Something I've been thinking about: markets never actually trade on complete information. They trade on partial information, conflicting signals, and probabilistic assessments of what might be true.
By the time something becomes a confirmed fact, the price has already moved. The entire profit opportunity existed in the uncertainty phase—when information was emerging but unconfirmed.
@trade_rumour is built around this fundamental market reality.
Traditional finance has entire industries dedicated to extracting value from information before it becomes public. Sell-side research analysts maintain relationships with company management to get "color" on earnings before official releases. Hedge funds pay for satellite imagery of retail parking lots to estimate sales before quarterly reports. Credit analysts track shipping manifests to assess company health before financial statements publish.
None of this is illegal insider trading. It's all publicly available information that requires effort and network access to obtain. The edge comes from processing available information faster and more thoroughly than others.
Crypto markets operate identically, but the information sources differ. Protocol development happens in semi-public GitHub repos. Partnership discussions occur at conferences. Funding rounds close with term sheets signed weeks before announcements. Token unlocks are scheduled but not always prominently disclosed.
This information exists. It's accessible. But it's not equally distributed. Some people track GitHub commits daily. Some attend the right conferences. Some know which wallets to monitor for accumulation patterns.
Rumour.app creates a mechanism for surfacing this information through market incentives. If you're tracking developments closely and notice something significant before it's widely known, you can post it and take a position. Others evaluate your claim's credibility based on your track record, the specificity of the information, and their own research.
The market mechanism does something social media can't—it prices information quality. On Twitter, a random account and a well-connected insider look similar until after the fact. On Rumour.app, capital flows toward sources with better track records. Reputation becomes quantifiable through historical accuracy.
The philosophical question this raises: is this creating information inequality or just making existing inequality visible?
Information has always flowed through networks. Some people are positioned to learn things earlier through relationships, expertise, or dedicated research effort. That's not changing. What changes is whether that early information flows exclusively through private channels or gets surfaced publicly through incentive mechanisms.
There's legitimate discomfort with this model. It explicitly rewards information access, which correlates with existing privilege in many cases. People with conference budgets, industry connections, and time to research have inherent advantages.
But those advantages already exist and are already being monetized. The question is whether we prefer information advantages to be exercised through opaque private networks or through transparent markets where information quality is trackable.
You're trading the shape of information diffusion—how quickly is this rumor spreading, what's its probability of accuracy, when will it become confirmed public knowledge? That's fundamentally different from trading the underlying assets themselves.
Markets have always moved on rumor and speculation. Rumour.app just makes that mechanism explicit rather than pretending everyone operates on identical information sets simultaneously. #Traderumour @rumour.app