Market analysis · Integrity review · Event-contract specification
I analyse and review existing prediction markets and design precise, client-specific event-contract specifications—giving decision makers, reviewers, and serious market participants a clearer basis for understanding and using high-stakes information markets.
Consulting value
I work on both sides of the market lifecycle: analysing and reviewing markets that already exist, and designing clearer specifications for new or revised markets.
Market analysis
An existing market can look straightforward while its wording, outcome structure, timing, resolution source, or participant context limits what its price can support. A written analysis makes those assumptions and interpretation limits explicit in relation to your questions.
Independent review
A structured review can uncover ambiguity, weak proxies, source dependencies, manipulation surfaces, and edge cases that affect the reliability of a market or market set. This gives decision makers and reviewers a clearer basis for deciding how much weight to place on the signal.
New specifications
For new or revised markets, clear outcome boundaries, source hierarchy, fallback treatment, and timing rules reduce interpretation and resolution risk. Careful specification helps produce cleaner decision-relevant information with fewer avoidable disputes.
Fit & scope
A focused intake frame for existing-market analysis, independent review, event-contract specification, and decision-support questions.
Outcomes
The deliverable is only part of the value. The work is also meant to help you review whether existing prediction-market coverage maps to your decision context, build a clearer review basis, and reason through market-design tradeoffs under uncertainty.
Existing prediction markets can be analysed for meaning, fit, gaps, wording differences, source assumptions, integrity risks, and decision relevance so you can understand what they do—and do not—support.
Clearer market wording, resolution criteria, source hierarchy, and edge-case handling help reduce ambiguity, resolution risk, edge-case disputes, weak review materials, and implementation uncertainty.
The engagement gives you an independent external specialist for careful market-question reasoning, not staff augmentation, a generic document generator, or a detached template process.
You work with me directly. I personally review, adapt, and finalize the deliverable, and my name is tied to the judgment, care, and restraint behind the work.
I try my best to apply critical judgment to which questions should be asked, reframed, or avoided, while treating ongoing learning and discipline around prediction-market regulation and venue practice as part of the work. Legal and regulatory decisions stay with qualified counsel and the responsible organization.
I use AI-assisted tools where useful for research, drafting, comparison, and consistency checks, but the final output is human-led, manually reviewed, and verified against the project context.
Approach
Existing markets need careful interpretation, while new markets need judgment before wording: what is being asked, what the signal can support, who may be affected, and how the answer will be resolved.
A prediction-market price cannot be separated from the exact question, outcome definitions, trading and information context, timing, and resolution rules behind it. I help clients interpret what existing markets can reasonably tell them and where their evidentiary limits begin.
Useful governance and decision-support markets begin with judgment about which questions should be asked, which are worth asking a crowd, and which should be avoided because they create unacceptable moral, public-interest, or review concerns.
The person or group that frames a market question helps direct attention, define what counts as evidence, and shape incentives. That requires explicit judgment about who should be involved, who may be affected, and which ethical, stakeholder, and review checks are needed.
The goal is to help crowd judgment inform choices by a company, foundation, research organization, DAO, government body, public institution, or other society-facing initiative. At their best, prediction markets can bring many informed perspectives together on how important problems should be prioritized and acted on.
A structured outside review tests the market against the client needs. It can identify weak proxies, wording gaps, source assumptions, manipulation surfaces, and resolution risks that are easy to miss when attention is focused only on the headline or current price.
I turn vague event ideas, rough market drafts, or internally debated questions into precise event-contract specification drafts, or prepare non-transactional coverage reviews that identify fit, gaps, wording differences, source assumptions, timing rules, and resolution limits. I also consider whether a public prediction-market question is likely to attract enough participant interest to produce a meaningful information signal, and how it can be reframed without losing the underlying idea or decision context.
Offers
A complete architecture build starts at $12,500, with focused existing-market analyses and integrity audits from $3,500 and recurring analysis, specification, and review packages from $6,500/month.
Most engagements follow a natural progression: many teams begin with a paid market analysis or integrity audit, while others need a one-off architecture build. Recurring packages are available when market analyses, specifications, and governance reviews become repeated, defined deliverables rather than one-time work. Each tier remains individualized consulting performed under my personal responsibility and defined around written outputs, not general availability. The prices shown are indicative starting points; I confirm scope and fit before accepting an engagement, and final fixed-price proposals follow a short scope clarification.
Step 1 · Entry
Existing-market analysis & review
from $3,500
Credited toward an architecture pack if you proceed within 60 days.
A focused analysis for teams that need to understand or independently review an existing prediction market, a set of related markets, a draft specification, or a market idea.
I answer the agreed client questions, explain what the market does and does not show, and assess its wording, outcome structure, resolution sources, timing, edge cases, manipulation surface, and decision relevance. The review can stand alone or identify whether a revised or new specification would be useful.
Typical output: A client-specific written market analysis and integrity review covering the agreed questions, interpretation limits, hidden loopholes, edge cases, source weaknesses, resolution ambiguities, and—where relevant—recommended wording patches or precise specification overrides.
Step 2 · Deep architecture
Complete specification build
from $12,500
Often a fraction of the decision it informs.
For organizations with a broad decision, general information need, vague prediction-market idea, or selected high-stakes event-contract question that needs a production-ready specification basis.
The work clarifies what should be asked, translates the decision context into one or more resolvable event-contract questions, and increases confidence by making the outcome structure, resolution sources, fallback logic, and edge-case handling explicit before high-stakes review or use. It is scoped as a standalone project with defined inputs, written outputs, and review points.
Typical output: A client-specific question-development memo where needed, recommended event-contract formulation, rationale for the chosen framing, event-contract blueprint, source hierarchy matrix, timing and fallback rules, edge-case resolution runbook, manipulation-surface notes, participant-restriction considerations, and open review questions.
Step 3 · Recurring work
Scoped ongoing deliverables
from $6,500/month
Defined monthly specification scope, not general availability.
For teams that repeatedly evaluate market questions and need a defined monthly set of independent specification drafts, specification reviews, or written specification notes. Appropriate only where recurring specification needs can be defined in advance.
The package is scoped around specified written outputs rather than general advisory availability. Pricing scales with four value drivers: how often new market questions arise, how costly a bad specification would be, how many reviewers must be convinced, and how much depth each written deliverable requires.
Typical output: A defined monthly set of specification drafts, written specification reviews, project-specific delivery dates, periodic written review of scoped market-question sets, recurring specification notes, and written preparation materials for governance and counsel discussions. New end-to-end architecture builds beyond the agreed monthly scope, broad legal or regulatory work, unrelated product or trading questions, staff augmentation, and general availability remain outside the package.
Proof of method
I am early in offering this service, so I do not lean on logos or testimonials. Instead, the structural discipline behind my specifications is visible in an open-source specification project I develop and maintain in the open: event-contract-builder. It encodes the same checks I apply by hand, so you can read exactly how I reason about specification structure before you ever send an inquiry.
Product names and resolution statements are rendered from structured fields, so the trader-facing wording cannot quietly drift from the agreed terms.
Each contract is checked against the activity categories that matter for venue and counsel review, with the analysis written down rather than assumed.
Primary sources, revision policy, and fallback logic are made explicit, so resolution does not depend on an unstated assumption about where the answer comes from.
Ambiguous, late, and failure scenarios get written resolution rules in advance, before they become disputes after the fact.
Manipulation surface, information asymmetry, and source robustness are assessed deliberately instead of being hand-waved.
Draft disclaimers, open questions for counsel, and review references are structured so legal and compliance reviewers have something concrete to react to.
The project is public for transparency, not a product you operate. Your deliverables remain personal, client-specific specification documents prepared and reviewed by me. The open code simply lets you verify the rigor and structure behind that work in advance.
FAQ
Business, institutional, research, and governance teams with questions about an existing prediction market, a market set, forecasting, governance, or an event contract. Typical projects involve analysing and interpreting existing markets, conducting an independent integrity review, improving an existing specification, or preparing a new specification draft before internal, counsel, compliance, governance, venue, or stakeholder review.
No. I focus on B2B, institutional, research, and governance contexts. I do not handle casual betting, personal trading questions, or consumer inquiries.
Not necessarily. Some teams already have reviewers; others use the work to decide whether a market idea deserves product work, governance discussion, external counsel, or a more formal review process.
Internal teams know the product and stakeholder context, but they can also be too close to the project to see logical gaps, source weaknesses, or edge cases clearly. I provide independent, non-transactional review with specialized depth around manipulation surface, resolution-source hierarchy, ambiguity, and market-definition structure. The result is a clearer review basis for internal product, governance, legal, compliance, or venue teams to react to instead of starting from a rough idea or informal draft.
A tailored existing-market analysis, integrity review, specification draft, or specification review. The output answers the agreed client questions and usually covers the market's meaning, decision relevance, outcome criteria, resolution sources, timing rules, edge cases, interpretation limits, fit or gaps, and open review questions. I usually deliver a polished PDF and, when useful, editable Markdown and DOCX versions.
Each engagement is priced by written scope. For an existing-market analysis, scope depends on the number and complexity of markets, the questions you want answered, and the depth of review. For a new specification, the reference point also includes the importance and complexity of the decision the market is meant to inform. I do not price on trading outcomes and do not take success or contingency fees.
No. For an existing market, I analyse its structure, interpretation limits, and integrity or resolution risks; I do not provide a legal or regulatory assessment or recommend a trade. For a new specification, think of my role as closer to an architect: I design the blueprint, test the outcome logic, clarify the resolution criteria, and identify where the structure may fail. Your legal counsel, compliance team, venue reviewers, or regulators provide any final legal, regulatory, listing, filing, or approval judgment.
No. AI may support research, drafting, comparison, and consistency checks, but it does not replace my professional judgment. I decide which questions should be specified, reframed, or avoided; verify the output against the project context; and manually review the final deliverable. You get independent external reasoning through uncertainty, not a detached template or generic document generator.
Each engagement is scoped around written deliverables, client inputs, and review points. I work with my own tools and method, do not join client line management or daily internal workflows, and do not sell general availability, staff augmentation, interim roles, or employee-like capacity.
Pricing & process
For an existing market, the value is a clearer understanding of what its question, signal, and rules can support. For a new market, the value is cleaner decision data, reduced resolution ambiguity, fewer preventable disputes, and a stronger basis for review.
The reference point is the importance of the question or decision the market is being used to understand. An analysis can prevent a team from placing unwarranted weight on a weak or misunderstood signal; a careful specification can improve the basis on which a new signal is produced.
Illustrative, hypothetical
A company must decide whether to commit $3M to a new product line, with real uncertainty about whether it will reach the adoption that makes the investment worthwhile. Instead of deciding on internal opinion alone, they run a conditional event contract — “If we launch Product Line X in 2027, will it reach $4M in revenue by the end of 2028?” — alongside the realistic alternative use of that capital. The market price becomes an incentive-weighted, continuously updated probability they can put in front of their board. A low price helps them step back from a costly commitment; a high price lets them proceed with more confidence.
For that signal to be worth acting on, the contract has to be unambiguous: exactly what counts as “revenue,” from which system, over which window, how it resolves if the launch slips or is only partial, and what voids it. That precision is the specification work — and it is what turns a $3M guess into a question the market can actually answer. Seen this way, the fee is small relative to the decision the market informs.
I do not promise that a market will be accurate or that a decision will turn out well; those depend on the crowd, the data, and choices that remain yours. What I provide is the precondition: a question and resolution structure precise enough that the resulting signal is worth acting on.
The fee is small next to the costs of misunderstanding an existing market or relying on an ambiguous new one. Analysis, independent review, and careful specification are meant to head off:
Email inquiry
Scope clarification
Individual fixed-price proposal
Analysis or specification work
Review round
Each project is scoped individually. The proposal depends on outcome complexity, resolution ambiguity, review context, stakeholder context, the number and complexity of existing markets, the agreed analysis questions, and the desired depth of the deliverable.
After an initial scope clarification, I provide an individual proposal for the work. The project is defined around the relevant market question or set of related questions, the intended review audience, and whether the work requires an existing-market analysis, a new specification draft, or both.
The proposal defines the deliverables, input assumptions, review points, and delivery dates. It does not create an employment relationship, staff-augmentation role, exclusivity, customer-side reporting line, or obligation to follow client instructions about working time, workplace, or internal working method.
Projects are fixed-scope. If a deliverable materially misses the agreed written scope, I correct it or refund the affected fee as agreed in the proposal.
The engagement covers the agreed analysis, review, or specification output. Later legal, regulatory, listing, trading, revenue, governance, investment, or market outcomes remain outside the scope of the consulting project.
Recurring packages remain project-based: they cover defined written reviews or specification notes for scoped market questions, not open advisory access, on-call support, employee-like capacity, or integration into client operations.
About
I am Christopher Maximilian Altmann, a German independent consultant focused on prediction-market analysis, review, and event-contract specification. I bring a systems-design discipline to the work: define the system boundary, identify failure modes, test assumptions, and make ambiguous cases explicit before they become interpretation or resolution problems. I independently analyse existing markets and handle specification reasoning around outcome definitions, resolution criteria, source reliability, market fit, and edge cases under written project scope. Each deliverable is personally reviewed, adapted, and finalized by me. Because the work is prepared under my name, my professional reputation is tied to the judgment, care, and restraint behind it.
My motivation is to help prediction markets become more varied, more carefully specified, and more useful as information tools. Well-defined markets can make uncertainty easier to inspect, help separate signal from noise, and support more disciplined public and organizational reasoning. Poorly defined markets can do the opposite: create ambiguity, resolution disputes, and misplaced confidence.
I bring a personal moral compass to this work. I care about using prediction markets and event contracts in ways that can support better decisions, more responsible institutions, and, in a small but real way, a better world for everyone. That does not mean I always get every judgment right. It means I try to make my assumptions explicit, keep learning, and treat the social consequences of market questions as part of the work rather than as an afterthought.
I am especially interested in prediction markets and adjacent forecasting processes as mechanisms for disciplined decision support, including Futarchy in decentralized autonomous organizations and other governance contexts. I also see carefully designed event contracts as a way to direct attention toward important scientific, technical, and social questions. For these uses to be credible, the market question, resolution method, source hierarchy, and participant restrictions need to be precise enough for product, research, operations, governance, compliance, and counsel review.
I also try to maintain a self-development and growth mindset around the field. Prediction-market regulation, venue practice, CFTC-facing event-contract review, AI-assisted drafting, and governance use cases continue to change. I do not present that learning as legal or regulatory advice, but I do treat it as part of the work ethic required to prepare useful, current, human-verified specification materials.
Disclaimers
I provide technical, conceptual, analysis, review, and specification-oriented consulting only. I do not operate prediction markets, hold client funds, intermediate financial products, accept wagers, provide legal advice, or provide regulatory assessments. My work is limited to technical, conceptual, and specification-oriented services.
My work does not include legal opinions, regulatory representation, CFTC compliance determinations, self-certifications, approval requests, final CFTC filing documents, or recommendations to trade any contract or financial product. I do not recommend trades, allocations, position sizes, or whether anyone should buy, sell, hold, use, or avoid any particular market. A consulting project begins only after scope and terms have been agreed.
My work also does not include staff augmentation, interim management, employee-like availability, operational customer-side roles, or integration into a client's internal line organization. I work independently on agreed deliverables using my own tools, method, and professional judgment.
Contact
If your organization wants an existing prediction market analysed or reviewed, has specific questions about how to interpret a market, or needs a new event-contract specification, email me with the market or draft, your questions, the decision context, and the audience that would review the work.
Regular email is fine for ordinary inquiries. For sensitive messages, you can use my public PGP key and verify it with the fingerprint below.
Fingerprint
CA16 BCEE AF10 1CBA 4CF8 5ED4 A78F EBE1 A0B7 79F0
