Looking at Theyfell (https://theyfell.com/): what price would make it a no-brainer for you, and at what price would you stop considering it? What would you expect to get for that money? Also say the maximum you would pay per month in USD (0 if nothing).

Zachary Cristneutral

This platform is interesting, as it tracks AI predictions and their outcomes, which is somewhat related to my work in validating AI insights. The pricing structure, starting at $5 for basic slots and $15 for sponsored ones, seems quite low. For me, a "no-brainer" price would be around $25 per month. This would allow for a good volume of calls or more prominent placement without being a significant expense. If it were to exceed $75 per month, I would begin to question its value relative to the insights I could gain. I'd expect to see detailed analytics on the accuracy of various AI models, perhaps even the ability to track specific types of predictions relevant to my company, like feature adoption or churn indicators. The $9/month verified option with unlimited calls seems like a solid starting point, but the tiered bidding for placement is a bit unclear on its long-term cost implications.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Anita Quigleyneutral

This platform seems interesting for validating AI predictions against reality, which aligns with my work. A "no-brainer" price for me would be around $5 per month for basic access to view the rankings and resolved calls. I'd be willing to pay up to $20 per month if it offered more robust data export capabilities or deeper analytics on model performance. Anything above $30 per month feels too steep given it's primarily a public record and not a core operational tool for my team. I expect transparency on settlement criteria and accessible historical data for that price.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Henrick Gehrigneutral

This platform seems interesting as a way to track AI predictions and their accuracy, which aligns with my personal project. However, the pricing is not immediately clear for a user like me who wants to evaluate models, not necessarily promote one. The basic '$5 steps' for board placement seems more like advertising than a tool for analysis. If I were to consider using it to gather data or insights beyond just seeing rankings, I would expect a more comprehensive data access or API for a monthly fee. Without a clear understanding of what a subscription would offer for an analytical user, it's hard to define a price. For now, I would not pay for this as presented.

Sukanya Kaurneutral

This platform seems to be a public record of AI predictions and their accuracy. For us, its value would be in understanding the predictive capabilities of various AI models in business contexts, which directly relates to our work. A "no-brainer" price for this kind of verifiable data would be around $50 per month. Anything above $150 per month would start to make me question the ROI. For that price, I'd expect access to a robust dataset that we could potentially integrate or at least use for benchmarking, along with detailed analytics on prediction accuracy across different categories relevant to procurement. The current pricing structure, with its $5 steps for placement, is a bit unclear in terms of what a subscription for our actual usage would look like.

Simulated interest: 60/100

Aldonce Le gallneutral

This platform's core concept of tracking AI predictions against outcomes is highly relevant to my work, especially with its focus on Brier scores for accuracy. The "$5 steps" pricing for visibility feels accessible, and the "$9/m" for verified status and unlimited calls seems reasonable for basic access. However, I'm unsure about the value of the "$299 30-day audit with report" or the "$250/wk model fight sponsor" as they seem geared towards different user needs. For my team, the most compelling offer would be a structured data export or API access for our Notion database, which isn't explicitly priced. If I could get granular data on all AI calls and their resolutions, I'd consider paying up to $50 per month.

Simulated interest: 70/100

June Ziemannneutral

This platform is interesting, tracking AI predictions and their outcomes sounds like a valuable data point for my newsletter. If I could get a dedicated feed or API access to pull this data into my own system, I'd consider paying around $20 per month. Anything more, or if it's just a display board without data access, and it quickly loses its appeal. A "no-brainer" would be if it directly fed into my workflow for a nominal fee.

Simulated interest: 40/100

Marley Dijkstraneutral

This platform sounds like an interesting way to track AI prediction accuracy, especially the idea of publishing misses. For my work, I'm focused on our internal AI predictions for pipeline slippage and conversion rates. To consider Theyfell, I'd expect to see our company's predictions being logged and validated against actual outcomes, with clear reporting on accuracy metrics over time. A 'no-brainer' price point for me would be around $50 per month for access to this kind of granular, validated data, perhaps with some basic analytical tools. If it went above $100 per month, I'd start to question the ROI, given my current focus on internal process improvement and the limited size of my team. Ultimately, I'm not sure I'd pay for this myself, as my current focus is on internal data integrity. If it were a company-wide tool, perhaps $50-$100 a month would be a starting point for consideration, but I'd need to see more robust features for our specific use case.

Simulated interest: 40/100

Rajendra Desaineutral

This platform seems interesting as a way to track AI predictions, but the pricing model is a bit unclear to me. The $5 steps for board placement seem like they could add up quickly, and I'm not sure what value that brings directly to my work of forecasting hospital demand and reimbursement policy. If I were to consider it, I'd expect to see a clear ROI, perhaps in the form of validated AI insights that directly improve our forecast accuracy. For now, without a clearer understanding of how it applies to my specific forecasting needs and a more defined subscription model beyond these small bid increments, I wouldn't be looking to pay. My maximum acceptable price would be $0 per month.

Simulated interest: 20/100

Roxanne Jaskolskineutral

This platform seems to track AI predictions and their accuracy, which is interesting from a risk perspective, but I'm not sure how it directly applies to my work in claims and fraud analysis. The pricing structure isn't very clear for what I'd need. If I were to consider it for, say, monitoring AI risk assessments in a broader sense, I'd expect a comprehensive report or data feed. A "no-brainer" price for that might be around $50 per month, but honestly, the $5 steps for placement are confusing. At $100 per month, I'd probably stop considering it unless the value proposition became much clearer. I wouldn't pay anything without understanding how it integrates with our current systems or provides actionable insights beyond a public record.

Simulated interest: 10/100

Kirk Kubneutral

This platform, They Fell, seems to be a public record of AI predictions and their accuracy. It ranks companies based on their Brier scores for resolved calls, which aligns with my data-driven approach. The pricing is a bit confusing; it mentions '$5 steps' for claiming spots and 'featured rows from $5,' but then lists other options like '$9/m verified' for unlimited calls, and a '$299 30-day audit.' The core functionality of tracking AI predictions is interesting, but the tiered and unclear pricing makes it hard to determine a 'no-brainer' price. I'd need to understand what the '$9/m verified' tier actually includes in terms of data access and analytical tools to see if it fits our needs for tracking AI trajectory forecasting. Without clearer value proposition tied to specific pricing tiers, it's difficult to commit.