How we report
Methodology: how W.E.T. reports prediction-market odds
W.E.T. (World Event Trading) is an independent index, product, data, and media company built on prediction markets — we report what the market says about real-world events: the implied probability, an identity-gated venue comparison where it exists, and venue-native volume. Every figure is a dated observation of venue-reported market prices captured at the stated time. It is data, not a forecast, and not advice. This page documents exactly how those numbers are sourced, computed, and dated so anyone — journalist, researcher, or reader — can judge and cite them. It also documents the W.E.T. Score — our 0–100 measure of how much verifiable signal sits behind a market's number — and the calibration program being built on top of it.
What we publish
For each tracked event we publish the market's implied probability for the leading venue-attributed outcome, the outcome ladder (each priced side), and venue-native volume. Polymarket USD-reported volume and Kalshi contract counts retain their own units; mixed totals are withheld. Related listings from another venue remain separate. A numerical cross-venue divergence is eligible only after exact same-outcome identity is confirmed; the current prediction corpus carries no such confirmation and therefore publishes no numerical venue gap. Each page is a durable, dated snapshot with an explicit “as of” date. Since July 2026 each event page also carries a W.E.T. Score — a 0–100 signal-quality measure, documented in full below.
Where the data comes from
Prices are read from the public APIs of two prediction-market venues: Kalshi, a CFTC-regulated US event exchange, and Polymarket, a crypto-native prediction market. We read only publicly available market data (prices, volume, resolution metadata) — no private or personal data. Neither venue pays for or influences our coverage; where W.E.T. earns referral commissions on sign-ups, we disclose it.
How implied probability is computed
A prediction-market contract that pays $1 if an outcome happens trades between $0 and $1. Its price is a direct estimate of probability: a contract at 63¢ implies a 63% chance the market resolves YES. We read the venue-attributed YES observation captured at the stated time for each outcome and express it as a whole-number percentage. The reported favorite is the highest-probability who-wins (moneyline) or main-ladder outcome — never a side prop. Events with no genuine who-wins market, or whose leading outcome is effectively settled (≥96% or ≤4%), are not published.
Cross-venue comparison eligibility
Sharing an event, title, team, or favorite does not make two contracts equivalent. W.E.T. may publish a numerical venue gap only when the canonical graph confirms the same outcome definition, observation window, threshold, resolution source, void terms, and material settlement rules. The current prediction and market-navigation corpus does not carry that exact-match evidence, so related Kalshi and Polymarket listings are shown separately and their paired probabilities and numerical divergence are withheld.
The governed index engine has its own canonical identity, eligibility, consolidation, and divergence rules across the wider regulated-venue corpus. Those benchmark records are not used to backfill an unverified comparison onto a prediction preview. The W.E.T. Score likewise leaves its cross-venue component at a documented neutral 8/20 until an eligible exact pair exists; it emits no agreement or divergence flag from title similarity.
Freshness & update cadence
The scheduled daily capture can produce a new snapshot when an attributable venue observation is available; a skipped or failed capture does not create one. To keep freshness signals honest, a page's “last updated” date advances only when the implied probability actually moves by at least one point — a daily rebuild that re-stamps an unchanged number would be a false freshness signal. When a number moves, we show the delta (for example, 61% → 63%) and the date it last changed. The original publish date is preserved; it is not reset on every refresh.
Score methodology
The W.E.T. Score
The W.E.T. Score is a 0–100 measure of how much verifiable signal sits behind a market's headline number. It answers one question: how seriously should you take this price? A 63% implied probability backed by a million dollars of traded volume, two agreeing venues, and a week of stable daily history is a different object from a 63% resting on $4k and one thin order book — the score is how W.E.T. tells them apart, computed identically for every market on the site.
It is built from five observable components — nothing subjective, nothing editorial. Every input already appears on the page it scores, so any reader can audit any score by hand.
| Component | Max pts | Data source | How it's computed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidity | 30 | Comparable USD-reported volume for the attributed event observation | USD: log₁₀-scaled, $1k → 0 pts · $10k → 10 · $100k → 20 · $1M+ → 30. Positive contract-count or mixed-unit observations remain neutral at 10/30; contracts are never converted to or added to dollars. |
| News corroboration | 20 | Wire headlines matched to the event from W.E.T.'s live news feed | Count of matched headlines: 0 → 0 pts · 1 → 10 · 2 → 16 · 3+ → 20. |
| Cross-venue verification | 20 | A canonical exact-match pair with retained identity evidence | Confirmed exact pair: 20 − 2 × gap in points, floored at 4, capped at 20. No eligible pair: neutral 8 — agreement is unmeasured, not inferred from related listings. |
| Market coverage | 15 | Number of distinct priced markets on the event | 1.5 pts per market, capped at 15 (reached at 10 markets). |
| Track-record depth | 15 | Days tied to one venue, favorite, and stable listing key | 1.5 pts per attributable day, capped at 15 (reached at 10 days). Legacy points without stable listing identity are withheld and earn no depth credit. |
| Range | Tier | Read it as |
|---|---|---|
| 85–100 | Prime Signal | Deep, attributable, and corroborated. The strongest evidence records on the site. |
| 70–84 | Strong Signal | Well-traded with meaningful corroboration; minor gaps. |
| 55–69 | Solid Signal | A legitimate read — check which component is missing before leaning on it. |
| 40–54 | Developing Signal | Early or thin; treat the number as provisional. |
| 0–39 | Thin Signal | A price exists, but little verifiable weight sits behind it yet. |
Alongside the score, each market can carry flags — binary conditions with fixed trigger thresholds. Flags never change the score; they annotate it. They are listed here in priority order — the same order the site ranks them when space is limited.
| Flag | Trigger | Read it as |
|---|---|---|
| Thin market | Comparable USD volume < $10,000 | A handful of trades can move this number. Treat with caution. |
| Deep liquidity | Comparable USD volume ≥ $250,000 | Enough money at stake that this price is expensive to be wrong about. |
| Confirmed divergence | Canonical exact-match pair; gap ≥ 7 pts | Investigate depth, fees, rules, void terms, and settlement basis. This is not a fill, equivalence, or return claim. |
| Confirmed venue agreement | Canonical exact-match pair; gap ≤ 3 pts | Two independent books price a confirmed same-outcome pair within three points. |
| News-backed | ≥ 1 matched wire headline | Independent reporting exists for what the market is pricing. |
| Big mover | Repriced ≥ 5 pts across the tracked movement window | The market repriced hard; look for the catalyst on the news wire. |
| Early read | < 3 days of captured history | Tracking started recently — the depth component will grow if the market stays listed. |
What the score is not
It is not a prediction of the outcome. It is not a rating of whether the favorite wins, and not trading advice — a Thin Signal market can still resolve YES, and a Prime Signal market can still resolve NO. The score measures signal quality — how much verifiable weight sits behind a price — never outcome likelihood. 63% at Prime Signal and 63% at Thin Signal are the same probability with different evidentiary weight behind them.
News matching is lexical, not semantic. Headlines are matched to markets by text overlap with the event title. That is fast, auditable, and disclosed — and it can miss a relevant story phrased differently, or match a merely similar one. We call it corroboration, not verification.
The weights are choices. The five components and their point allocations are W.E.T.'s own design — reasonable, fully disclosed above, and applied identically to every market, but not the only defensible weighting.
It is not investment advice. Not a trade rating, not a buy/sell signal, and no substitute for reading the venue's resolution rules yourself. See the full disclaimer.
Why prices know things
The crowd-sourced signal
A prediction-market price is not a poll. Nobody is asked for an opinion — traders stake money on a claim, and the price is simply where buyers and sellers stop disagreeing. That mechanism has two properties no survey can replicate:
Skin in the game
Being wrong costs money, so cheap talk gets filtered out. Anyone holding information the price does not yet reflect is literally paid to trade against it — correcting the price is the profitable move, which is why dispersed information ends up in the number.
Continuous repricing
A market price can move when new information reaches its traders, but not every headline reaches every book and no thin, paused, or closed listing is guaranteed to adjust within minutes. W.E.T. therefore publishes the venue and observation time: the number shown is a dated snapshot, not a current quote.
Kalshi and Polymarket draw different trader pools under different constraints, but that alone does not make their contracts comparable. The score's cross-venue component becomes measured only when W.E.T. has retained evidence for a canonical exact-match pair. An eligible pair earns points from 20 minus twice the confirmed gap, with the documented floor; every single or merely related listing receives the neutral 8/20 state. That prevents a heuristic match from manufacturing either agreement or divergence.
On its scheduled run, W.E.T. records an implied-probability point only when a tracked listing is attributable and the capture succeeds — the favorite's price, dated. Capture began July 14, 2026. Those observations form an odds path on eligible event pages only when stable venue, favorite, and listing-key identity is retained; missing or legacy-unkeyed history stays unavailable. Once a market settles, retained points freeze into the archive's permanent record: what the crowd believed, day by day, before anyone knew the answer. Today the history feeds the score's track-record component; as it accumulates, it feeds the calibration program below.
What ships next
Simulations & calibration (roadmap)
The published features above use dated snapshots or official benchmark observations; they are not live streams. This section is a commitment, not a feature list: as the daily odds corpus matures, W.E.T. will publish the analysis that corpus makes possible — and nothing before the data supports it. Capture began July 14, 2026. A calibration claim built on a few weeks of settlements would be noise dressed as research, so these ship on the data's schedule, not a marketing calendar.
01 · Accuracy
Calibration curves
Were the market's 70% calls right about 70% of the time? Every settled market pairs a final pre-close probability with a known outcome. Binned across enough settlements, that pairing is the market's honesty test — the calibration curve — published by category and by venue.
Requires: Hundreds of settled markets per bin
02 · Scoring
Brier-score tracking
One number for forecast accuracy: the mean squared error between a day's implied probability and the eventual 0-or-1 outcome, tracked at fixed horizons (30 days out, 7 days out, final read) by category and venue. Lower is better; an always-50% coin-flipper scores 0.25.
Requires: Settled outcomes across multiple capture horizons
03 · Simulation
Monte Carlo settlement paths
Observed daily paths give an empirical distribution of how markets in each category actually move. Resampling those real paths lets us simulate thousands of routes to settlement and publish ranges instead of point estimates — built strictly on W.E.T.'s own captured paths, never on assumed volatility.
Requires: Deep per-category path history
No fabricated results, no backfilled precision, no survivorship edits: until each item's data threshold is met, this page will say “not yet” rather than show a number we cannot defend. When the analyses ship, they will be reproducible from the archive's published data.
What these numbers are NOT
They are not a prediction or forecast by W.E.T., not betting or investment advice, and not a recommendation to trade. Implied probability reflects what traders are collectively paying at a moment in time — it moves continuously and can be wrong. Prediction-market trading involves risk of loss. Always verify live prices and resolution rules on the venue itself. See our full disclaimer.
How to cite W.E.T.
Journalists and researchers are welcome to cite our figures with attribution and a link. Because prices move, please include the “as of” date shown on the page. A citable form:
“As of [date and time], the [venue] listing [contract identifier] priced YES on [outcome] at [X]%, according to World Event Trading.”
Cite two venue prices together only when the page marks the pair exact and identifies the compared contracts. Otherwise cite each listing separately. Preserve the displayed volume unit: Polymarket observations may be labeled USD, Kalshi observations are contract counts, and W.E.T. does not publish a mixed total.
Eligible prediction snapshot pages also expose a copy-paste embeddable odds widget and support oEmbed. Each card shows a dated, venue-attributed persisted observation, changes only when W.E.T. publishes a newer snapshot, and does not stream venue prices. For data partnerships, corrections, or questions, reach us via the contact page.
If you cite a W.E.T. Score, cite it as a signal-quality measure — “a W.E.T. Score of 82/100 (Strong Signal)” — never as a probability of the outcome. The score's components and thresholds are documented in full above and apply identically to every market we track.
Superseded · no longer listed
It is still published and its dated history is intact, but it is not part of the listed suite and should not be quoted as a current W.E.T. index. They left the board for 4 different reasons, and each group below says which.
Superseded · no longer on the board8 indices
This reading predates the desk’s current standard — it carries no compiled methodology, no inverse twin and no failure ladder. It rejoins the board the day its methodology is compiled and ratified.
Retired for vagueness · no longer on the board6 indices
This index was published under the desk’s current standard and withdrawn from the board by amendment v1.3 §10, which holds a universe to the bar the thesis has always been held to: a universe that declares only a category makes no claim any market could falsify. Its methodology, its inverse twin and its failure ladder were all compiled — the declaration of what it was about is what did not hold up. It returns to the board the day a committed spec declares a universe that names its subject — the bar it was refused by (`universe-names-no-subject`). Compiling a methodology is not the missing piece and never was.
Not listed · a composite of other index values3 indices
This reading is a weighted composite of other published W.E.T. indices — it holds no markets of its own, so it declares no universe for the current standard to hold to a subject. Its legs are each governed in their own right. It is not waiting on a methodology. The standard governs an index’s claim over a market universe, and this one prices index values instead, so the migration that returns the other delisted indices cannot reach it as written.
Superseded · read WET Implied (Tier A desk) instead1 index
The desk publishes a stronger construction of this same subject and stands behind that one. This reading keeps its page and its full dated history; what it has lost is its place on the board, so that one subject does not arrive at a reader as two competing current indices. It does not return as a second reading of a subject the desk already publishes; the successor named here is the current one.
Superseded · read WET Implied Fed Path (WIFP) instead1 index
The desk publishes a stronger construction of this same subject and stands behind that one. This reading keeps its page and its full dated history; what it has lost is its place on the board, so that one subject does not arrive at a reader as two competing current indices. It does not return while WETFED publishes this thesis family: a second row about one subject, under one name, with two version numbers counting different things, is precisely the collision the board consolidation was shipped to end.
Maintained by Corbin V King. Last reviewed August 30, 2026. Browse the dated prediction desk or the interactive event dashboard.