In case folks missed it, there was an update to the requirements to get funded:
Reasonable, I suppose, but this one, in practice, is probably not so good as a requirement:
One of the most common ways to overfit is to just try a ton of
variants until one works. We’re looking for algorithms which have a
clear intent in the idea as opposed to algorithms which just happen to
work with no explanation. We’d like you to be able to explain the
original idea and intent of the strategy to us before we license it.
For one thing, it would seem to be in conflict with:
You will always own your intellectual property. Selected authors license their algorithm to Quantopian.
If the thing actually works, and the quant knows precisely why, would he want to share the secret sauce with Q, or just make something up?
Also, everybody offered an allocation is gonna say something, right? How would it be verified (given that presumably authors aren't required to share their code)?
And I'd have concerns about scalability. It assumes a certain expertise on the part of the evaluator, but what happens when there are hundreds/thousands of allocations? The requirement seems too qualitative to scale up to a less expert evaluation team than today.
What about an algo that combines a bunch of factors using ML, or some other computational fanciness? What's the "strategic intent" gonna be (other than "combines a bunch of factors using computational fanciness")?
Seems like a bad requirement, as written. Any thoughts?