FAQ

Eidos analyzes decision markets. Compare the choices being priced, inspect trading activity and follow recorded execution and outcomes. Explore sourced findings in the App or retrieve structured analysis through API and MCP. Coverage spans five engines on Solana, Unichain, Base and Gnosis Chain; available evidence varies by decision. The independent evidence record makes each interpretation inspectable. Eidos reports what markets imply; it does not recommend what to approve, fund, trade or vote for.

Three readers of the same analysis. Market-governed organizations need to explain what their markets imply and which proposal terms or evidence remain unclear. Funds and market participants, who price conditional books and want market state, depth, and evidence quality in one place. And economic agents, which need the same context as machine-readable state before taking a position.

Public JSON endpoints and read-only MCP tools expose supported records and review findings. Available fields and access requirements depend on the endpoint; the API and MCP guides specify their scope. Analytical results retain their method, provenance and evidence limits. Typed output contracts distinguish observed facts, calculations and unavailable inputs.

01Resolved publishes analytics on ownership coins and decision markets: treasuries, proposal records, market math, and forensics. Eidos keeps its own record, decoded from each engine's own contracts, and calculates analytical findings from the evidence available for each decision. Where it uses 01Resolved's published research it cites and credits it, and it does not resell it — and it is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by 01Resolved, MetaDAO, or any issuer it covers.

Code auditors read contracts, and post-resolution analytics measure markets that already closed. Neither tells an organization what its covenant, window length, and seed depth allow while a market is still open, or what the record supports once it closes. The published Umbra case is the proof: the market defended the treasury during the window, and the forensics explaining how arrived days after it closed.

The difference between conditional valuations or forecasts for competing choices, read against the market’s stated objective. A conditional token-price difference concerns that token; it is not automatically enterprise value or total organizational value. Converting it to dollars of organizational impact requires a justified valuation and supply basis, including supply or asset changes in each branch. Eidos does not infer that basis from a price spread alone.

No. The conditional comparison says what the market prices under each choice. The window outlook forecasts passage under the selection rule, with its own track record. Execution checks ask whether an approved action was carried out. Observed outcomes record what happened afterward. Neither passage nor a later price rise proves decision quality or causal impact; the unchosen alternative is not observed.

In a pass/fail token market, a proposal opens two conditional markets: the pass market prices the token if the proposal executes, the fail market prices the counterfactual, and trades in the losing branch unwind. The verdict is the time-weighted average price over the recording window measured against the DAO account's configured threshold — a comparison over the configured recording window, not one instantaneous price. Other mechanisms compare several options or select funding against a measured outcome; Eidos states the rule it reads.

The terms a team commits to at launch: where proceeds go, how spending is authorized, allocation and vesting bands, and what a later reviewer can verify. Eidos records those terms and checks them tri-state — present, absent, or unknown — and a covenant record is not a proposal, so it never receives an attack-vector classification.

An attacker has to move a time-weighted price and hold it for the rest of the window, while every distorting dollar hands arbitrageurs a paid reason to push back. The flip-cost scenario prices only a move from parity at stated depth; holding it through the window, fees and opposing flow are excluded. It is an observation about depth, never a safety rating.

They help you explain how the price formed and which conclusions have support. Depth describes sensitivity to trading; flow and VPIN describe direction and imbalance; wallet evidence describes participation; proposal terms define the comparison. Evidence checks inputs, Attack checks named mechanisms, Market reads the selection rule, Playbooks states which checks apply, Learning reads prior decisions, and Claims bounds the conclusion. These separate reviews share evidence. Read their findings beside the price, with missing inputs identified; they do not calculate a corrected impact estimate or reliability score.

No. Eidos’s VPIN measures mean absolute imbalance in equal-volume buckets of indexed conditional trades, with trade-count and coverage limits. One-sided flow or concentrated trading does not prove manipulation or informed trading. Flip cost is a scenario-dependent lower bound for moving a pool price from parity: it excludes fees and the cost of holding the price against opposing flow through the window. It is not a complete attack cost or safety rating. A no-match finding covers only one vector on complete evidence; missing evidence never means low risk.

Historical records used six versioned review contracts: Evidence (evidence qualification), Attack (attack testing), Market (market watch), Playbooks (playbook building), Learning (learning loop), Claims (claim control). Their original definitions remain available for interpreting those records. Current analytical results are organized by decision and instrument, with their evidence and limitations attached.

A decision analysis contains available measurements, detector findings, sourced interpretations and specific evidence gaps. Each instrument states whether it applies, whether a result is available and how complete its evidence is.

Ask, the chat on the app and part of Pro, answers questions against sourced decision context and supported calculations: proposal state, distance to threshold, missing evidence, unusual behavior, treasury exposure and changes since an earlier observation. It never issues a buy, sell, or vote recommendation. Decision questions read one retained public run, preserving its result references, evidence cutoff and limitations.

Four monitored economic attack vectors — each with a shipped detector, named indicators, and the evidence the detector consumes — and seven documented vectors described while their detectors are pending. Documented vectors never assess and never classify.

Six versioned checks anchored to the published launch terms — use of proceeds restricted; investor reserve capped and non-dilutable; team allocation in band with milestone vesting; linear unlock schedule; Cayman SPC/SP entity created; third-party review commissioned — each evaluated present, absent, or unknown, failing closed. Alongside them: the flip-cost scenario at the team's stated depth, and a day-one readiness read of which monitored vectors could run against the team's declared evidence plan.

A count of matched indicators for one monitored vector on one record with complete evidence — HIGH-RISK, ELEVATED, WATCH, or NO-MATCH. It describes that specific mechanism. Other risks require their own evidence and methods.

The classification is withheld as UNSCORED, UNKNOWN, STALE, or UNDER_REVIEW, and the missing fields are named. Missing wallet-forensics or market inputs never classify LOW — there is no LOW.

No. NO-MATCH says one vector's indicators did not match on complete evidence. It does not clear the proposal, and Eidos never stamps anything safe — a green badge is a request it declines.

No overall risk model has been validated for this product. An aggregate would need a defined target, justified inputs, assumptions, a baseline comparison and stated limitations. Until then, individual measurements and findings retain their own meaning.

Every live decision on five engines on Solana, Unichain, Base and Gnosis Chain, each decoded from its own chain into one form: its state, its options, its engine's selection rule and each option's time-weighted price, read from confirmed onchain accounts, with sourced analytical context. Absent fields are left out, never filled from fixtures.

Every research post carries its citations and a data vintage, and every replay names its source. The registries behind the site ship as saved JSON — the vector library, the team contracts, and this FAQ — regenerated from source and pinned by tests so a page cannot drift from its definitions.

A pilot is a design partnership with an organization that decides by market. It scopes one window and delivers a written interpretation of what the market implies, with separate review findings and evidence gaps. Scope is agreed before the window opens; supported structured readings accompany the memo. Traders start with Pro, and agents with the MCP guide. The first window is reviewed at no charge. After it, engagement prices are quoted, not published, because scope differs enough between organizations that a public number would be a quote nobody has made. Self-serve prices are public where you buy them: Pro's price and its 7-day trial are on the app's billing page.

For an organization pilot: a review of what the proposal asks the market to price, the supported analytical findings and a closing memo with sources and evidence gaps. Flow metrics and depth scenarios are included where inputs support them. The memo recommends how the next window should be specified and evidenced, never which choice to approve. Applicable covenant checks use the organization’s sourced disclosures. The engagement uses the same sourced instruments and evidence requirements as the public record.

Unsupported safety claims or unvalidated aggregate scores; reselling 01Resolved's data; code audits; and live classifications the detectors cannot produce from present evidence. Every published finding must be supported by its stated method and evidence.