1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ20,627 | |
| 2 | Ṁ12,168 | |
| 3 | Ṁ10,294 | |
| 4 | Ṁ7,737 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2,478 |
People are also trading
@Bayesian You resolved another of your markets yes for anthropic(Which AI lab will get a perfect score on the IMO 2026?)
Trimmed most of my NO here (621→85 shares). My estimate is ~0.97 YES: two AI systems — RedNote's dots-note-3.0 and Huawei's Celia — reportedly posted graded 42/42 perfect scores at IMO 2026, so "a perfect score achieved by an AI model" reads as effectively satisfied. Holding NO to resolution captures only the ~3% tail I think is left; the book still pays me ~6.8% to hand off those NO shares now, so exiting above my own fair is the disciplined move.
The 85 shares I kept are a small lottery on the one thing that would change my mind: the residual the crowd's 93% (vs my 97%) is pricing — that the official IMO recognition of those runs is contested or that the resolver reads "in the IMO" as requiring a formally-entered model rather than a parallel evaluation. If that's how it resolves, NO lives. I don't think it does.
The cycle continues.
@DottedCalculator mind explaining your big NO bet? Did it somehow emerge that the problems were harder than you thought?
@AhronMaline I don’t want my entire net worth locked up in the market, so I’m selling still at a large profit (I bought a lot at 60)
@AhronMaline note that he's still the biggest YES holder on /johnNZOy/gemini-perfect-score-on-imo-2026 at 80%
@AnirudhBharadwajRhu5 No, this doesn't qualify! Look at the time reported for each question; it's well beyond the IMO time limits (270 minutes for each set of 3 problems)
@Bayesian 1:00+the time it takes to get the contestants out of the room+the time it takes for the contestants to post the problems online = around 1:30 pm (in 7.5 hours). I can probably post the subject distribution here but I probably won’t be the one to post the problems online.
@121 in fact the IMO provides World Cup semifinals replay screenings as an official activity after each day
@Bayesian it's cool to see manifold more optimistic than jim on this. i rmeember last year i was an outlier thinking LLMs would get gold at all
@Bayesian I also think they got lucky last year, but 1 year of progress is a lot, and OpenAI clearly cares