Loading…

Prediction evidence

incorrectPolicy v1.0

Source post

Published 22 Jul 2026, 00:45 UTC · fetched 3 Nov 2026, 10:55 UTC

Bluntz

@Bluntz_Capital

Quoting · 19 Jul 2026, 21:30 UTC · context given to the AI

ansem makes a good point here tbh, with these numbers owning the casino itself feels like a good shout considering these numbers. plus theres a clear $pump downtrend break off the back of an 83% decline https://t.co/u1YQFsI9l5 https://t.co/vEj8qo8VLS

weekly on $pump looks amazing here, has held strong and still trying to push higher invalidating any chance of a fakeout imo, this breakout is real. https://t.co/y2nZ5UzYcT https://t.co/fggmX1BEp9

View original on X ↗

How this was scored

Deterministic: the same prices and policy always give the same result

Baseline: first $PUMP price at or after publication, $0.002078 at 22 Jul 2026, 01:00 UTC.
Evaluation: price at the end of the 24 hours horizon, $0.001905 at 23 Jul 2026, 01:00 UTC.
r = 0.0019050904380228223 / 0.002077713842230412 − 1 = -8.3%
Direction d = +1 (bullish), so d × r = -8.3% (neutral only if the price is unchanged) → incorrect

Only the end-of-horizon price counts. A brief move followed by a reversal is not a success. Read the methodology

AI interpretation

Uses only text available at publication time

Asset: Memecoins: $PUMP ($PUMP)
Direction: ▲ Bullish
Intent: explicit
Horizon: 24 hours (default, none stated)
Evidence span: “weekly on $pump looks amazing here, has held strong and still trying to push higher invalidating any chance of a fakeout imo, this breakout is real.”
Confidence: 97%
Review state: auto accepted
Model / prompt: gpt-6-luna+decisions · decisions-v3

Prediction evidence

Source post

How this was scored

AI interpretation

Outcome record

Request a correction