Not much at this point. It mean 500 K long and 500 K short.

If you algorithm makes 10% per year that is a 100 K, of which you get 10 K. But they do intend to increase the capital allocation and hence it makes sense to get into this game early. If tomorrow, they find a 1000 algorithms the capital allocation per each will not be enough to justify the effort involved.

Point72 has pledged up to $250M. And Quantopian has talked about up to 6X leverage. So, the upper limit is $1.5B, spread across N algos. Algo authors get the full benefit of the leverage, without any of the risk (unless they quit their day jobs).

Might be a statistically better payoff playing the lottery? It all reminds me of outsourcing stuff to India and China......But at least those guys get paid. Well, something anyway!

No harm in it I guess but for the overwhelming majority of participants here the endeavour will yield the same sort of profits (for the same sort of effort) as devising open source software.😀😆😉😎😊

The real question is if "crowd" can generate 500 to 1000 algorithms. If yes then we lose because our allocations will not justify effort. Otherwise it is quite profitable if allocations are north of 10 million.

I mustn't sound too naughty, cynical and ungrateful but the internet seems to have brought a great deal of benefit but also quite a few "burdens". It has certainly helped the "haves" reap cheap (almost free) labour from the "have nots". No one expects to pay for anything these days and will do their damndest not to. Each time I have a problem with my telephone I am put through to a charming Indian gentleman on the flood plains of Bangladesh who is paid a farthing an hour for his sterling efforts by fat cat employers in the developed world.

Journalism does not seem to pay either - I recently wrote a chapter for an investment book for Harriman House. I was not paid a penny for it - it was for my own glory and the greater good and was lured into it by vanity - Bill Gross and Jack Bogle had contributed chapters to the previous edition and will presumably do so again.

I wrote various articles for an magazine who talked of paying me. The articles were written but somehow payment never materialised. Look at all the crap people provide for free on Linked In. I think I would prefer to contribute to Linked Out.

I fear the so called democratization of Wall Street falls into the same category. 999 out of 1000 who put in the effort will receive nothing but some sort of education or experience but nothing else unless they can work out a way, against steep odds, of trading their way to a fortune in capricious markets.

There is certainly a big upside to this forum for participants, myself included. Quantopian staff have provided much research I have found very helpful even if I find the back testing harness not to my taste.

However I am under no illusions. My participation here (even were I to attempt to devise algos for the competition) will yield much the same results as most efforts on the internet. Like contributing to Facebook. Financially, it is unlikely to be a winner!

On the bright side even if your allocations don't return much you now have a live track record which means a lot in trading world when you are looking for opportunities.

Hey, don't take too much notice of me. I'm deeply cynical after many years in finance. But Big Steve Cohen is sure getting a bargain here! All those Quants for free and he only has to pay the winners. I'm just a miserable old git - take no notice of me.

The real question is if "crowd" can generate 500 to 1000 algorithms.

My sense is that under the current high-touch paradigm of working with authors individually, having them sign licensing agreements (potentially individualized), scaling to this level will be challenging. My sense, at least near-term (over the next couple years), is that Q is looking for ~ 30 algos to fund. Beyond that, it'll get very unwieldy, in my opinion.