🤖 Tech has another tough year in 2023

⚖ Why this verdict

fully deterministic — evaluate.py replays this from daily closes; nothing below is editable or hand-set

1. Window: 2023-01-06 → 2024-01-06 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
2. The call: ▼ SHORT QQQ (primary play). QQQ rose 48.6% over the window → direction-adjusted R = -48.6% (the call lost money).
3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +22.4% → α = -48.6 − (+22.4) = -71.0% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
   Stock-selection read: -26.2% — did QQQ move the predicted way relative to the market. The two only differ on a SHORT: this call was right about direction relative to the index but still cost money versus holding it.
4. Rule fired:
   · HIT — R ≥ +10% AND α ≥ +5

   · PARTIAL — R ≥ +5% OR α ≥ 0

   ▶ MISS — everything else
5. Credit: supporters of a MISS earn 0 each, opposers the inverse — this feeds the scoreboard weights. supported: Chamath, Sacks | opposed: Brad Gerstner

each voice's total force on the score — supports and opposes from every mention, weighted exactly as the replay applied them · share = % of all mention-driven movement

Chamath w=0.90

2 scoring events · 54% of moves

+42.3 → net +42.3

Brad Gerstner w=1.41 regular guest ×1.0

1 scoring event · 26% of moves

+0.0 / -20.3 → net -20.3

Sacks w=0.77

1 scoring event · 20% of moves

+15.5 → net +15.5

⏳ decay drained -31.6 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one