Market Trust

Decide whether a market price is worth citing.

Convexly turns a prediction-market price into a market-quality scorecard: coherence, liquidity, depth, resolution reliability, participant quality, integrity-risk screens, and an audit trail. Current canary cards expose which inputs are measured, heuristic, pending, or blocked before a rating graduates into stable public methodology.

ExperimentalStable 2026-05-11 · staleCanary 2026-05-18 · currentMethodologyTrack recordCanary proofBest current packetMacro Market TrustCross-venue disparities

What this page tells you

Can I cite this price?

Use, use with caveats, discount, or do not cite.

Why that verdict?

Every card separates measured evidence, caveats, and receipts.

Why still preview?

Stable v1 needs more outcome history, coverage, and a frozen validation contract.

The internal canary can be healthy while the public v1 promotion gate remains open. That means the data is usable for review, not yet for stronger performance claims.

Experimental rating caveat

Market Trust Cards are experimental market-quality diagnostics, not compliance certifications or validated credit ratings.

Edge Score cohorts feed participant-quality evidence when a market has enough public scored-wallet flow: not person-level identity, but whether skilled public wallets drove meaningful activity.

Coherence Signals supply the structural-consistency layer: whether related market prices violate probability constraints after costs and caveats.

Track Record decides what Convexly can claim as evidence matures: modeled, resolved, externally verified, stale, pending, or failed.

Cross-venue disparities show reviewed Polymarket/Kalshi price gaps with settlement-rule caveats before any consensus number is treated as useful.

Use

Citable only with the current evidence trail attached.

Use with caveats

Useful, but the caveats should travel with the number.

Discount

A weak input for decisions until missing evidence improves.

Do not cite

Too thin, stale, incoherent, or unresolved to rely on.

Market-quality scorecard

One plain-English status plus a pillar-by-pillar explanation of whether a market is currently usable, caveated, discounted, or not citable.

Visible caveats

v0.2 separates measured inputs from heuristics, so a buyer can see which parts of the rating are mature and which are still evidence collection.

Audit trail

Each card carries source artifacts and a row hash, linking the public card back to the reproducible Convexly research ledger.

Market Trust v1 sample shape

A stable card must answer the buyer's next question.

v0.2 is still a candidate surface. The v1 promotion target is not just a higher score. It is a card a user can cite in a memo because the verdict, evidence, limits, and next action are all visible together.

Verdict

Can I quote this probability?

Use, use with caveats, discount, or do not cite, with the exact methodology version attached.

Evidence

What supports the verdict?

Coherence, depth, participant quality, resolution reliability, integrity-risk screens, and source health.

Limits

What is missing or blocked?

Unknown flow share, stale snapshots, dropped events, data-rights gaps, and heuristic inputs travel with the score.

Next action

What should I do with it?

Cite with caveats, monitor for freshness, request a partner feed, or wait for resolved-outcome evidence.

Current canary

Current candidate cards with visible evidence boundaries.

These cards come from the current Market Trust candidate table. They are useful for internal review and buyer demos, but remain a preview until freshness, coverage, and outcome-history gates stay green over time.

Preview API
Do not citepolymarket<1h lagcurrentsource gate passedmacro blocked

MicroStrategy sells any Bitcoin by June 30, 2026?

Decision read: Do not cite. Treat this card as a market-diligence snapshot, not a price forecast.

Score

53

interval 37-58

Evidence

6 measured

1 heuristic · 0 pending

Freshness

current

<1h lag

Current card issue: rating not stable under sensitivity

Open diligence packet
Evidence details +

Math guardrails

Quality

53

interval 37-58

Confidence

77

medium

Driver

resolution rule text missing

Sensitivity

fragile under sensitivity

Participant substrate

Pillar

measured

Scored flow

26.5%

12/161 accounts

Unknown flow

73.5%

verdict capped

2 possible wash round-trips detected

Macro caveat

crypto threshold is treated as macro-liquidity context, not perps coverage

Evidence: 6 measured · 1 heuristic · 0 pending · 0 blocked

audit c60e616ce5c0755fb140ae072f398b2a6fbb77fc3e01d235d10fb6f9d786002c

Why this rating

Why this rating

Composite 53 · Do not cite

6 measured1 heuristic0 pending
  • Coherencemeasuredweight 20.0

    7 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 41 price-observation checkpoints recorded.

    30+6.0
  • Liquiditymeasuredweight 15.0

    Tight top-of-book; small to mid orders trade close to mid.

    100+15.0
  • Depthmeasuredweight 15.0

    Workable depth for retail size; institutional size will move price.

    75+11.3
  • Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 15.0

    Partial resolution metadata is present; manual rule review remains pending.

    55+8.3
  • Participant qualitymeasuredweight 20.0

    12/161 accounts scored; scored notional share 27%.

    0no contrib
  • Integrity risk screenmeasuredweight 10.0

    Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.

    70+7.0
  • Audit completenessmeasuredweight 5.0

    5 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.

    100+5.0

v0.2 maturation tracker

The promotion gate is evidence, not a version number.

The canary model should make a market legible to an advisor, journalist, venue operator, or institutional risk team: what supports the rating, what is still weak, and what has to resolve before Convexly can make stronger claims.

Current card issues

These are live card-health issues, not long-term v1 validation requirements.

rating not stable under sensitivity (1)resolution rule text missing (1)

Before stable v1

These are evidence requirements for public promotion. They can remain open while the internal canary batch is healthy.

14 clean source-health days (1)30 current cards across 3 categories (1)frozen formula before validation (1)resolved outcome ledger evidence (1)

Candidate cards

1

latest audit run

Measured inputs

86%

6/7 pillar inputs

Clean source

1/1

no stale snapshot or dropped events

Robust verdicts

0/1

sensitivity-stable cards

Pending

0

inputs still being collected

Blocked rights

0

data unavailable by policy

Stable public snapshot

The stable public snapshot remains available while the candidate model earns production history. Search is intentionally simple: market slug, question, category, or condition ID.