Market Description
This market is a ranking competition in which human (who is alive as of Dec 14, 2025) are evaluated across three traits: Physical Strength, Intelligence, and Wealth.
Scoring System
I will select 5-10 human with best winning chance to rank.
Ranks 1 through 10 will earn 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 points respectively.
An option’s overall score is the sum of the points it receives across all three trait rankings.
The option with the highest overall score will be declared the winner of this market.
While personal preference and subjective judgment cannot be eliminated entirely, I will make a good-faith effort to answer questions and explain how I evaluate each trait and determine relative rankings.
I anticipate that cross intelligence comparison would be particularly subjective, if you ask me in the comments early on I will try my best to provide my answer to, for example, whether a specific chess world champion, fields medal winner, inventor, or hedge fund manager is considered more intelligent than the other option in my opinion.
Eligible Options
At a randomized closing time (to be announced), I will select the 5-10 options that I believe have the strongest prospects of winning.
Only these 5-10 options will be considered for all trait rankings and overall scoring.
I will make an announcement at least 2 days before the randomize closing period is set.
Market Resolution
The market will resolve based on the option that finishes with the highest overall score under the scoring system described above.
Notes:
If it is debatable whether certain human exist or is alive or not, I reserve the right to disqualify such option.
Update 2025-12-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): All three traits (Physical Strength, Intelligence, and Wealth) will be evaluated based on current levels as of the resolution date, not peak historical levels.
Update 2025-12-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Physical Strength will be evaluated primarily based on strength to move or carry objects (e.g., weightlifting capacity). Endurance activities like marathon running are considered a separate trait and will not be factored into the Physical Strength ranking. Skill in applying strength may matter at the margin (e.g., to the extent it affects how much weight someone can lift).
Update 2025-12-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Dr. Younghoon Kim has been disqualified from consideration due to concerns about legitimacy.
Update 2025-12-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): When selecting the 5-10 finalists for ranking, the creator will aim to balance the number of top candidates from each category (Physical Strength, Intelligence, and Wealth). The target is approximately 3 from each category or 2 from each category, provided there are enough options with decent prices from each category.
Update 2025-12-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For Intelligence evaluation: The creator considers top mathematicians to generally rank in the top 20% for chess ability among the general population, but does not believe Magnus Carlsen would rank in the top 20% for math ability. This reflects the creator's view that chess skill (involving memorization and constrained spatial reasoning) should not be placed on a pedestal relative to other forms of intelligence like mathematical ability or programming prowess.
Update 2025-12-17 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Physical Strength rankings focus on muscle strength rather than skills in a specific sport.
Agility is explicitly excluded from the definition of strength.
Update 2025-12-17 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Finalist Selection: The creator stated they would consider adding "balanced" individuals to the finalist list who are competitive on average across traits, even if they are not the absolute top in any single category.
Categorization Examples:
Larry Page: Considered primarily for the Wealth category. His Stanford PhD is not viewed as placing him in the top tier of global geniuses.
John Urschel: Likely considered for Physical Strength or as a balanced candidate. His mathematical achievements (MIT tenure track) are not viewed as placing him in the top 50 mathematicians.
Update 2025-12-17 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Intelligence Evaluation: The creator indicated that the ability to speak multiple languages (e.g., 6) is not considered sufficiently rare to rank highly in the Intelligence category, casting doubt on whether it would be a competitive factor for the top spot.
Update 2025-12-17 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Intelligence Threshold: The creator stated that an attribute found in the top 0.1% of the population (e.g., speaking 7 languages) is likely not a high enough bar to rank highly in the Intelligence category.
Rarity Comparison: The creator referenced Chess Grandmasters (~0.000025% of the population) to illustrate the level of rarity being considered, while noting that rarity does not automatically equate to intelligence.
Update 2025-12-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Wealth Evaluation: The creator indicated that if large holders of assets (whether cryptocurrency or physical treasures) were to mass-sell their holdings, the value of those asset classes would likely plummet. This suggests wealth will be evaluated based on current market values, with the understanding that liquidity constraints and market impact are inherent characteristics of concentrated wealth holdings across different asset types.
1,000People are also trading
Can we address the elephant in the room?
This ranking is overly determined by the “prospects of winning” clause. Can you say a bit more about this?
Since wealthy people were the first proposed, prospects of winning became entangled with wealth.
But you can probably come up with 9 strong, intelligent people who are each stronger and more intelligent than Zuck, but maybe not even worth considering as participants due to low-wealth, in the current zeitgeist of what high-prospect winners look like
And yet Zuck would be below average in total score in this group.
So “low prospect” candidates could beat the top human?
I like Bryan Johnson as an answer. He’s much more intelligent from an empathy and creative expression standpoint than the others here.
While also being top .1% wealth and physical strength
I think some of the billionaires are way over-valued. There are a few people on this list who have very strong claims to being both more physically strong and intelligent than many of the top billionaires:
Magnus Carlsen is far younger and stronger than most of them (he actively cross-trains and is quite strong), and if the creator values being the greatest chess player of all time over running large companies in terms of intelligence, that could be all she wrote.
John Urschel might be the strongest person that makes the final list, and is a practicing mathematician.
Vitali Klitschko is a former heavyweight boxer and is a Ukrainian politician with a PhD.
Remember, each of the three categories is equally important!
I also continue to think Larry Page is undervalued. He's younger and very likely stronger than Bezos and Musk, and several spots wealthier than Zuckerberg at #2 on the Forbes list.
@bens also I guess we're assuming no gender scaling for strength, but there has to be a better than 1% chance that Ammon's #1 human is a woman
@bens Page would only rank 1 or 2 points above Zuckerberg in the wealth rankings. I also don't think he's stronger than Bezos, just look at pictures of each of them.
Also, why do you think Magnus Carlsen is strong, other than for his age? What is your source on his training habits, and what makes you think it would be more than anyone else on this list?
@ItsMe Page probably ranks 3 spots above Zuckerberg as the market stands now, in wealth rankings. He's almost certainly stronger than Bezos, as he's 10 years younger and 5 inches taller! Bezos just wears tight shirts and makes public appearances. Page famously has a daily exercise routine and played contact and extreme sports during his tenure at Google.
Magnus Carlsen cross-trains with professional athletes and maintains a high level of physical fitness, as do most top chess players. He almost went into soccer in his youth, and is still a very good amateur soccer player. He's also decades younger than most of the billionaires on the list, giving him a massive strength advantage. The average 60 year old is far weaker than the average 35 year old.
@ItsMe I think it was already said based on the description that concentrated wealth is being down-weighted bc it's illiquid, so I think athletes/stars/etc. are undervalued (including Magnus)
@bens how would there be three people between Page and Zuck? Ammon said he's choosing about 3 people who excel in the rich category. Probably one of them would be Musk, another would be Page, and then maybe he'll pick Bezos and/or Zuck. So there would be a difference of 1-2 in the rankings. As for Bezos vs Page:
@Gen that part of the description was in response to somebody arguing that the Pope is the richest person in the world
@ItsMe Page is the 2nd richest man in the world, Zuck is the 6th. Brin, Bezos, and Ellison lie between them. Brin and Bezos have very decent odds to get onto the shortlist, meaning that it's quite likely that Page would gain 3 points on Zuck in the wealth category.
@ItsMe Bezos clearly has cosmetic work done and just wears tight shirts that emphasize his physique and appears often in public. You've also picked a schlubby photo of Page. Here's Page kitesurfing. Page is a much more private individual. But how often is a 52 year old less strong than a 62 year old? Especially given that we know Page has always played team sports and extreme sports, and now has a lot more free time on his hands to focus on his health than Bezos does.
@bens that's not how the rankings work. Ammon said he's picking about three people who excel in each category. You're assuming he's gonna pick 5-6 tech billionaires, which goes against the description.
Your arguments for Page's strength are very handwavy and unsourced. Just look at their muscles! I stand to gain more mana if Page wins, but come on.
@The_Nth_unique_trader nice try with the editing, but I have it on good authority that this is in fact the original image:
