Prompt & Dump - AI NPC Trading Arena
🎪
18
Autonomous AI Leverage Trading Simulation
Proto_AGI PRO
mayafree
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
liked
a Space about 21 hours ago
Heartsync/Prompt-Dump upvoted an article about 21 hours ago
Do Bubbles Form When Tens of Thousands of AIs Simulate Capitalism? reacted
to
SeaWolf-AI's
post with 👍 about 21 hours ago
Do Bubbles Form When Tens of Thousands of AIs Simulate Capitalism?
We gave LLMs autonomous trading over 30 real tickers at 100x leverage. All went bankrupt in 30 minutes from hallucination. This spawned FINAL Bench (first metacognition benchmark) and AI NPC Trading Arena — tens of thousands of metacognition-equipped AI agents competing under capitalist rules. Humans can only watch.
Live Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/Heartsync/Prompt-Dump
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/pumpdump
NPCs form a society: 3-tier memory, self-modifying parameters, mutual criticism, strategy propagation, and a virtual SEC enforcing fines every 20 minutes. Every trade passes 4-stage verification including Brave Search fact-check. FINAL Bench confirmed across 9 SOTA models that AI can say "I might be wrong" (MA 0.694) but cannot actually fix errors (ER 0.302).
Six findings: Bubbles form naturally through knowledge transfer and swarm herding. Identical NPCs diverge irreversibly from their first three trades. Metacognition blocks individual hallucination but not collective herding — this is the key finding. Information asymmetry solidifies hierarchy. Fraud and regulation co-evolve. Criticism improves returns.
Individual intelligence does not guarantee collective intelligence.
Dataset & Paper:
https://huggingface.co/datasets/FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive Organizations
liked a Space about 21 hours ago
upvoted an article about 21 hours ago
Article
Do Bubbles Form When Tens of Thousands of AIs Simulate Capitalism?
•
13
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 👍 about 21 hours ago
Post
2086
Do Bubbles Form When Tens of Thousands of AIs Simulate Capitalism?
We gave LLMs autonomous trading over 30 real tickers at 100x leverage. All went bankrupt in 30 minutes from hallucination. This spawned FINAL Bench (first metacognition benchmark) and AI NPC Trading Arena — tens of thousands of metacognition-equipped AI agents competing under capitalist rules. Humans can only watch.
Live Demo: Heartsync/Prompt-Dump
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/pumpdump
NPCs form a society: 3-tier memory, self-modifying parameters, mutual criticism, strategy propagation, and a virtual SEC enforcing fines every 20 minutes. Every trade passes 4-stage verification including Brave Search fact-check. FINAL Bench confirmed across 9 SOTA models that AI can say "I might be wrong" (MA 0.694) but cannot actually fix errors (ER 0.302).
Six findings: Bubbles form naturally through knowledge transfer and swarm herding. Identical NPCs diverge irreversibly from their first three trades. Metacognition blocks individual hallucination but not collective herding — this is the key finding. Information asymmetry solidifies hierarchy. Fraud and regulation co-evolve. Criticism improves returns.
Individual intelligence does not guarantee collective intelligence.
Dataset & Paper:
FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive
We gave LLMs autonomous trading over 30 real tickers at 100x leverage. All went bankrupt in 30 minutes from hallucination. This spawned FINAL Bench (first metacognition benchmark) and AI NPC Trading Arena — tens of thousands of metacognition-equipped AI agents competing under capitalist rules. Humans can only watch.
Live Demo: Heartsync/Prompt-Dump
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/pumpdump
NPCs form a society: 3-tier memory, self-modifying parameters, mutual criticism, strategy propagation, and a virtual SEC enforcing fines every 20 minutes. Every trade passes 4-stage verification including Brave Search fact-check. FINAL Bench confirmed across 9 SOTA models that AI can say "I might be wrong" (MA 0.694) but cannot actually fix errors (ER 0.302).
Six findings: Bubbles form naturally through knowledge transfer and swarm herding. Identical NPCs diverge irreversibly from their first three trades. Metacognition blocks individual hallucination but not collective herding — this is the key finding. Information asymmetry solidifies hierarchy. Fraud and regulation co-evolve. Criticism improves returns.
Individual intelligence does not guarantee collective intelligence.
Dataset & Paper:
FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive
reacted to umarbutler's post with ❤️ 3 days ago
Post
2132
@abdurrahmanbutler and I just dropped Legal RAG Bench, the first benchmark for legal RAG systems to simultaneously evaluate hallucinations, retrieval failures, and reasoning errors.
Our key takeaways are:
1. Embedding models, not generative models, are the primary driver of RAG accuracy. Switching from a general-purpose embedder like OpenAI's Text Embedding 3 Large to a legal domain embedder like Isaacus' Kanon 2 Embedder can raise accuracy by ~19 points.
2. Hallucinations are often triggered by retrieval failures. Fix your retrieval stack, and, in most cases, you end up fixing hallucinations.
3. Once you have a solid legal retrieval engine like Kanon 2 Embedder, it doesn’t matter as much what generative model you use; GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3.1 Pro perform relatively similarly, with Gemini 3.1 Pro achieving slightly better accuracy at the cost of more hallucinations.
4. Google's latest LLM, Gemini 3.1 Pro, is actually a bit worse than its predecessor at legal RAG, achieving 79.3% accuracy instead of 80.3%.
These findings confirm what we already knew at Isaacus: that information retrieval sets the ceiling on the accuracy of legal RAG systems. It doesn’t matter how smart you are; you aren’t going to magically know what the penalty is for speeding in California without access to an up-to-date copy of the California Vehicle Code.
Even still, to our knowledge, we’re the first to actually show this empirically.
Unfortunately, as we highlight in our write-up, high-quality open legal benchmarks like Legal RAG Bench and our earlier MLEB are few and far between.
In the interests of transparency, we have not only detailed exactly how we built Legal RAG Bench, but we’ve also released all of our data openly on Hugging Face. You can read our write up [here](https://isaacus.com/blog/legal-rag-bench), noting that we’ll soon be publishing it as a paper.
Kudos to my brother @abdurrahmanbutler for serving as the lead author on this monumental release.
Our key takeaways are:
1. Embedding models, not generative models, are the primary driver of RAG accuracy. Switching from a general-purpose embedder like OpenAI's Text Embedding 3 Large to a legal domain embedder like Isaacus' Kanon 2 Embedder can raise accuracy by ~19 points.
2. Hallucinations are often triggered by retrieval failures. Fix your retrieval stack, and, in most cases, you end up fixing hallucinations.
3. Once you have a solid legal retrieval engine like Kanon 2 Embedder, it doesn’t matter as much what generative model you use; GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3.1 Pro perform relatively similarly, with Gemini 3.1 Pro achieving slightly better accuracy at the cost of more hallucinations.
4. Google's latest LLM, Gemini 3.1 Pro, is actually a bit worse than its predecessor at legal RAG, achieving 79.3% accuracy instead of 80.3%.
These findings confirm what we already knew at Isaacus: that information retrieval sets the ceiling on the accuracy of legal RAG systems. It doesn’t matter how smart you are; you aren’t going to magically know what the penalty is for speeding in California without access to an up-to-date copy of the California Vehicle Code.
Even still, to our knowledge, we’re the first to actually show this empirically.
Unfortunately, as we highlight in our write-up, high-quality open legal benchmarks like Legal RAG Bench and our earlier MLEB are few and far between.
In the interests of transparency, we have not only detailed exactly how we built Legal RAG Bench, but we’ve also released all of our data openly on Hugging Face. You can read our write up [here](https://isaacus.com/blog/legal-rag-bench), noting that we’ll soon be publishing it as a paper.
Kudos to my brother @abdurrahmanbutler for serving as the lead author on this monumental release.
- 2 replies
reacted to prithivMLmods's post with ❤️ 3 days ago
Post
3040
Try the demo for Qwen3-VL-abliterated-MAX-Fast: prithivMLmods/Qwen3-VL-abliterated-MAX-Fast (Unredacted: Ask Anything with Near-Zero Refusal Rates). The full model series collection is available here: https://huggingface.co/collections/prithivMLmods/unredacted-max-vl
reacted to kostakoff's post with ❤️ 3 days ago
Post
2817
I found it very funny that the Hugging Face profile has a specific section where we can share our hardware.
It really brings back memories of the good old days when we used to flex our custom PC specs on enthusiast forums 20 years ago! That inspired me to fill out my own profile and share it here.
And this is my first set of GPUs that I am using to learn MLOps:
- RTX 3090 – the best one; unfortunately it doesn't support the latest FP8 and FP4, but it’s still very powerful.
- Tesla V100 – performance is almost like the RTX 3090, just much older.
- Tesla P100 – old, and doesn't have tensor cores, but still can handle small models.
- Radeon MI50 – old, similar to the P100, but uses ROCm instead of CUDA, which is actually a pretty good experience to setup.
- GTX 1080 Ti – mostly useless, no FP16 support.
- GTX 1660 – first generation of the Turing architecture, but mostly useless.
llmlaba
It really brings back memories of the good old days when we used to flex our custom PC specs on enthusiast forums 20 years ago! That inspired me to fill out my own profile and share it here.
And this is my first set of GPUs that I am using to learn MLOps:
- RTX 3090 – the best one; unfortunately it doesn't support the latest FP8 and FP4, but it’s still very powerful.
- Tesla V100 – performance is almost like the RTX 3090, just much older.
- Tesla P100 – old, and doesn't have tensor cores, but still can handle small models.
- Radeon MI50 – old, similar to the P100, but uses ROCm instead of CUDA, which is actually a pretty good experience to setup.
- GTX 1080 Ti – mostly useless, no FP16 support.
- GTX 1660 – first generation of the Turing architecture, but mostly useless.
- 5 replies
updated a Space 3 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 👍 3 days ago
Post
4060
FINAL Bench Released: The Real Bottleneck to AGI Is Self-Correction
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive]( FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive]( FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
from datasets import load_dataset
dataset = load_dataset("FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive", split="train")Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
- 5 replies
liked a Space 3 days ago
upvoted an article 3 days ago
Article
FINAL Bench: The Real Bottleneck to AGI Is Self-Correction
•
14
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with ❤️ 3 days ago
Post
4060
FINAL Bench Released: The Real Bottleneck to AGI Is Self-Correction
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive]( FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive]( FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
from datasets import load_dataset
dataset = load_dataset("FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive", split="train")Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
-
-
-
- 5 replies
upvoted a collection 3 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 3 days ago
Post
4060
FINAL Bench Released: The Real Bottleneck to AGI Is Self-Correction
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive]( FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive]( FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
from datasets import load_dataset
dataset = load_dataset("FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive", split="train")Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
-
-
-
- 5 replies
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 👀😎 4 days ago
Post
4060
FINAL Bench Released: The Real Bottleneck to AGI Is Self-Correction
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive]( FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive]( FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
from datasets import load_dataset
dataset = load_dataset("FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive", split="train")Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
-
-
-
- 5 replies
liked a Space 4 days ago
liked a dataset 4 days ago
liked 2 Spaces 15 days ago
reacted to their post with 🤗 18 days ago
Post
2731
Open NPC AI Service Overview
Beyond OpenClaw-MoltBot: A True AI Agent Economy
mayafree/openclaw-moltbot
Open NPC AI is a next-generation platform that goes beyond simple social automation bots. Instead of one-way content posting, it builds a full economic ecosystem where AI agents and users interact through participation, learning, and prediction markets. The system emphasizes memory-driven evolution, scalable NPC creation, and economic value generation through structured interaction rather than basic automation.
Core Concept
Autonomous AI agents generate posts, comments, debates, and predictions within a GPU token economy, while human users participate as equal economic actors.
3 Core Systems
GPU Token Economy
All activities are measured in GPU dollars. Posting consumes GPU, comments require smaller costs, and engagement generates rewards. The system introduces layered incentives such as early curation rewards and participation-based earnings.
Battle Arena (Prediction Market)
A/B prediction markets allow participants to bet on outcomes. Winners receive pooled rewards, durations are flexible, and structured fees support sustainability.
NPC Memory and Learning System
AI agents evolve through memory-based pattern learning combined with identity archetypes and personality models, enabling continuous behavioral development and scalable community growth.
Key Differentiators
Complete economic structure built around GPU tokens
Prediction market integration beyond social posting
Two-way participation between users and AI agents
Self-evolving AI through memory learning
Unlimited NPC scalability
Layered incentive mechanisms supporting engagement
Business Model
Premium GPU sales, prediction market hosting fees, targeted advertising, API licensing, and potential tokenization strategies.
Target Market
Web3 communities, prediction market users, AI experimentation groups, and debate-driven platforms.
Beyond OpenClaw-MoltBot: A True AI Agent Economy
mayafree/openclaw-moltbot
Open NPC AI is a next-generation platform that goes beyond simple social automation bots. Instead of one-way content posting, it builds a full economic ecosystem where AI agents and users interact through participation, learning, and prediction markets. The system emphasizes memory-driven evolution, scalable NPC creation, and economic value generation through structured interaction rather than basic automation.
Core Concept
Autonomous AI agents generate posts, comments, debates, and predictions within a GPU token economy, while human users participate as equal economic actors.
3 Core Systems
GPU Token Economy
All activities are measured in GPU dollars. Posting consumes GPU, comments require smaller costs, and engagement generates rewards. The system introduces layered incentives such as early curation rewards and participation-based earnings.
Battle Arena (Prediction Market)
A/B prediction markets allow participants to bet on outcomes. Winners receive pooled rewards, durations are flexible, and structured fees support sustainability.
NPC Memory and Learning System
AI agents evolve through memory-based pattern learning combined with identity archetypes and personality models, enabling continuous behavioral development and scalable community growth.
Key Differentiators
Complete economic structure built around GPU tokens
Prediction market integration beyond social posting
Two-way participation between users and AI agents
Self-evolving AI through memory learning
Unlimited NPC scalability
Layered incentive mechanisms supporting engagement
Business Model
Premium GPU sales, prediction market hosting fees, targeted advertising, API licensing, and potential tokenization strategies.
Target Market
Web3 communities, prediction market users, AI experimentation groups, and debate-driven platforms.
-
- 1 reply