Leaderboard and Trader Score

The leaderboard ranks wallets by their trading profit and loss, in USD, across Seer markets. Alongside P/L, volume, ROI and traded markets, each wallet carries a Trader Score. Only wallets that did something are listed. A wallet with no P/L, no volume, no capital at risk and no traded markets in the selected period, app and chain is left off the board entirely rather than shown as a row of zeros — widening the period (24h → All time) brings its earlier activity back. That is a different thing from the N/A score explained below, which marks a wallet that is on the board but has too little history to be scored.

​

What the Trader Score is

A 0–100 rating of how a wallet traded the markets in a period, derived from its per-market profit and loss distribution. It is a summary of how the profit was made, not just how much. Two wallets that both finished +$10,000 can score very differently: one that made it steadily across twenty markets while losing little scores well; one that made it all on a single lucky market, after losing heavily elsewhere, does not. It is not a measure of how often you were right. A wallet that loses nine markets out of ten and wins the tenth at 100x is a good trader by this score, because the score reads the size of the wins against the size of the losses rather than counting them.

​

What each tier means

A tier is only a label for the number — the score itself is what is ranked and sorted.

​

How the score is calculated

The score is the weighted mean of five components. Each is measured, then mapped onto 0–100 between a floor and a ceiling, then weighted: Click any score on the leaderboard to see these five components for that wallet, with the raw value of each and the points it contributed.

​

Hit rate is measured against your own odds

A prediction market pays out inversely to the price paid, so a bare hit rate says very little on its own. Buying an outcome at 10¢ pays roughly 10x, and a wallet doing that only has to be right about one time in ten to break even; a wallet trading near 50¢ has to be right about half the time. So the score does not compare your hit rate against a fixed band. It works out the break-even rate implied by your own realised payoffs — the average size of your winning markets against the average size of your losing ones — and scores how far above that you landed. A wallet that won 1 market in 10 with a 100x winner clears its break-even rate comfortably and scores well here. A wallet that won 4 in 10 with wins and losses the same size falls short of its 50% break-even and does not. A losing strategy is still marked down; a long-shot strategy is no longer marked down for being a long shot.

​

Thin books are pulled toward the middle

A wallet that traded three markets and won all three has not proven it can trade — it has a small sample. Three adjustments keep small books honest:

• The score keeps only n ÷ (n + 10) of its distance from 50, where n is the number of markets counted. A three-market book keeps 23% of it and cannot rise above about 62 however good it looks; a hundred-market book keeps 91%. This works in both directions: too little evidence reads undecided, not excellent and not terrible.
• Hit rate carries five pseudo-markets at 50%, so three wins out of three reads about 69%, not 100%.
• Profit factor carries prior mass on both sides worth 2% of the book’s own gross flow, so a wallet that never lost reads a finite ratio instead of infinity.

Because of the first one, the components shown in the breakdown add up to the score before shrinking. The breakdown reports both numbers.

​

Why some wallets show no score

A wallet shows N/A instead of a score when there is not enough history to judge it fairly:

• fewer than 3 markets with more than $1 of capital at risk,
• less than $100 of capital at risk across those markets, or
• more than 25% of the wallet’s P/L sitting outside them.

This is deliberately N/A and not a 0: “too little history to judge” is not the same claim as “judged and scored badly”. Hover or tap it to see which of the three conditions the wallet missed.

​

Why the third condition exists

Every ratio in the score is taken over the same set of markets: the ones carrying more than $1 of capital at risk. Some positions move value without putting primary collateral to work — a conditional market, whose pool trades one outcome token against another, or outcome tokens received by transfer rather than bought. Those carry real P/L against no measured capital, so they never enter that set. Your P/L and ROI columns still count them. The score cannot, and a score built from a small measurable corner of a wallet would describe a different trader than the row it sits on. When that corner accounts for too little of the wallet, the score reads N/A rather than guessing. One case that looks like this but is not: a wallet that trades through a TradeExecutor contract. The contract buys and periodically transfers the outcome tokens to the wallet, so the capital sits on one address and the value on the other. Both are the same trader, and the score treats them as one book — the addresses merged into a row are listed on it.

​

What the score does not measure

The score reads a wallet’s distribution across markets, not over time. It cannot see a position that was deep underwater mid-period and recovered, because it only sees where each market finished. “Loss burn” is a total of realised losses, not a maximum drawdown, and “breadth” measures how concentrated the profit was, not how smooth the equity curve looked. The Returns component divides the P/L of the scored markets by the capital in those markets, so it can differ slightly from the ROI column, which covers the whole wallet. The eligibility rule above keeps the two close. Scores are computed fresh for whatever period, app and chain filter you have selected. Because the score is a weighted mean of ratios, two scores cannot be meaningfully averaged together.