Skip to content

Three products

Three products, sequenced by capital intensity. Each addresses one of the three structural failures. All three wrap existing venues (Kalshi, Polymarket, Azuro) rather than competing with them.

ProductAddressesPhaseCapitalBuild timeRevenue source
Chrono ScoreNo reputation layer0$04–8 weeksAPI tiers + cross-product risk pricing
Fast-ForwardRetention crisis + liquidity gap1$50–200K seed + $30–50K audit + $60–100K Solidity10–14 weeks5–10% spread on vault turnover
RewindResolution risk2$200–500K pool + $50–80K audit14–20 weeksInsurance premiums

Build principle: Chrono Score must ship before either capital-intensive product. It is both the credibility artifact (no-token, no-raise, testable) and the pricing signal the other two products consume.

The literature says “skill” is not a single axis. Yang 2026 shows skilled forecasters capture $228M; Vedova 2026 shows bots at 50% accuracy profit through execution while 51%-accurate retail lose. Accuracy and execution are both real, orthogonal, and separately valuable.

So Chronomancy publishes two scores.

  • Chrono Score (public) — forecasting accuracy, Wang-corrected, domain-partitioned, time-weighted. Consumed by Rewind (counterparty discount) and Fast-Forward (seller quality). Displayed publicly.
  • Execution Score (internal) — realized PnL net of timing/spread/fee drag. Consumed by Fast-Forward (position sizing) and internal risk controls. Not publicly displayed in v0.

The two-score split is what makes the products cohere. A single averaged score would lose signal in both directions; two scores let Rewind price on accuracy and Fast-Forward size on execution, which is what each product actually needs.

  • An exchange. We wrap existing venues.
  • A token. Revenue is fees and spreads in the base case.
  • A UI for forecasting itself. Users forecast on Kalshi / Polymarket / Azuro. We read, score, and price.
  • A chat or social layer. Reputation lives in the scoreboard, not in conversation threads.