How accurate are we?
We predict pump.fun mint graduation in the first 30-60 seconds. Every prediction logged before the outcome. Resolved against on-chain truth (98.4% of labels). Three numbers, three different questions — read them together:
By confidence band
The model is honest about uncertainty. Lower-confidence calls graduate at lower rates — exactly as predicted. The Telegram bot only fires at ≥70%.
| If we say | Actual graduation rate | Sample size |
|---|---|---|
| loading… | ||
runner_prob fields — directional, recalibration pending
The runner_prob_2x/5x/10x_from_now fields exposed at
/api/v1/probe and /api/live are currently
directional: mints with higher runner_prob do hit
higher rates, but the absolute probability is over-stated by roughly
11-13 percentage points on high-confidence bins
(≥0.5). The saturation case (kNN reports 1.0 because all neighbors hit)
is the loudest miss — runner_prob_5x_from_launch at
predicted 0.99 has actual rate around 0.29.
Magnitude recalibration is in progress via the existing
apply_calibration infrastructure (the same self-correcting
curve grad_prob uses). Until recalibration is verified, treat
runner_prob fields as a ranking signal, not as a literal probability.
Consumers making sizing decisions on the absolute number should
discount by ~12pp at the high end. The full audit
(/api/scope
documents the field, n=89,077 sample) is intentionally surfaced here
rather than hidden — same discipline as the warming label on the live
rate above.
raw JSON: /api/accuracy · NFA · DYOR · prediction model output, not financial advice