Feed us a settled trade history. We run the out-of-sample split, fee-adjust the EV, and hand back one fail-closed verdict — REAL_EDGE, REGIME_LUCK, NEGATIVE_EV, or INSUFFICIENT_DATA — with a cryptographically signed receipt you can hand to anyone.
Earlier today we thought we'd found a real edge in a live Kalshi market: 782 real settled trades, positive expected value, looked strong. Before risking a dollar on it, we ran it through this exact tool.
The most recent third of the data looked great (+9.1¢/trade). The other two-thirds — the part nobody wants to look at — was net negative (-11¢/trade). That's the whole story of most "edges": real until you check the part of the data you were hoping to ignore.
That's the product. Not a backtesting platform, not a course, not a Discord. One HTTP call, one honest number, a signature you don't have to trust us on.
curl -s -X POST https://nolawealthfinancial.com/notary/grade-strategy \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"agent": "you",
"trades": [
{"t":"2026-06-01T00:00:00Z","price":0.35,"side":"yes","outcome":1},
{"t":"2026-06-02T00:00:00Z","price":0.40,"side":"yes","outcome":0},
{"t":"2026-06-03T00:00:00Z","price":0.30,"side":"yes","outcome":1}
]
}'
Real format: one row per settled trade — t (timestamp), price (your entry price, 0-1), side (yes/no), outcome (1 win / 0 loss). Minimum 30 trades to get a real verdict; fewer than that and you get INSUFFICIENT_DATA — on purpose, because a coin flip isn't a strategy.
Most recent 30% held out and never touched during training — the same discipline that killed our own WTI finding today. No peeking.
Every trade is repriced at real transaction cost before any verdict is computed. A "win rate" without cost isn't a number, it's marketing.
Positive expectancy alone isn't enough — it has to clear a real statistical bar (t ≥ 1.5) on the held-out slice before we'll call it REAL_EDGE.
The paid tier returns a signature you — or anyone you show it to — can independently verify without trusting our server at all.
Pulled directly from each product's own public pricing page — not our characterization, their numbers.
| Approach | Setup | Cost | Verifiable by a third party |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-hosted DSR/PBO Python libraries | Install, wire your own data, know the math | Free (your time) | No — you ran it yourself |
| VARRD (closest AI-native comparable) | Auto-created account, credential stored locally | ~$0.30/session, $1/edge | No — tied to your account/session |
| LuxAlgo AI Backtesting Assistant | Must subscribe first — gated to top tier | $27.99–$32.99/mo | No — proprietary dashboard output |
| StillOS Edge Gate | Zero signup, ever | Free (30/day), then $0.05/call | Yes — Ed25519 signature, verify independently, no account needed on either end |
Not a knock on either product — VARRD's statistical guardrails (Bonferroni correction, OOS lock) are genuinely rigorous, and LuxAlgo's platform does far more than this one endpoint. The gap is narrower and more specific than "better": neither publishes an output a third party can verify without an account or without trusting the platform that produced it. That's the one thing we do that we could find nobody else doing.
We're not trying to replace the research layer — we're built to sit downstream of it. Run your discovery in whatever tool finds the idea (VARRD's chat, LuxAlgo's optimizer, your own notebook), then settle the "is this real" question here: same trades, one call, a receipt anyone can check without an account on either end.
Unsigned verdict, unlimited use up to the daily limit. Good enough to know the truth. Not enough to show a counterparty.
Same verdict, Ed25519-signed and independently verifiable. No signup, no account, no subscription — pay per call from your own agent or wallet.