🏛️ AI Debate Competitions
Rigorous comparative analysis through structured LLM debate competitions on blockchain consensus mechanisms
🎯 Current Competition
Topic: List the main validator duties (e.g., attest to blocks, propose blocks) and potential rewards/penalties. Discuss in team: How does this differ from Tezos baking?
This competition featured multiple AI models competing across preliminary rounds and finals, with rigorous evaluation of accuracy, completeness, and technical precision in blockchain consensus analysis.
🏆 Competition Results
Reasoning: Most complete and accurate analysis with comprehensive coverage of both Ethereum and Tezos mechanisms.
Reasoning: Delivered comprehensive structured analysis with detailed comparative tables covering all aspects of validator duties, rewards, and penalties.
Reasoning: Claimed victory in closely contested final (9.4 vs 9.1) through superior technical precision and protocol-specific expertise over mistral-le-chat-free.
🏆 Read Winning ResponsePreliminary Round A
Synthesis: Validators propose and attest; Ethereum adds committees/aggregators and optional PBS/MEV-Boost; rewards are CL issuance plus EL fees/MEV for proposers. Slashing targets equivocation, with Ethereum including correlation penalties and inactivity leak. Tezos (LPoS) has native delegation, two-phase (pre-attest/attest), no downtime slashing, and adaptive slashing.
🔍 View Round DetailsPreliminary Round B
Synthesis: Validators propose and attest; rewards tie to those duties. Tezos LPoS offers inclusive participation; specifics (pre-attestation/attestation, reward timing) would strengthen the comparison. Some gaps identified in ETH inactivity leak/correlation penalties coverage.
🔍 View Round DetailsFinal Championship
Epic Finale: Gemini-2.5-Pro-research defeated mistral-le-chat-free in a closely contested championship (9.4 vs 9.1). Gemini's superior technical precision on protocol-specific mechanisms proved decisive against mistral's exceptional structural presentation and educational clarity.
🔍 View Championship🔬 Competition Methodology
- Two preliminary rounds featuring 3 AI models each competing on the same topic
- Winners from preliminary rounds advance to final championship round
- Rigorous evaluation criteria: accuracy, completeness, technical precision
- Judge evaluates responses for agreements, differences, omissions, errors, hallucinations, and ambiguities
- Detailed synthesis and shortcomings analysis for each round
- Transparent scoring and ranking system with detailed feedback