World Event Uncertainty Index
How uncertain the world is right now, priced — entropy across every category the desk watches.
- 3328 constituents are priced from a single venue, so their consolidated price is that venue's price. Cross-venue consolidation is only meaningful where more than one venue lists the question.
- The track record is 7 days long. No calibration or accuracy claim is made, and none will be until the resolved-outcome corpus supports one.
The world’s priced questions are genuinely uncertain — the board is full of coin-flips rather than decided outcomes, in either direction.
- Fewer than 20 admitted constituents live — the day publishes no value rather than a number (published minimum).
- Weight coverage below the published 95% floor — a level computed over whichever subset answered is a differently-composed index wearing the same ticker, and none is printed.
No defined evaluation event exists in the published methodology — this is a continuous index. Per WET-LOGIC §11.1 it is tracked for movement and never scored as a resolved forecast.
The World Event Uncertainty Index (WETX) reads how much genuine uncertainty is priced across the
whole desk, as a 0–100 index level.
Methodology version v2.0
The formula
U = 100 · Σ wᵢ · H(pᵢ) / H_max, H(p) = −p·log₂p − (1−p)·log₂(1−p)
where pᵢ is the consolidated cross-venue probability of constituent i and wᵢ its capped
weight on the two-sided-resting-depth/v1 basis (cap 10%, applied
to those weights directly — see What the weights are made of below). H is binary Shannon entropy and
H_max = 1 bit at p = 0.5, so each constituent contributes between 0 and 1.
What it measures, and what it does not
A market at 0.50 is a genuine coin-flip and contributes its full weight. A market at 0.02 or 0.98 is priced as effectively decided and contributes almost nothing — in either direction. That symmetry is the point: this is not a fear gauge and not a directional reading. A world priced as certainly bad and a world priced as certainly good score the same.
Higher means the board is full of open questions. Lower means the world is priced as largely settled, whichever way it settled.
Construction
Constituents are admitted on the same published gates as every benchmark — the canonical event graph, consolidated cross-venue pricing, and eligibility — and any constituent with no liquidity is excluded outright rather than entered at zero. A minimum of 20 constituents is required; below it the day publishes no value.
Unlike WETGRI this level is not divisor-chained. It is a spot statistic recomputed from scratch each day, so it has no continuity construction and carries nothing forward. A value it cannot support is not published.
One number, and it is the spot one. WETGRI publishes a chained level beside the spot gauge
it is chained from, because those are two different readings of the same day. Here the published
value already is the spot reading, so there is no second number to add and gauge is null on
every WETX settlement row — the concept does not apply, rather than a value being unavailable. Two
consequences follow and are stated rather than left to be inferred: a day-over-day change moves for
both price and composition reasons and cannot be decomposed into them, and the value is not a
probability.
Governance
This is a benchmark, not a slate — the governed class. It carries versioned methodology, a published rulebook and an immutable track record.
- Methodology change & consultation — material changes are published 14 days before they take effect, with backtested impact, and apply prospectively.
- Restatement policy — a published value is final unless it meets one of three narrow conditions; corrections are appended, never edited in place.
- Cessation & fallback · Conflicts · Data errors · Complaints
Standing disclosure: the independent committee seat is currently vacant, so the administrator is the sole decision-maker on methodology changes. This is stated here rather than omitted.
Parameters in force
Every threshold in the three sections below was already binding on every print in the ledger.
Each is read at render time from the constant the settlement code imports — eligibility/v1
defaults, the consolidation policy, this benchmark's own definition — so this page cannot describe a
number the engine does not enforce, and a constant that moves moves here on the next render.
Disclosure expanded 2026-08-11. No computed value changed, and none could.
What changed is that these parameters are now printed rather than left to be inferred from prose.
Publishing a rule that was already in force is a disclosure improvement, not a methodology change:
methodology version stays v2.0, no value in the track record moves, and
no consultation was required. Changing any VALUE below would be the opposite — material, published
14 days before it takes effect with backtested impact, applied prospectively, and carrying a version
bump on every row settled after it.
Admission — every eligibility threshold, with its units
Admission policy eligibility/v1. Every rule is evaluated and every failure is recorded
— not just the first — so a refusal can be reviewed on its whole picture rather than on whichever
gate happened to fire earliest.
| Rule | In force here | Fleet default | What it tests |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidity floor | ≥ 250 | 250 | the greater of the venue's traded-volume field and open interest where a venue reports one, in venue-native units and never a dollar figure. Summed over every mapped venue listing, including any listing consolidation later refuses, because the sum is taken before consolidation and independently of it. No venue currently supplies open interest through this path, so in practice the test binds on volume alone — stated because a rule that reads on two inputs and runs on one should say which. The basis of that volume field is not the same on all three venues, and a reader reproducing the roster needs the difference: on Kalshi (volume_fp/volume) and Polymarket (volumeNum/volume) it is a CONTRACT-level cumulative lifetime total — every trade since that contract listed, never a trailing window. On Gemini it is the parent EVENT's volume, attached to each of that event's contracts, and it falls back to the venue's 24-hour figure when the event document omits the lifetime one — so a Gemini listing can enter this sum on a trailing basis, and an event's volume is counted once per mapped contract of that event. A cumulative total only ever rises and says nothing about whether the contract trades today; that is a known weakness of this gate, and it is the reason the WEIGHTS moved off volume onto resting depth (below) while the ADMISSION floor did not |
| Maximum spread | ≤ 0.1 | 0.1 | the WIDEST bid–ask spread among every mapped venue listing, in probability points — measured before consolidation and independently of it, so a listing that consolidation later drops as spread-too-wide still fails the whole canonical event here rather than being quietly excluded from a price the rest of the venues form. A constituent with no measurable spread fails this rule — it does not pass it by default |
| Price band | 0.02 – 0.98 | 0.02 – 0.98 | the ORIENTED consolidated probability — 1−p on a de-escalation market — so the band is applied to the number the index actually averages, not to the venue-side quote |
| Horizon | 1 – 730 days | 1 – 730 days | days from the close to the EARLIEST venue settlement time across the mapping. A constituent with no readable settlement time fails rather than passes |
| Cross-venue merge confirmation | staged — not enforced | staged — not enforced | whether an unreviewed cross-venue merge is REFUSED or admitted-and-disclosed. Staged during bring-up: unreviewed merges are published as provisional and counted on every row, so the ledger states the gap rather than the index hiding it. A single-venue mapping owes nothing here — there is no merge to review |
| Reference-price settlement | refused | refused | whether a structurally-matched price contract whose venue publishes no rules text may be admitted. Failing closed is the default: an unverifiable settlement authority is not a benchmark input |
This benchmark applies the fleet defaults unchanged — there is no override to justify.
Two gates are not numeric, and they refuse more constituents than the numbers do.
Venue tier. At least one contributing venue must be benchmark-eligible — CFTC-regulated, with a feed we may redistribute — or named on this benchmark's published venue whitelist. A data-only venue may inform the consolidated price of an already-admitted event; it can never be the sole basis for one.
Resolution source. The settlement authority is classified from the venue's own rules text by a
deterministic, published rubric, and the bottom tier is ineligible. Absent or unreadable rules text
classifies as venue-discretion and therefore fails closed — defaulting an unknown settlement
authority to "probably fine" is precisely the assumption a benchmark cannot make.
| Tier | Rank | Eligible | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
government |
4 | yes | BLS, BEA, the Federal Reserve, an election authority, a statutory filing, an official government announcement. |
court |
3 | yes | A judgment, a sentencing, a regulatory determination — adversarial process, written record. |
major-outlet |
2 | yes | Named wire services or a stated multi-outlet standard. Acceptable, and the weakest tier that is. |
reference-price |
2 | yes | A structurally-parsed price claim — subject, relation, strike, settlement day — where the venue does not publish rules text. The settlement authority is a market price feed by construction, but WHICH feed may differ between venues. Admitted only by a methodology that says so, and only by WETFRAG, where differing feeds are part of the phenomenon being measured rather than a contaminant of it. |
venue-discretion |
1 | no | The venue decides, with no external authority named. INELIGIBLE: a benchmark whose constituent can be resolved at the counterparty’s discretion is not measuring the world, it is measuring the venue. |
Consolidation consolidation/prob-v1 — and the full exclusion cascade
The engine aggregates in probability space, and this page says so. Each constituent's price is a
weighted mean of the surviving venue mids, taken in probability space and stamped
consolidation/prob-v1 — the label for the space the arithmetic runs in. The settlement rows stamp
the policy version the close ran under on their consolidation axis (consolidation/v1
today); the two describe the same executed pipeline from two angles, and both are printed so neither
has to be inferred.
q = Σ_v (w_v · mid_v) / Σ_v w_v
w_v = (1 + 2·ln(1 + depth_v) + ln(1 + volume_v)) · tightness_v · e^(−Δt_v / λ)
tightness_v = max(0.05, 1 − spread_v / 0.1)
λ = 1500 s
depth_v IS ZERO ON EVERY PUBLISHED VALUE, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN. The settle path supplies no
resting-depth figure to the consolidation — depth is passed as null for every venue quote on
every basis — so ln(1 + depth_v) evaluates to ln 1 = 0 and the doubled depth term contributes
nothing. The weight this desk has actually executed on every close is therefore:
w_v = (1 + ln(1 + volume_v)) · tightness_v · e^(−Δt_v / λ)
The general form is printed above it because it is the expression baseWeight evaluates and the
one a future close would run under if depth were ever supplied — but a third party reproducing a
published number must use the reduced form, and any check against the general form with real depths
will disagree. The disagreement is not small, and the figures below are produced by running the
consolidation twice rather than by being typed here. Two venues quoting 0.40/0.42 and 0.50/0.52
on equal lifetime volume and equal staleness consolidate to q = 0.4600 on the executed
weight (shares 0.5000 / 0.5000); hand the same two books resting depths of 5,000 and 100 and the
general form returns q = 0.4507 (shares 0.5927 / 0.4073) — 0.93
probability points, entirely from a term the engine has never had an input for. This disclosure
follows the same rule as the open-interest note in the admission table above: a rule that reads on
two inputs and runs on one has to say which.
Why the field is empty is a weighting decision, not an oversight, and it is stated here rather
than left to be inferred. One of the mapped venues publishes resting size at the touch and the
others publish none. Populating depth_v today would hand a doubled depth term to that venue and
zero to the others, tilting every cross-venue consolidation toward it for a reason that is an
artefact of which venue documents a size field rather than of which book is deeper. Wiring it in is
a change to the weighting scheme: it needs the other venues measured first, and it would arrive as a
versioned change with its own consultation and backtested impact, never as a quiet population of an
already-printed term.
Cross-venue dispersion is preserved beside the consolidated price, never folded inside it.
A log-odds aggregation is a declared migration target and is deliberately not printed here — not the formula, not its weight decomposition. It has never produced a published value on this desk, and a methodology page that prints arithmetic the engine does not run is worse than one that prints less. When it is enacted it arrives as a versioned change with its own consultation, and this section will state the space it aggregates in on the day it does so and not before.
The exclusion cascade, in the order it is evaluated. The venue-local guards run per quote, first match wins; the consensus trim runs afterwards, on what survived them.
| Refused as | Tier | Threshold in force | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
no-two-sided-book |
A — no price exists | a bid and an ask are both required | there is no mid, so there is no price to include. Excluded from everything, necessarily |
crossed-book |
A — no price exists | ask < bid | the book is inconsistent with itself; a mid taken across it is arithmetic, not a price |
spread-too-wide |
B — venue-local quality | ask − bid > 0.1 | a mid inside a book this wide is not a price anyone is defending. Excluded, never down-weighted — a bad price scaled down is still a bad price |
degenerate-price |
A — no price exists | mid not strictly inside (0, 1) | a mid at or beyond the bounds of probability is not a probability |
stale-beyond-horizon |
B — venue-local quality | age > 21,600 s (6 h) | past this age the quote is dropped outright rather than decayed toward zero |
thin-book-anomaly |
B — venue-local quality | |last − mid| > 0.15 while venue volume < 100 | a venue that printed a large move on trivial size has told us its book is not defended. Checked BEFORE weighting, so deep historical volume cannot launder it |
mad-outlier |
C — consensus | |mid − median| > 3 × MAD, and only where ≥ 3 venues survived the gates above | decided only by comparison with the other venues. Median absolute deviation, not standard deviation: with three or four venues one bad print moves a standard deviation enough to hide inside it. Skipped entirely when the MAD is zero |
The tiers are not decoration. A Tier A refusal is forced — no mid exists. A Tier B refusal is a JUDGEMENT about what counts as a defended price, decided without looking at any other venue, which is what makes excluding it non-circular. Tier C is decided only by comparison with the other venues, which is right for a consolidated price and fatal for a measurement of disagreement — so the fragmentation reading is frozen before the consensus trim runs and the trimmed venue is still in it.
A constituent whose every venue quote is refused publishes no price and is counted, by reason, in the settlement log. Constituents priced from a single venue are flagged on every settlement row.
Coverage, cap and concentration
| Parameter | Symbol | In force | Where it binds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight-basis coverage floor | κ_min | 95.00% | the share of the admitted roster that must carry an OBSERVED two-sided resting depth before any level is printed. The roster is counted AFTER term-structure families and complement pairs collapse to one share each, so κ is measured over questions rather than listings. Below the floor the benchmark publishes insufficient_data and the close exits non-zero — a shortfall is a venue-delivery incident, not a quiet reprice over whoever answered |
| Maximum single-constituent weight | c | 10.00% | the capped depth weights themselves — no severity multiplier enters this benchmark, so there is no second vector for the cap to miss. Enforced by cap-and-redistribute iterated to a fixpoint. Where the cap is mathematically unreachable — c·n < 1 + 1e-12 (the engine's own test, tolerance included), which on this cap means a roster of fewer than 11 constituents — the weights fall back to equal, which is the least-concentrated valid answer, and the row says so |
| Minimum constituents | — | 20 | how many constituents must carry an observed weight basis. Below it the day publishes no value rather than a number computed over a board too thin to carry one |
Measured on the 2026-08-12 close — read from that row's own weighting block, which is
the same object this section renders and the same object a reader of the published JSON gets.
| Reading | Value |
|---|---|
| Weight basis | two-sided-resting-depth/v1 |
| Admitted constituents | 3,416 |
| Carrying an observed two-sided depth | 3,328 |
| Served with at least one side empty | 0 — a real observation of a one-sided book, weighted 0 |
| No ladder served by any venue | 88 — nothing was observed, so nothing was weighted |
| Coverage κ | 97.42% against a 95.00% floor |
| Maximum single-constituent weight c | 10.00% — the cap the row itself carries |
| Σ lifetime traded volume over the same roster | 677,155,070 venue-native units, never a dollar figure — the OLD basis, published as context so the change of basis is re-derivable from the row. It is not the weight, and nothing in the engine reads it |
The weight vector on this print is the basis vector, not the equal-weight fallback: no degeneracy was recorded.
Concentration — how many names this number is actually made of. HHI is Σwᵢ² over the published vector and effective N is 1/HHI: the count of equally-weighted constituents this weighting is worth. A roster of ninety names with an effective N of thirty is a thirty-name index that lists ninety, and the gap between those two counts is the thing a cap exists to bound.
| Vector | n | HHI | Effective N | Top 1 | Top 5 | Top 10 | Bottom half |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capped resting depth wᵢ — what the published number averages over | 3,328 | 0.006910 | 144.72 | 3.56% | 14.92% | 21.07% | 3.08% |
Carried on the 2026-08-12 row. There is one vector here rather than two: entropy is the
averaged VALUE in U = 100·Σ wᵢH(pᵢ)/H_max and never a multiplier on the weight, so the capped depth
weights already ARE the publishing space and a second reading of them would be the same numbers
under a second name.
What the weights are made of
Weight basis two-sided-resting-depth/v1. One unit of the basis is:
claim units of resting depth near touch — the lesser of the bid-side and ask-side visible resting size within the published band of the best quote on that side, summed over venues. One unit pays $1 on YES on every venue indexed. Never a dollar figure, and never an execution claim: W.E.T. handles no order fulfilment.
This replaced cumulative lifetime volume, which only ever rose, said nothing about whether a contract can be traded today, and could be accumulated for the cost of a spread. Resting depth near touch is capital committed right now, re-posted daily and exposed to being traded through. It is read off the venues' own two-sided books, taken as the lesser of the two sides within each venue before venues are summed — a resting bid on one venue does not fill a missing offer on another for anyone who has to trade on one venue. No concavity transform is applied to it.
The 10% cap is applied to these depth weights directly. No severity multiplier enters WETX, so the weights the value averages over are the capped depth weights themselves — there is no second, effective vector for the cap to miss.
Publication & the close
The official daily print is the WET Close. Every settlement row stamps how that close was
actually taken — closeBasis and closeObservations — so the basis of a print is read off the
print rather than assumed from this page.
The most recent WETX row says, in its own words:
This close is ONE instantaneous observation, not a settlement window. The mark tape stores one observation per contract per day (marks is keyed by marketRef), so a window cannot be built from it — it holds 612 contracts and covers 142/3328 of this composition. A settlement window needs repeated intraday samples of the SAME contract. A single-read close can be moved by one trade at the final second, and that exposure is published rather than described away.
2026-08-12 · closeBasis: single-observation · closeObservations: 1
That is one instantaneous read, not a volume-weighted settlement window. This page claimed the opposite until 2026-08-05, and the claim was false in the direction that flatters us — it denied the exact exposure the row records.
The window is unavailable by construction, not by accident. The row's own sentence above gives this benchmark's reason — they differ between constructions and the row is the one that knows which applies. The shape is the same in every case: the record settlement reads from cannot hold a second observation of the same input on the same date, so there is nothing for a window to average, and no settlement cadence run against it produces one.
What it would take is a data-collection change, not a formula change: the same input would have
to be sampled more than once inside the close period and stored so both samples survive — which for
a contract-priced benchmark means a tape keyed by marketRef and timestamp rather than by
marketRef alone. That collection does not exist on this desk today, for any benchmark. Until it
does, the stamp on the row is the whole truth about the print.
The exposure, stated rather than described away: a close taken from a single observation can be moved by one trade at the final second. That vulnerability is real for this print today. It is disclosed because it is true — not mitigated, and not written around.
The track record
Every settlement row records the engine, rubric, classifier and methodology versions that produced it, and a checksum chained to the previous day's. Altering any historical value invalidates every checksum after it, so a third party who recorded yesterday's checksum can prove today whether history moved underneath them. That is the difference between a published record and an auditable one.
A day with insufficient data publishes no value — yesterday's number is never carried forward to keep a chart continuous.
The 2026-08-05 re-inception
This series was re-incepted on 2026-08-05; its first close printed on 2026-08-06. The chain
starts there — the ledger's first row carries previousChecksum: null — and nothing precedes
it in the live record.
There was an earlier series. It ran three days and it has been retired, not restated. An adversarial review found the arithmetic sound but several published rules unimplemented by the code: constituents that should have entered oriented 1−p entered at p, weights ran on cumulative lifetime volume rather than resting depth, the weight cap was enforced in the wrong space, departures landed in the level instead of the divisor, quotes were priced off a fabricated band rather than real books, and dated legs of one question each held a separate share. Every one of those corrections changes every value in the series.
Why retired rather than restated. The restatement policy is for correcting a series readers hold. This one was three days old, had never been quoted, cited or licensed, and no value in it survived correction — restating it would have been ceremony over a history nobody was carrying. Re-inception on corrected logic is the honest answer, and it is stated here rather than left for a reader to infer from the length of a ledger.
The record is kept, not deleted. The retired ledgers are archived byte for byte at
content/indices/benchmarks/retired-v1-2026-08-05/, including as-published-on-master/ — the copies exactly as they were
served — so the first construction can be read and diffed against this one.
What is not claimed. The retired values are not comparable to these, and no continuity is asserted across the break. A re-inception starts a new series; this page says so rather than implying an unbroken one.
What this is not
A benchmark reading of market prices. Not a W.E.T. forecast, not advice, and not a performance claim. Where an accuracy scorecard is published it reports calibration — how well the priced probabilities matched outcomes — never returns.