SynthMode Synth (SN50) Subnet Whitepaper and How to Guide
The creation and use of synthetic price data has traditionally been dominated by opaque, well-funded entities such as large financial institutions, centralized technology firms, and regulatory agencies, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, the Federal Reserve, and PayPal. The closed-source nature of these datasets stems from the self-serving priorities of these organizations, which often lack the incentive to democratize data access. This approach exacerbates disparities, creating a wider...
SynthSynth Subnet - Inside Synth’s Accuracy Surge
IntroductionThis report provides a focused assessment of recent progress in the Synth subnet, where miners forecast BTC’s return distribution every day. Over the past month, the subnet has seen a major shift: miners prioritizing volatility accuracy have rapidly climbed the leaderboards, outperforming more complex models that previously held top positions. We analyze the performance of these top miners across multiple metrics, volatility, intraday variation, and kurtosis, using data from June ...
SynthSynth content transitioned to Synth X articles
You can stay up to date with Synth’s ongoing research, performance analysis, and ecosystem updates through our regularly published X articles. All new releases are posted directly on our X account here: https://x.com/SynthdataCo/articles.
SynthMode Synth (SN50) Subnet Whitepaper and How to Guide
The creation and use of synthetic price data has traditionally been dominated by opaque, well-funded entities such as large financial institutions, centralized technology firms, and regulatory agencies, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, the Federal Reserve, and PayPal. The closed-source nature of these datasets stems from the self-serving priorities of these organizations, which often lack the incentive to democratize data access. This approach exacerbates disparities, creating a wider...
SynthSynth Subnet - Inside Synth’s Accuracy Surge
IntroductionThis report provides a focused assessment of recent progress in the Synth subnet, where miners forecast BTC’s return distribution every day. Over the past month, the subnet has seen a major shift: miners prioritizing volatility accuracy have rapidly climbed the leaderboards, outperforming more complex models that previously held top positions. We analyze the performance of these top miners across multiple metrics, volatility, intraday variation, and kurtosis, using data from June ...
SynthSynth content transitioned to Synth X articles
You can stay up to date with Synth’s ongoing research, performance analysis, and ecosystem updates through our regularly published X articles. All new releases are posted directly on our X account here: https://x.com/SynthdataCo/articles.
Subscribe to Synth
Subscribe to Synth
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
Data From 2025-07-21 To 2025-07-27
With the current value of Synth Alpha, Synth paid 20,694 Alpha tokens to miners last week, equivalent to $59,599. Since March 2025, a total of 448,640 Alpha tokens have been distributed to miners, worth $1,292,083. On a monthly average since March 2025, Synth has paid $258,417 to miners, exceeding Numerai’s average monthly payout of $197,554.
Figure 1 illustrates hourly log returns and volatility for Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Gold (XAU) during the week.
Of the three assets, XAU was the least volatile, ETH the most, with BTC falling in between. The most volatile period occurred mid-week, from July 23 to July 25.
This week, we monitored the performance of six key miners:
Top Performers: Miners 85, 169, and 61
Dropped Out of Top Three: Miners 153, 65, and 154
Axon affiliations:
Miner 61, 85, 154 → axon 95.216.99.113
Miners 65, 153, 169 → axon 116.202.53.142
Performance was evaluated using two main 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.
For BTC, Miners 153 and 154 performed well early in the week. By Sunday, July 27, Miners 85, 169, and 61 were leading.
For ETH, Miners 85, 169, and 61 excelled on Tuesday, July 22, while Miners 65 and 154 stood out mid-week. Overall, all miners except Miner 65 performed consistently well throughout the week.
For XAU, Miner 61 demonstrated consistent strong performance mid-week, with all miners performing similarly at the start and end of the week.
Leaderboard Scores. These are exponentially weighted averages of past CRPS values over a 10-day window. Lower scores indicate better performance.
Miners 85, 169, and 61 consistently improved their scores during the week—dropping from just over 150 to around 110. In contrast, Miners 153, 65, and 154 had stable scores, fluctuating around 120–130.
Miner 65 saw a slight deterioration in its leaderboard score due to poor weekend performance, increasing from ~135 at the start to ~145 by week's end.
This section analyzes summary statistics—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.
Across all assets and metrics, miners showed highly similar distributional choices, likely due to shared axon affiliation. The only noticeable difference was in forecasted volatility for XAU, which was flatter and less variable for Miners 169 and 61 compared to others.
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.
Miners ranked 1–70 had very similar average weekly volatility and kurtosis across all assets. In contrast, lower-ranked miners exhibited much greater variability in these statistics, suggesting less consistency or riskier strategies.
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, ETH, and XAU forecasts)
Figure 6 shows the number of miners per axon at the end of the week.
Axon 116.202.53.142 had the largest group (47 miners)
Axon 95.216.99.113 increased from 20 to 24 miners
Axon 138.201.62.165 remained at 21 miners
Figure 7 shows the evolution of average (per miner) and total daily rewards for the top 10 axons by average reward.
As far as the weekly rewards are concerned: Axon 116.202.53.142 earned the most, also due to its size in terms of number of miners Axon 95.216.99.113 had higher per-miner rewards Axon 35.77.6.189 started strong but declined mid-week All-Time Rewards (Since May 19, 2025)
Axon 116.202.53.142 - Total Alpha Tokens: 55,501 (= $ 159,842)
Axon 95.216.99.113 - Total Alpha Tokens: 30,253 (= $ 87,128)
Axon 35.77.6.189 - Total Alpha Tokens: 26,250 (= $ 75,600)
Axon 186.233.184.223 - Total Alpha Tokens: 20,834 (= $ 60,001)
Axon 18.183.47.137 - Total Alpha Tokens: 13,666 (= $ 39,357)
Axon 3.112.97.164 - Total Alpha Tokens: 13,435 (= $ 38,693)
Axon 95.111.205.93 - Total Alpha Tokens: 8,456 (= $ 24,352)
Axon 35.78.218.102 - Total Alpha Tokens: 7,275 (= $ 20,953)
Axon 103.88.234.233 - Total Alpha Tokens: 6,121 (= $ 17,629)
Axon 160.202.130.77 - Total Alpha Tokens: 4,347 (= $ 12,518)
Figure 8 compares the top 10 axons (by average rewards) based on BTC, ETH, and XAU modeling statistics: average intraday volatility, volatility variability, and average intraday kurtosis.
The two leading axons—116.202.53.142 and 95.216.99.113—shared similar modeling styles in terms of volatility and kurtosis. They successfully captured mid-week volatility spikes and the end-of-week drop.
While their volatility estimates reflected real-time market conditions effectively, both produced zero kurtosis forecasts throughout the week. This could indicate an area for strategic improvement that may offer an edge over other axons.
This week’s leaders were miners from axons 116.202.53.142 and 95.216.99.113, who demonstrated strong adaptability in capturing real-time asset volatility.
To further improve, these miners should consider incorporating non-zero kurtosis into their forecasts. Meanwhile, miners from other axons need to refine their volatility estimates to match the performance of the top groups.
Data From 2025-07-21 To 2025-07-27
With the current value of Synth Alpha, Synth paid 20,694 Alpha tokens to miners last week, equivalent to $59,599. Since March 2025, a total of 448,640 Alpha tokens have been distributed to miners, worth $1,292,083. On a monthly average since March 2025, Synth has paid $258,417 to miners, exceeding Numerai’s average monthly payout of $197,554.
Figure 1 illustrates hourly log returns and volatility for Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Gold (XAU) during the week.
Of the three assets, XAU was the least volatile, ETH the most, with BTC falling in between. The most volatile period occurred mid-week, from July 23 to July 25.
This week, we monitored the performance of six key miners:
Top Performers: Miners 85, 169, and 61
Dropped Out of Top Three: Miners 153, 65, and 154
Axon affiliations:
Miner 61, 85, 154 → axon 95.216.99.113
Miners 65, 153, 169 → axon 116.202.53.142
Performance was evaluated using two main 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.
For BTC, Miners 153 and 154 performed well early in the week. By Sunday, July 27, Miners 85, 169, and 61 were leading.
For ETH, Miners 85, 169, and 61 excelled on Tuesday, July 22, while Miners 65 and 154 stood out mid-week. Overall, all miners except Miner 65 performed consistently well throughout the week.
For XAU, Miner 61 demonstrated consistent strong performance mid-week, with all miners performing similarly at the start and end of the week.
Leaderboard Scores. These are exponentially weighted averages of past CRPS values over a 10-day window. Lower scores indicate better performance.
Miners 85, 169, and 61 consistently improved their scores during the week—dropping from just over 150 to around 110. In contrast, Miners 153, 65, and 154 had stable scores, fluctuating around 120–130.
Miner 65 saw a slight deterioration in its leaderboard score due to poor weekend performance, increasing from ~135 at the start to ~145 by week's end.
This section analyzes summary statistics—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.
Across all assets and metrics, miners showed highly similar distributional choices, likely due to shared axon affiliation. The only noticeable difference was in forecasted volatility for XAU, which was flatter and less variable for Miners 169 and 61 compared to others.
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.
Miners ranked 1–70 had very similar average weekly volatility and kurtosis across all assets. In contrast, lower-ranked miners exhibited much greater variability in these statistics, suggesting less consistency or riskier strategies.
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, ETH, and XAU forecasts)
Figure 6 shows the number of miners per axon at the end of the week.
Axon 116.202.53.142 had the largest group (47 miners)
Axon 95.216.99.113 increased from 20 to 24 miners
Axon 138.201.62.165 remained at 21 miners
Figure 7 shows the evolution of average (per miner) and total daily rewards for the top 10 axons by average reward.
As far as the weekly rewards are concerned: Axon 116.202.53.142 earned the most, also due to its size in terms of number of miners Axon 95.216.99.113 had higher per-miner rewards Axon 35.77.6.189 started strong but declined mid-week All-Time Rewards (Since May 19, 2025)
Axon 116.202.53.142 - Total Alpha Tokens: 55,501 (= $ 159,842)
Axon 95.216.99.113 - Total Alpha Tokens: 30,253 (= $ 87,128)
Axon 35.77.6.189 - Total Alpha Tokens: 26,250 (= $ 75,600)
Axon 186.233.184.223 - Total Alpha Tokens: 20,834 (= $ 60,001)
Axon 18.183.47.137 - Total Alpha Tokens: 13,666 (= $ 39,357)
Axon 3.112.97.164 - Total Alpha Tokens: 13,435 (= $ 38,693)
Axon 95.111.205.93 - Total Alpha Tokens: 8,456 (= $ 24,352)
Axon 35.78.218.102 - Total Alpha Tokens: 7,275 (= $ 20,953)
Axon 103.88.234.233 - Total Alpha Tokens: 6,121 (= $ 17,629)
Axon 160.202.130.77 - Total Alpha Tokens: 4,347 (= $ 12,518)
Figure 8 compares the top 10 axons (by average rewards) based on BTC, ETH, and XAU modeling statistics: average intraday volatility, volatility variability, and average intraday kurtosis.
The two leading axons—116.202.53.142 and 95.216.99.113—shared similar modeling styles in terms of volatility and kurtosis. They successfully captured mid-week volatility spikes and the end-of-week drop.
While their volatility estimates reflected real-time market conditions effectively, both produced zero kurtosis forecasts throughout the week. This could indicate an area for strategic improvement that may offer an edge over other axons.
This week’s leaders were miners from axons 116.202.53.142 and 95.216.99.113, who demonstrated strong adaptability in capturing real-time asset volatility.
To further improve, these miners should consider incorporating non-zero kurtosis into their forecasts. Meanwhile, miners from other axons need to refine their volatility estimates to match the performance of the top groups.
No activity yet