Right now, we are in a historically great time for standard models, such as integration_test.
Take a look at this chart of integration_test cumulative scores since Kazutsugi started.
The goal of MMC is to encourage users to find unique models that perform well. Right now though, even the models that we internally really like are preferring correlation payouts right now, even though they were the models that we specifically set out to reward more with MMC.
Now, this trend is unlikely to continue, but even so, the existence of this type of scenario to me highlights a shortcoming of MMC: that is, making users play a meta game of having to choose between two different tournament. Users should just simply be rewarded for having a more unique and better model, period.
The example I like to use is Nasdaqjockey. This model has very high correlation and very low correlation with the metamodel, but is still being payed less than integration_test lately, since both are staking on corr.
So my proposal is to not make users choose between corr and MMC. Instead, users could simply opt in to being exposed to MMC at the same time as correlation. Here’s what it looks like for Nasdaqjockey
And when you show the same for integration_test:
Notice the difference in Y axis. Nasdaqjockey, in this format, makes almost 2x as much as integration_test, despite overall having very similar correlation scores. This is exactly what we want to reward with MMC.
Note that in in this scenario MMC would not have a 2x payout multiplier as it does now, since the purpose of that was to bring the two separate tournament more in line in terms of risk. If they are combined, then we no longer need this adjustment since you aren’t choosing one over the other.
Will leave this up for some time before making anything official, so others can discuss and give feedback about if this change would make them more interested in finding high MMC models than the current structure.