Information Fairness
How level the playing field is between the average trader and anyone who may be acting on information the public does not yet have. In plain terms: did informed money move before the public catalyst, and what share of the recent flow looks well-informed?
How we score it
Each market starts from a neutral baseline that assumes a fair, symmetric market. We then look at the shape of recent flow: how concentrated it is, how sharply timed entries cluster just ahead of resolving information, and what fraction of trades carry the fingerprint of an informational edge. Broad, evenly distributed participation that builds gradually raises the score; a few wallets driving most of the volume with sharply well-timed entries right before an outcome becomes known lowers it. The construct is the academic one — a price that jumps on directional volume ahead of public news is the prediction-market analogue of a pre-announcement abnormal-return run-up.
How to read your score
Higher means a fairer, more symmetric market. A lower score means more of the recent flow looks well-timed and concentrated — a heads-up to read the evidence and look harder, not a claim that anyone broke a rule. This axis is scored 0-100; the composite weights it at 35%.
No meaningful risk signal on this axis. Nothing here that warrants extra scrutiny before taking a position.
A clean read with only minor or ambiguous signals. Reasonable to proceed with normal due diligence.
A moderate signal worth a second look. Read the evidence on the market page before sizing a position.
A pronounced structural signal on this axis. Understand exactly what is driving it before participating.
A strong structural signal. This axis is the kind of thing a careful trader would resolve before trusting the market's price.
Signals we look for
The share of flow that lands in concentrated, unusually well-timed positions ahead of a known event.
Sharp position-building clustered in the minutes-to-days before resolving information becomes public.
A small number of wallets responsible for most of the directional volume.
Bursts of brand-new accounts taking one-sided positions just before an announcement.
A news-leading price jump on directional volume — the prediction-market echo of a pre-event run-up.
References
The academic, industry, and regulatory sources that ground how this dimension is scored. Each note states what the source backs.
Liquidity, Information, and Infrequently Traded Stocks (the PIN model)
Easley, Kiefer, O'Hara & Paperman, Journal of Finance 51(4) · 1996
Estimates the fraction of trades coming from someone with private information; our flagged-fraction is the same construct (Fairness ≈ 1 − PIN).
Flow Toxicity and Liquidity in a High-Frequency World (VPIN)
Easley, López de Prado & O'Hara, Review of Financial Studies 25(5) · 2012
The real-time toxicity dial for persistently one-sided, informed-looking pressure; it peaked just before the 2010 Flash Crash.
An Empirical Analysis of Illegal Insider Trading (pre-event CAR run-up)
Meulbroek, Journal of Finance 47(5) · 1992
The regulator-grade fingerprint of informed trading — how much of a move happens before the news is public — which our retrospective layer measures.
Prediction Markets (price as aggregated probability)
Wolfers & Zitzewitz, Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(2) · 2004
Establishes the transfer license: a prediction-market price is a probability, so a news-leading jump on directional volume is the run-up/VPIN analogue.
Statistical signals, not allegations. Every dimension measures a structural property of a market — the shape of its flow, the clarity of its question, the trustworthiness of its resolution source. A low score flags where a careful trader should look harder. It is never a claim that a specific account, or the market itself, has broken a rule.