Readings may not describe today5 scheduled closes did not landWhy →
5 behind

5 scheduled closes did not land — the daily index publish was due at 10:37 UTC on 2026-09-23 and the newest print on file is still 2026-09-22. The reading below is carried forward from that date and does not describe today.

Readings below are the last that settled; none has been carried forward, restated or interpolated to cover the gap. Every row states its own date and wears its own age. How the desk publishes

WCODE

W.E.T. Code Arena Tech Science Index 2mo

v1StandingExperimentalMonthly
Governed close level
—
no level published
Gauge
63.13
0–100 · rung 6
Divisor
—
what chains this level to the last
Closes
28
latest 2026-09-22
Coverage
13 of 13 admitted markets pricedκ 1.0000 · floor 0.95weights two-sided-depth · cap 15.0%
Withheld by the sentinel

32 input(s) were quarantined by sentinel/v1 before this close and are excluded from the reading above.

What would make this reading wrong
  • The "code arena" axis stops appearing in tech-science titles: the selector then admits fewer than 6 markets and the index prints nothing rather than a level over a roster that no longer states the thesis.
  • Weight coverage falls below the declared floor of 95%, at which point the published state is insufficient_data and no value is printed — never a value carried forward from the last close that had one.
  • A published axis starts framing this board. No axis frames a majority of it today (polarity frames 0 of 6, severity frames 0 of 6, threshold frames 0 of 6), and that measurement is what put this worldview on a side-symmetric lens; a composition whose sides become readable is a different index and belongs to a successor spec rather than to an edit of this one.
How this reading was constructed (7)
  • universe: resolved by universe/v1 over 9403 candidate canonical event(s) from the `tape-text` source (${m.title ?? ''} ${m.marketRef}), admitting 48. Rejections by reason: keyword-miss 9331, horizon-outside-window 24.
  • universe: the declared 17–60d horizon window (axis 8) was APPLIED and removed 24 event(s) that every other selector admitted. A member resolving outside the window this index publishes is not a member of this index's horizon, whatever else it is.
  • universe: 9331 event(s) missed the keyword screen on the `tape-text` source, which carries ${m.title ?? ''} ${m.marketRef} and NOT the venue subtitle, tag or series the nomination pool sees. That count is the UPPER BOUND on what the richer string could have added here; it is published rather than estimated, because the tape cannot supply the text that would settle it.
  • eligibility: 35 of 48 admitted event(s) left the roster on the spec's own declared eligibility (minVolume 250, maxSpread 0.1, price 0.02-0.98) — by reason: price-below-floor 35. An ineligible market is out of the universe; a member the close could not price stays in it and is counted against κ.
  • orientation: the declared `polarity` framing axis (§3.3) was re-read on this tape and took NO force [undetermined:coverage], framing 0 of 13 members and holding 0 of them NO. The declared polarity axis frames 0 of 13 members (0%), under the published 50% bar, so it takes no force today and no member is flipped by it. An axis that frames a corner of the board would state a direction for members it never read. This is the spec's own invalidation condition, measured rather than assumed. The axis is re-read at every close rather than frozen into a declared side table, so a roster whose contracts resolve and are replaced is oriented by the rule this spec published rather than by one evening's reading of it (cultivation-orientation/v3).
  • orientation: because the declared `polarity` axis took no force today, every member not named in `sideRules.declaredSides` and not matched by a keyword list is held on the venue's own YES framing. That reads the board's LISTING CONVENTION rather than this index's thesis, and it is the state the spec's own invalidation conditions name — published here rather than left to look like a decision the axis made.
  • no published document file was found for this spec, so the byte comparison had nothing to compare against and only the recompile legs ran. The whitepaper is compiled per request by /methodology/<slug>, which is a publication lag rather than a ledger fault — but the ABSENCE is published here, because an unsupplied optional parameter is invisible on the row and that invisibility is what let this leg go unrun.
Why there are two levels on this page

The governed close level above is divisor-chained: it tracks how the desk’s reading of this perspective has moved since 2026-08-14, and it survives a roster change because the divisor absorbs it. It is not a basket total return.

The basket total return below is a position book: it holds a fixed set of contracts from its own inception and reports what that book did, marks and settlements included. A roster change starts a new book rather than being absorbed.

They share a base of 1,000 and nothing else. Expect them to differ, and read the one that answers your question — the chained level for “where does this perspective stand”, the book for “what would holding it have done”.

spec 114bf16b406af445 · methodology 1d602f6c6593959e · closed by standing/v1 · lifecycle experimental · class standing

63.13Stale · 5 closes behindElevated & climbing, volatile

As of Sep 22, 2026 · last moved Sep 22, 2026 · scale 0–100 (Low support → High support)

13 tech-science markets carrying the "code arena" axis across polymarket, every one resolving inside two months, tracked as one composition.

No level published for this basket

No return published — not one of this basket's 21 open holdings carried a mark on 2026-09-25. The level would read exactly 1000 and the return exactly 0.00%, which is what an unmoved basket and an unobserved one look like from outside. They are not the same thing, so this one says which it is.

Basket level · official print21 held · close 2026-09-25
No level publishedbase 1000

hypothetical · mid marks · before fees, spread and slippage

Basket performance

hypothetical · mid marks · before fees, spread and slippage
Basket total return
—
Since inception
—
Cost to cross
—
Holdings marked
0.0% of 21
1 day
—
7 day
—
Markets held
21
Settled
0
Rebalanced out
0
Hit rate
—
Cash
58.3%
Inception
2026-08-18
Weighting
Equal notional
Marks
Two-sided mid
Days tracked
33

Equal notional from each holding’s inception mark, re-marked at the two-sided mid. Percentages only, size-blind — never a cash figure and never a performance claim.

Cost to cross is the weighted half-spread at the touch on the newest mark tape: what entering at the quote rather than the midpoint would have cost. It is the price of the FIRST unit and says nothing about the tenth — the resting size beside each holding is published so a reader can judge whether their own size fits. It is not deducted from any return above.

A published measurement of what these markets did together. Not an account, not directly investable; W.E.T. never handles orders.

Holdings · 21 markets

held since 2026-08-18 · the reading above is computed over today's roster, which differs
MarketNowReturn
  • Will Moonshot be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 46c10 sessions stale1c−97.6%↗
  • Will OpenAI be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 13c2 sessions stale35c+183.2%↗
  • Will Anthropic be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c2 sessions stale1c−80.4%↗
  • Will ByteDance be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 2c10 sessions stale1c−58.3%↗
  • Will Meta have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c2 sessions stale1c−72.2%↗
  • Will Moonshot be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 42c10 sessions stale18c−57.8%↗
  • Will ByteDance be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 2c10 sessions stale1c−56.5%↗
  • Will Z.ai have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c2 sessions stale1c−81.5%↗
  • Will Thinky be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c10 sessions stale1c−61.5%↗
  • Will Alibaba be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 24c10 sessions stale2c−91.7%↗
  • Will Mistral be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 3c2 sessions stale1c−63.0%↗
  • Will Anthropic have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 58c2 sessions stale43c−26.7%↗
  • Will Moonshot have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c2 sessions stale1c−75.6%↗
  • Will OpenAI have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 17c2 sessions stale58c+251.8%↗
  • Will Alibaba be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 32c10 sessions stale51c+59.4%↗
  • Will Google be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 10c10 sessions stale2c−80.5%↗
  • Will Poolside be the second-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 2c10 sessions stale1c−56.5%↗
  • Will Meta be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c10 sessions stale1c−75.0%↗
  • Will SpaceXAI have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c2 sessions stale1c−76.2%↗
  • Will Z.ai be the third-best Code Arena | WebDev AI lab at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 5c10 sessions stale2c−55.3%↗
  • Will Alibaba have the best Code Arena | WebDev AI at the end of September 2026?polymarket · YES · entry 4c2 sessions stale1c−76.7%↗

Full basket ledger — settled outcomes, rebalance history, methodology →

Key statistics

Previous
—
Band
Elevated
28d Range
3664
Percentile
96th
8d Change
+2.9
Volatility
8.5 pts/d
Streak
—
Markets
13
Effective N
8.4
Top Weight
15%
Venues
13 P
Method
v1

Indicative tape · 7 sessions

133 hourly readings since 2026-09-22 · not the governed close
45.050.055.060.065.009-22 00:0009-25 05:0009-28 09:00
Latest
50.27
Since 2026-09-22
+2.39
Range
45.8–64.0
Readings
90+43 refused

INDICATIVEHourly readings that reprice the roster and frozen weights of the last governed close — only prices moved. Each one was computed and recorded at the timestamp it carries; nothing here is reconstructed from venue history. They carry no sentinel screen, enter no ledger and join no checksum chain, and a refused hour breaks the line rather than being drawn through. The daily WET Close is the official value.

Daily close

28d published · interactive

28 published close(s) — 0–100 (Low support → High support). Drag to pan, scroll to zoom. One slot per published close, not one per day: dates on the axis are real, the spacing between them is not. 12 day(s) inside this window published no close and are not drawn at all. For the calendar-true spacing, read the chart below. Drawn as a line, not candles: a daily close carries no open, high or low, and a candle would assert an intraday range nobody observed.

History & 14-day projection

solid = 28d published · dashed = projected · shaded = 80% band
20406080100now66
Projected 14d
65.60
Change
+2.50
80% band
17–100
Confidence
low

Model extrapolation of the published series (robust trend, 28 readings, slope +0.36/day, projection σ 10.2 pts/d widened for a 28-reading sample) — a benchmark projection, not a W.E.T. forecast.

Desk read

W.E.T. analysis — Premium
🔒

Premium

The desk's read on today's move

Why the index moved, in the desk's words — not just the arithmetic.

Checking access…

What moved today

attribution — Premium
🔒

Premium

Which markets moved the index, and by how much

Signed contribution per constituent, ranked.

Checking access…

Contribution by category

weight share of today's value
tech-science100% · 13

Constituents by weight

all 13 · what today's reading was computed over (2026-09-22) · the basket below holds a different set

WCODE · at a glance

What it is
13 tech-science markets carrying the "code arena" axis across polymarket, every one resolving inside two months, tracked as one composition.
High vs low
Higher = the markets are more torn — prices across the composition sit closer to a coin flip. Lower = more decided, in EITHER direction: a basket priced at 5% and one priced at 95% both read low. A reading of market prices, not a W.E.T. forecast.
Who cares
Anyone tracking how code arena is being priced across venues on a composition of at least 6 markets resolving inside 60 days.

Embed this score

always the latest published reading, dated · attribution built in

Put the live WCODE reading on your own site, README, or newsletter.

Badge For articles, profiles & READMEs

WET Index Score badge preview

The index. Ready to share. Actual embed

Markdown badge
[![WCODE — WET Index Score](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months/badge)](https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months)
HTML badge
<a href="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months"><img src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/api/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months/badge" alt="WCODE — WET Index Score" /></a>
Iframe card
<iframe src="https://www.worldeventtrading.com/embed/indices/code-arena-tech-science-inside-two-months" width="340" height="170" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="WCODE — WET Index Score" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Quote this index

free to cite with attribution + the as-of date
“As of Sep 22, 2026, the W.E.T. Code Arena Tech Science Index 2mo (WCODE) prints a WET Index Score of 63.1/100 (Elevated), per World Event Trading.”

Full methodology →JSONLive intradayDaily report

Maintained by Corbin V King. A benchmark reading of market prices — data, not advice. See the disclaimer.