The current volume of available analysis surpasses any point in history. However, this abundance has not led to greater clarity; instead, most people are more confused now than they were five years ago.
The primary change is the scale: when analysis was costly to produce, there was a natural filter, as those producing it had to be knowledgeable due to the high reputational and financial costs of being incorrect. Now, with minimal costs, anyone can generate analyses that mimic those from prestigious institutions like Goldman Sachs in mere minutes.
The noise is escalating exponentially, while genuine insights remain relatively constant. The challenge lies in distinguishing between the two, as poor analysis now appears polished and structured, making it difficult to discern from valuable signal. The systems that flood markets with noise can also be utilized to cut through it.
Over the past two years, I have demonstrated this publicly on X, covering geopolitics, energy, macroeconomics, cryptocurrency, and broader markets, with every call timestamped and nothing deleted. The account grew organically to over 140,000 followers without paid promotion, and Signal Core on Substack became the #3 best-selling crypto publication within nine months.
In a market overwhelmed by noise, the signal alone was sufficient. The signal-vs-noise problem has emerged at the worst possible time, with the next twelve months set to reshape the financial, technological, and geopolitical order more than the past decade combined. Digital assets are integrating with traditional finance at an unprecedented pace, regulatory frameworks are being rewritten, AI is transforming capital allocation, geopolitical orders are realigning, and monetary policy is at an inflection point. These foundational shifts are occurring simultaneously and compounding on each other, exactly when the ability to see clearly has collapsed.
There has never been more at stake, yet never less clarity on what is happening. The convergence problem is worse than a noise issue, as AI is driving everyone toward the same incorrect answers simultaneously. When numerous people use these tools to analyze the same event, they do not get diverse perspectives; instead, they get minor variations of the same default output. The tools do not just fail to produce signal; they manufacture false agreement.
Before AI, if multiple analysts agreed, it meant something. Now, if many accounts say the same thing, it might just mean they used the same tool. In practice, this can be seen in how the prevailing view in January was that a direct U.S.-Iran confrontation was unlikely, yet the structural picture told a different story. More than a month before the strikes, indicators pointed to a confrontation that was more likely than not.
We flagged this publicly on X while the crowd was dismissing the risk. When the strikes occurred, and oil nearly doubled, the move caught most of the market off guard. The signal was there, but the crowd was not looking at it. The inputs we watched were not exotic; they included public statements, internal economic pressure in Iran, and the absence of certain de-escalation patterns.
Anyone with internet access could see these things, but the edge was in synthesis - reading those inputs as a single converging system rather than separate news streams. This synthesis is the hard part. The information was available, the tools to process it were available, but what was missing was the ability to read the signal before the crowd formed around the wrong interpretation. Most people use AI to generate, but very few use it to see.
Signal is when you can look at a situation that confuses the entire market and see the structure underneath. It is when you can hold a position that every feed tells you to abandon, and hold it anyway, because you can see something they cannot. The challenge for most people is not generating signal themselves but recognizing who actually has it. Most analysis is hedged to the point of meaninglessness, with strategies for avoiding accountability dressed up as analysis.
The old filter for getting past this was credentials, but it no longer predicts who is seeing clearly. What matters now is whether someone is actually seeing what is happening - recognizing patterns the crowd is missing, naming what is real before it is obvious, and being right about it often enough that it holds up over time.
Once you can see clearly, you start operating on a different timeline than the rest of the market. We are entering an era where signal is the most valuable and least understood asset in the market.
The investors, builders, and allocators who figure this out first will have a structural advantage that compounds over years. Finding rooms where real signal still shows up is getting harder. Most venues that claim to aggregate market intelligence are just amplifying whatever the models already spit out.
Consensus 2026 in Miami is one of the few that still functions as a filter rather than an amplifier. The edge will not belong to whoever has the most information, the fastest tools, or the loudest platform. It will belong to whoever can see clearly when everyone else is drowning in noise.
That is the scarcest resource in markets right now, and it is only getting scarcer.