Skip to content
Convexly
Lesson 11 of 12

Markets, not just wallets

The same discipline that reads a wallet also reads whole markets: is this price citable, is this market's structure sound, can these related prices all be right at once. Each surface prints its own evidence boundary.

The answer first

Convexly runs three market-level reads. None of them is a wallet verdict, and each one states on its own page what its evidence can and cannot support. The boundary labels are not fine print; they are the finding.

The intuition, with one worked example

Take a market quoting 63% and ask: can I responsibly use that number in my work? A Market Trust card answered with one of four reads, with the caveat and receipt attached: use it, use it with caveats, discount it, or do not cite it. The whole surface carried a preview label because it was never calibrated by enough resolved outcomes. The surface told you its own maturity before it told you anything else. That ordering is the lesson.

The actual method

  • Market Trust (frozen 2026-09-05). Read one market's evidence trail and answered whether the price was strong enough to cite. Boundary as printed: experimental, never calibrated by resolved outcomes. The forward test of it, filed in advance as AsPredicted #295174, returned the registered wording that Market Trust tiers do not separate on resolution cleanliness, and a null was one of the outcomes that filing registered, not a failure.
  • Market integrity read. Two descriptive structural measures with intervals: participation concentration (how much of recent flow the largest wallets account for, with a bootstrap confidence interval and an effective-participant count) and a round-trip churn share (an upper bound that deliberately over-counts benign trading). Boundary as printed: names no wallet, asserts no manipulation; a descriptive structural read, not an allegation.
  • Coherence engine. Checks whether related market prices are logically consistent with each other, and flags sets that cannot all be right at once. Boundary as printed: version-labeled candidates with a maturing track record, and realized outcomes are counted separately from expectations.

Where you see this on the site

The Market Trust methodology contract is kept as dated history at /research/market-trust-card. The concentration methodology is written up at /research/market-integrity-concentration, and the coherence engine's daily output is at /research/cme/signals.

What this does NOT mean

None of these surfaces detects manipulation, names a bad actor, or certifies a market as safe. High participation concentration is most often a single liquidity provider doing its job. A coherence flag is a structural disagreement between prices, not an instruction to trade it. And a Market Trust read was a research diagnostic, not a calibrated verdict; its own page said so before it said anything else. The boundary language is the deliverable; removing it would make every one of these reads wrong.

Next lesson: what we never say

Convexly publishes new methodology research roughly every 6-8 weeks plus the /learn series on a rolling cadence. Get the next paper in your inbox when it ships:

Frequently asked

What is Market Trust?

A research surface that read one market and answered whether its price was strong enough to cite: use it, use it with caveats, discount it, or do not cite it, with the caveat and receipt attached. It carried a preview label on the surface itself because it was never calibrated by enough resolved outcomes. The forward test of it, filed in advance as AsPredicted #295174, returned the registered wording: Market Trust tiers do not separate on resolution cleanliness. A null was one of the outcomes that filing registered, not a failure. The rating surfaces were frozen on 2026-09-05.

Does the market integrity read accuse anyone of manipulation?

No. It reports two descriptive structural measures with intervals: participation concentration (how much of recent flow the largest wallets account for, with a bootstrap confidence interval) and a round-trip churn share (an upper bound that deliberately over-counts benign trading). It names no wallet and asserts no manipulation; the most common explanation for high concentration is a single liquidity-providing wallet. It is a structural read, not an allegation.

What does the coherence engine check?

Whether related market prices are logically consistent with each other. Some sets of prices cannot all be right at once, for example mutually exclusive outcomes whose prices sum well past 100%. The engine flags those disagreements as candidates. Its outputs are version-labeled, and the track record is still maturing, which the page states on itself.

Related surfaces

Related reading