Our cellular host ancestor arose within Asgard archaea.
Did the host lineage behind complex cells branch from within the Asgard group of microbes? The test compares that family-tree position with all positions outside the defined group.
No recorded prices yet. Trading prices appear once pools are live.
Each dot is one recorded reading, thinned to hourly for readability; the underlying samples are every few minutes. The line between two dots is not a measurement. How the AI estimate is made.How to read this chart
Weekly AI estimate
The average of three models reading the same evidence. It is an estimate, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it does not set the pool price.
- Last live round
- Oct 19, 2026 06:57 PM EDT
The live panel was called but did not return three estimates · so this round did not return all three estimates and the number is a labelled stand-in
Market definition · YES, NO and evidence rules
This is the frozen contract wording. Read the YES and NO tests, the evidence requirements and the undecided cases before taking a position.
Canonical title
The eukaryotic host lineage arose within Asgard archaea.
Exact hypothesis · technical wording
The archaeal host lineage ancestral to all extant eukaryotes branches strictly inside crown Asgard, defined by the last common ancestor of Loki-, Thor-, Odin- and Heimdallarchaeota and its descendants. The complement includes EVERY placement outside that crown: sister to all Asgard, any deeper or other branch within Archaea, sister to all Archaea, and other nonnested placements. Host ancestry is tested using vertically inherited informational genes, not mitochondrial ancestry or transferred genes.
Each round reads the evidence that was public at a stated cutoff. Later evidence goes into a later round; the market itself has no expiry date.
How the evidence cutoff is fixed
A round only counts evidence published before its own cutoff time, and the round's number is that timestamp. So a round cannot borrow a later cutoff, and an earlier round's judgment cannot be reused for a later one. The hypothesis wording, the resolution criteria and the methodology identifier were hashed into the market account at creation, which is what stops any of them being edited afterwards.
Resolution criteria
YES: Independent phylogenomic datasets with >= 30 vetted single-copy informational orthologues support crown nesting with >= 95% nonparametric bootstrap support. For each dataset, freeze a reference taxon set containing the four defining Asgard groups, non-Asgard archaeal diversity and justified outgroups before topology testing. Under the same site-heterogeneous model, optimize branch lengths and nuisance parameters for constrained maximum-likelihood placements of the host lineage on EVERY edge of that reference backbone, inside and outside crown Asgard; repeat over supported alternative backbones/rootings. An approximately unbiased test with >= 10000 multiscale bootstrap replicates must reject every nonnested candidate at p < 0.01 while retaining at least one nested candidate. Paralogy/transfer screening and taxon-removal analyses must retain the conclusion. An incomplete placement search cannot settle YES. NO: The identical search and eligibility requirements instead give >= 95% bootstrap support to a nonnested placement and reject EVERY nested candidate at p < 0.01 while retaining at least one nonnested candidate. A deeper archaeal placement is eligible NO, not an omitted alternative. Unresolved rooting/backbones, inadequate evolutionary models, dependence on transferred genes or sensitivity to taxon removal leave the market UNDECIDED; these thresholds do not eliminate phylogenetic judgment. Reference sources: Liu et al.: expanded Asgard diversity (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03494-3); Zhang et al.: deep eukaryotic origin within Asgard (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08955-7); Asgard archaea and eukaryotic complexity (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21031). Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.
The definition does not change when an AI estimate changes. Read the listing policy and this market's settlement status.
How each model argued
The live panel was called but did not return all three estimates. This round kept the previous estimate as a labelled placeholder, not an average of the answers that came back.
This round ran under methodology panel-v9. Short excerpts are below; the round 4 page keeps the full answers, sources and raw responses. The current methodology and example requests do not reconstruct this historical round's exact request.
OpenAI placeholder 0.63
local-fallback
No model provider is configured in this build, so this number is a deterministic placeholder around the market's prior score. It is not model output and should not be read as an assessment.
Full explanation from OpenAI→Anthropic placeholder 0.66
local-fallback
No model provider is configured in this build, so this number is a deterministic placeholder around the market's prior score. It is not model output and should not be read as an assessment.
Full explanation from Anthropic→xAI placeholder 0.69
local-fallback
No model provider is configured in this build, so this number is a deterministic placeholder around the market's prior score. It is not model output and should not be read as an assessment.
Full explanation from xAI→What moved the number
This is a new contract, not a migrated position or a continuation of old forecast history. The initial 0.50 is an initialization convention, not an AI forecast or an assessed scientific probability. Reference links are background sources,…
Live panel did not return all three estimates (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI failed or gave an unusable answer). A round is only live when all three are valid, so this round is a placeholder at the previous score rather than an average of two.
This round's saved score, answers and sources →OpenAI estimated 0.85. I interpret crown nesting strictly, excluding sister-to-all-Asgard placements. Expanded primary genomic evidence favors nesting, but neither independent exhaustive placement tests meeting the specified thresholds…
This round's saved score, answers and sources →AI estimate scheduled: an independent three-model panel reads the published definition and evidence every week. New positions are still closed for this market, so the estimate is here to read, not to trade against.
The evidence packet · 6 entries
What the panel was shown when this round ran. A row with no source link is a description only, and the panel is told so.
Liu et al.: expanded Asgard diversity
ContextPrimary analyses support either within-Asgard or deeper archaeal placements depending on taxa/markers; the latter belongs in the complement.
Source linkZhang et al.: deep eukaryotic origin within Asgard
ContextExpanded genomes support a branch within Asgard but outside Heimdallarchaeia and identify chimeric-genome pitfalls; assess eligibility rather than count papers.
Source linkAsgard archaea and eukaryotic complexity
ContextEarly primary genomes establish a close relationship, not all terminal requirements.
Source linkRequired positive observation
SupportingIndependent phylogenomic datasets with >= 30 vetted single-copy informational orthologues support crown nesting with >= 95% nonparametric bootstrap support. For each dataset, freeze a reference taxon set containing the four defining Asgard groups, non-Asgard archaeal diversity and justified outgroups before topology testing. Under the same site-heterogeneous model, optimize branch lengths and nuisance parameters for constrained maximum-likelihood placements of the host lineage on EVERY edge of that reference backbone, inside and outside crown Asgard; repeat over supported alternative backbones/rootings. An approximately unbiased test with >= 10000 multiscale bootstrap replicates must reject every nonnested candidate at p < 0.01 while retaining at least one nested candidate. Paralogy/transfer screening and taxon-removal analyses must retain the conclusion. An incomplete placement search cannot settle YES.
Description only · no source link recordedRequired contrary observation
ContraryThe identical search and eligibility requirements instead give >= 95% bootstrap support to a nonnested placement and reject EVERY nested candidate at p < 0.01 while retaining at least one nonnested candidate. A deeper archaeal placement is eligible NO, not an omitted alternative. Unresolved rooting/backbones, inadequate evolutionary models, dependence on transferred genes or sensitivity to taxon removal leave the market UNDECIDED; these thresholds do not eliminate phylogenetic judgment.
Description only · no source link recordedEligibility and unresolved outcomes
MethodEvidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.
Description only · no source link recordedPast estimates
Every weekly estimate, newest first
| Date | Estimate | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 09, 2026 09:03 AM EST | 66% | no live reading |
| Nov 02, 2026 09:03 AM EST | 66% | no live reading |
| Oct 26, 2026 10:03 AM EDT | 66% | no live reading |
| Oct 19, 2026 06:57 PM EDT | 66% | 50–85% |
Discussion
Start a threadNo threads yet. Argue about the evidence, the panel, or whether the hypothesis is worded fairly.
Anyone can join the discussion. Sign in with a wallet to keep your threads together.