CrowdCent

We today have no better metric for the total value that a person has contributed to the world than the wealth that this person has extracted from the world in compensation for the value they gave. Yes, maybe one could make such a better metric, but no one has done so yet.

📊 $NMR staked on Numerai tournaments: 🏆 Main Tournament: 💰 Total: 820661 NMR 📈 Change: +1840 NMR (+0.22%) 🏆 Crypto Signals: 💰 Total: 61485 NMR 📉 Change: -154 NMR (-0.25%) 🏆 Signals: 💰 Total: 135953 NMR 📈 Change: +3509 NMR (+2.65%)

👋 Roughly, the more tokens you throw at a coding problem, the better the result is. We call this test time compute. One way to make the result even better is to use separate context windows. This is what makes subagents work, and also why one agent can cause bugs and another (using the same exact model!) can find them. In a way, it’s similar to engineers — if I cause a bug, my coworker reviewing the code might find it more reliably than I can. In the limit, agents will probably write perfect bug-free code. Until we get there, multiple uncorrelated context windows tends to be a good approach.

This feels like a collective intelligence submission - I like that Cool to see a speedrun as a group rather than a bunch of individuals

Did you know that for 6 months, 5,000 machine learning submissions have been predicting forward returns of every perp listed on Hyperliquid? 23 participants create a meta-model with proven out-of-sample correlation to future relative return rankings. Did you know it's free to download and explore? Did you know there's an open-source tool called cc-liquid to turn the meta-model directly into Hyperliquid portfolios? Did you know that we built all of this for Hyperliquid, but legally can't trade it ourselves from the U.S.? Hyperliquid?

I actually don't think it's complicated. IMO the future of onchain mechanism design is mostly going to fit into one pattern: [something that looks like a prediction market] -> [something that looks like a capture-resistant, non-financialized preference-setting gadget] In other words: * One layer that is maximally open and maximizes accountability (it's a market, anyone can buy and sell, if you make good decisions you win money if you make bad decisions you lose money) * One layer that is decentralized and pluralistic, and that maximizes space for intrinsic motivation. This cannot be token-based, because token owners are not pluralistic, and anyone can buy in and get 51% of them. Votes here should be anonymous, ideally MACI'd to reduce risk of collusion. The prediction market is the correct way to do a "decentralized executive", because the most logical primitive for "accountability" in a permissionless concept is exactly that. Though sometimes you will want to keep it simple, and do a centralized executive at that layer instead: [replaceable centralized executive] -> [something that looks like a capture-resistant, non-financialized preference-setting gadget] Thinking in these two layers explicitly: (i) what is doing your execution, (ii) what is doing your preference-setting and is judging the executor(s), is best.