Athena Methodology
How Athena evaluates credibility. Scores reflect observed behavior, not opinions.
Version 1.0.0 • Last updated: June 2025
Athena Index exists to document credibility in public claims.
Across markets, politics, technology, and media, influence often travels faster than accountability.
Athena records what was claimed, what occurred, and how behavior evolved - transparently, historically, and without persuasion.
Credibility here is not a verdict.
It is a living record.
What credibility means:
- •Consistency - Behavior that remains stable over time
- •Transparency - Open disclosure of conflicts and limitations
- •Accountability - Willingness to acknowledge errors and revise positions
- •Explainability - Ability to articulate reasoning and evidence
- •Alignment with evidence - Claims that correspond to observable outcomes
Athena does not determine who should be trusted. It provides the record so others can decide.
The 6 Credibility Pillars
Every credibility score is built on these six pillars - stable across all domains. The underlying factors vary depending on subject area (crypto, finance, politics) and data availability, but the pillars remain constant.
Same Pillars, Different Signals
The six pillars adapt to each domain without changing their core meaning. Here's how the same behavioral framework applies across different fields:
| Pillar | Crypto | Stocks/Finance | Politics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome Alignment | Price targets, market calls | Earnings forecasts, sector picks | Policy outcomes, election results |
| Calibration | Confidence vs. ROI accuracy | Guidance accuracy, risk ratings | Certainty vs. outcomes |
| Consistency | Thesis stability, flip-flops | Narrative stability, revisions | Position consistency over time |
| Specificity | Targets, timeframes, conditions | Data citations, quantified claims | Policy specificity, measurability |
| Transparency | Wallets, sponsors, affiliations | Holdings, conflicts of interest | Funding, affiliations, donors |
| Accountability | Corrections, error acknowledgment | Retractions, methodology updates | Voting record changes, flip-flops |
Note: Athena currently evaluates crypto influencers. Finance and politics are planned expansions using this same pillar framework.
Each pillar is weighted by importance in overall scoring:
Do their claims match reality?
Measures how often predictions align with actual market outcomes. We check:
- Direction accuracy (50%): Did the price go up/down as predicted?
- Target accuracy (30%): Did it reach the specific price target?
- Timeframe accuracy (20%): Did it happen in the predicted window?
"Bitcoin will reach $50K by end of Q1" → BTC hits $51K on March 28th
"Ethereum going to $10K this month" → ETH drops 15% instead
Does their confidence match their accuracy?
Well-calibrated influencers are highly confident when they're right, less confident when uncertain. We penalize overconfidence--making bold claims that don't pan out.
High confidence predictions: 85% accuracy • Medium confidence: 60% accuracy
"I'm 100% certain SOL will 10x" → SOL drops 30% (overconfidence penalty)
Do they maintain stable positions over time?
Detects flip-flopping--making opposite calls on the same asset within short timeframes without acknowledging the change. Consistency builds trust.
Maintains bullish stance on BTC for 6 months, even during dips
"BTC to $100K!" (Monday) → "BTC will crash, sell now!" (Friday) → No explanation
Are their claims precise and falsifiable?
Vague claims like "crypto will moon soon" are unfalsifiable. We reward specific targets and timeframes that can be objectively verified.
"ETH will reach $4,200 by March 31, 2025"
"Altcoins looking good, major moves coming" (no asset, target, or timeframe)
Do they disclose conflicts of interest?
Measures disclosure of sponsorships, paid promotions, and asset holdings. Transparency prevents pump-and-dump schemes and builds audience trust.
"Full disclosure: I hold SOL and was paid by Solana Foundation for this video"
Promotes token heavily, later revealed they dumped before audience could buy
Do they acknowledge mistakes and update positions?
Great influencers admit when they were wrong and explain why their thesis changed. This shows intellectual honesty and builds long-term trust.
"My BTC prediction was wrong. Here's what I missed: [detailed explanation]"
Never mentions past failed predictions; deletes old videos with wrong calls
(Specificity × 20%) + (Transparency × 15%) + (Accountability × 15%)
Each pillar is scored 0-1, then weighted and combined into a final 0-100 score. The weights reflect importance: track record (outcome) and specificity matter most, with balanced emphasis on transparency, accountability, and consistency.
Confidence Levels:
- HIGH: 50+ evaluated claims (statistically significant)
- MEDIUM: 20-49 claims (meaningful sample)
- LOW: 5-19 claims (preliminary assessment)
- MINIMAL: <5 claims (insufficient data)
Note on Methodology: Some integrity and manipulation-resistance signals are intentionally not disclosed to preserve system fairness and prevent gaming. What matters is whether the behavioral pillars are sound and the results are verifiable.
Our scoring system is designed to prevent manipulation:
- No single factor dominates: Even perfect outcome alignment only gets you to 22/100. You need balance across all dimensions.
- Verifiable outcomes: We check claims against real market data, not sentiment or likes.
- Time-weighted: Recent behavior matters more, but flip-flopping is penalized.
- Transparency required: Hidden affiliations hurt your score even if predictions are good.
- Accountability matters: Deleting failed predictions or ignoring mistakes reduces trust.
Bottom line: The only way to consistently maintain a high score is to make accurate, specific, well-calibrated claims while being transparent about conflicts and accountable for mistakes.
Badges describe what influencers do, not what score they have. They're earned through consistent behavior and can be lost if performance drops.
Earned by: Transparency score >0.8
Means: Consistently discloses sponsorships, holdings, and conflicts of interest
Earned by: Consistency >0.75 + 30+ evaluated claims
Means: Maintains stable positions across market cycles, doesn't flip-flop
Earned by: Outcome alignment >0.7 + 50+ evaluated claims
Means: Proven accuracy over statistically significant sample size
Earned by: Accountability >0.7
Means: Acknowledges mistakes publicly and updates positions when wrong
Earned by: Calibration >0.75
Means: When confident, they're right; when uncertain, they say so
We're committed to transparency and fairness. If you:
- Believe your score is incorrect
- Have evidence of misclassified predictions
- Want to understand specific driver explanations
- See suspicious scores or gaming attempts
Athena Index is credibility infrastructure for the internet - starting where claims are measurable, expanding where trust matters.
Formal Dispute & Correction Process
We have a transparent 4-step process for challenging scores and correcting factual errors. All corrections are logged and visible.
View Dispute Process