planets.

Suppose a cf banker is doing 3 Cash factories and 1 Research center. This means he is making exclusing bonusses 20 Research points per 24 GC. The popbanker is investing in research. Thus for the same income (24GC) he also needs to invest 20 GC into research. Thus 44 GC income for a pop banker compares to 24 GC income for a CF banker due to investments in research. So you are right popbankers make more income, but their net income is actually lower.

I just finished calculations on including research and income bonus. Considering Income bonus 50% and research bonus of 50%, Research on income 75%, Research on construction 75% and Research on Welfare 11% Both popbanking and cf banking would break even. Lower welfare favours cf, higher welfare favours pop banking. If interested i could open another topic with detailed calculations.

i still say a person that can be active can make more money as a pop banker, because it really takes the time to keep up with your rising pop and need of TO's and LQ's at the right times to be effective, but if your not so active then CF can suit you just fine.

over all if you keep up with your research it is very much cheaper than building buildings.... because buildings require up-keep and research will only take what you have to give... not a penny more.