# Synth Subnet - Miner Performance Review #17

By [Synth](https://paragraph.com/@synthdata) · 2025-07-10

---

**Data From 2025-06-30 To 2025-07-06**

**BTC and ETH Volatility**
--------------------------

Figure 1 shows the hourly log returns and volatility observed throughout the week, highlighting the relationship between BTC and ETH. Volatility remained relatively stable during the weekdays and declined over the weekend (July 6–7), before a final spike; particularly noticeable in Ethereum, at the end of the week.

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/cb9a17078624144c9a7b7b7f2a1a9dbd364130a04c69e4e9ceaae6785f4d9b7b.png)

**Miners Performance**
----------------------

This week, we tracked the performance of six miners:

*   **Miners 221, 32, and 200** – consistently among the top-ranked throughout the week
    
*   **Miners 253, 213, and 76** – each from a different axon, showing strong performance
    

As usual, performance was evaluated using two key metrics:

*   **CRPS** (Continuous Ranked Probability Score) for BTC and ETH forecasts
    
*   **Leaderboard Scores**
    

**Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS)**. Lower CRPS values indicate better predictive accuracy.

The weekly CRPS values reflect a highly competitive environment among top-tier miners. While there were moments when either group (221/32/200 vs. 253/213/76) outperformed the other, **no miner group consistently dominated across all days and volatility regimes**. This signals a healthy competitive dynamic in the subnet, one that fosters continuous model improvement and innovation.

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/8536dd6a289275659f352267b749b79dd478712330a6962a07842634f4c8760a.png)

**Leaderboard Scores**. These are exponentially weighted averages of past CRPS values over a 10-day window. Lower scores indicate better performance.

Miners 32, 200, and 221 maintained top-three positions throughout the week. However, **the performance gap between them and Miners 76, 213, and 253 narrowed**, decreasing from ~40 points to less than ~20 points by week’s end.

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/7b457957f84c607ba826c6789bba8835318925331e79ed9f7fd0035d0bec4686.png)

**Miners’ Strategies**
----------------------

This section analyzes summary statistics, including volatility, kurtosis, and skewness to detect potential strategic differences among top miners for both BTC and ETH.

Summary Statistic Definitions:

*   Volatility: Variability in forecasted returns
    
*   Kurtosis: Measures the "tailedness" of the distribution, how likely extreme events are
    
*   Skewness: Measures the asymmetry of return distributions (0 = symmetric)
    

Figure 4 presents these statistics for the four miners across the week.

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/a6646678083ffc489b64ed4ddf66f745ebcb6057627f201ccf6b9e2a23a2d42d.png)

The figure reveals distinct modeling styles. Miners 32, 200, and 221 tended to produce forecasts with **higher volatility and kurtosis**, and they showed greater variation in distribution moments (including skewness). Conversely, Miners 253, 213, and 76 used **less volatile and more stable distributions**.

Interestingly, the latter group closed the performance gap with the frontrunners in leaderboard scores, suggesting that **under the specific volatility regime of the week**, their more stable approach paid off.

**Miners’ Ranking vs. Summary Statistics:** All miners who submitted forecasts were ranked by total weekly rewards. Figure 5 shows how summary statistics vary across ranking tiers.

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/43da41263a372eea7e5e527c4d840e63eee42d1af46b20a205e95586af2bf907.png)

Consistent with previous weeks, miners in the top 10 reward tier produced forecasts that were, on average, more volatile and had more stable kurtosis than those ranked lower.

**Analysis by Axons**
---------------------

To assess performance at the group level, we analyzed:

*   Axon size (number of miners)
    
*   Average and total rewards per axon
    
*   Axon-level summary statistics (BTC forecasts)
    

Figure 6 shows the number of miners per axon at the end of the week.

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/96c9c6ab728e796cc70cb46b89e0e3feb3f8a28335c16dce62f8860db1d73827.png)

As in the previous weeks, **axon 116.202.53.142** had the highest number of registered miners, followed by **138.201.62.165** and **95.216.99.113**.

Figure 7 shows the evolution of average (per miner) and total daily rewards for the top 10 axons by average reward.

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/fbfc592ada653b168161b9d5e20202636f1953e96450e163b2cf30bc7cefa8fd.png)

At the beginning of the week, axon **35.77.6.189** received most of the rewards. However, starting over the weekend, likely due to exploiting lower-volatility periods, miners from axons **95.111.205.93** and **116.202.53.142** began to earn significantly more rewards on average.

Figure 8 compares the top 10 axons (by average rewards) based on key BTC modeling characteristics: average intraday volatility, volatility variability, and average intraday kurtosis.

![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/d78e923cc107b8274dccb8026c5218cdc5867b33d3db737d0b1f2ae6367fb97d.png)

Except for axon **95.216.99.113** and axon **95.216.2.50**, who produced less volatile, less "fat-tailed" forecasts, **most axons showed consistent forecasting behavior**, with similar volatility and kurtosis levels, both in magnitude and direction.

**Takeaways**
-------------

This week’s results highlight an increasingly dynamic and competitive environment among miners, with **no single frontrunner consistently outperforming across all conditions**. The **shrinking gap in leaderboard scores** between the frontrunners and their closest challengers suggests that competition will intensify further in the coming weeks.

---

*Originally published on [Synth](https://paragraph.com/@synthdata/synth-subnet-miner-performance-review-17)*