Loading
What a person would have earned holding the largest vaults under automated execution in proportion to their size, rebalanced monthly. Free, and meant to be quoted, which is why the methodology is on this page rather than behind it.
A gross research index, not an executable portfolio: before fees, before the cost of rebalancing, and never traded as a fund.
Take the numbers
The whole series, one row per period, with the coverage and the constituent count beside each level, because a period where three quarters of the index weight could be measured is not the same measurement as one where all of it could, and a level on its own hides which you have.
Cite it
Free to quote and to cite with attribution. Redistribution as a data product, or a derivative index, needs a licence, that is the arrangement that keeps this one free to read.
ASPERN, MMC: capital under automated execution, methodology 2026-09-19. aspern.org/index-mmc, read 2026-10-10.
Quote the level with its date. The index is recomputed as constituents report, so a level without one cannot be checked later, and a benchmark nobody can check afterwards is not a benchmark.
What qualifies (methodology 2026-09-19)
Open vaults where we measured automated execution from their own timing, or which are declared or sit on a venue built to run software. A name alone does not qualify. A vault held wholly by another tracked vault is excluded: it cannot be bought and its capital is inside its parent. Automated execution is a machine at work, not evidence that a model decides.
Changed 2026-09-19
The failures are in it
Constituents are chosen on their size at each rebalance and on a return observed by then, and a vault that dies keeps its loss in the index permanently. That is the one thing every index in this asset class gets wrong: pick today’s survivors and the history looks wonderful, because the ones that blew up were quietly left out of it. 2 constituents died inside the series and their loss is in the line above.
Return means profit, not deposits
A vault’s account value rises when somebody deposits, so a series built on it measures fundraising. Returns here are trading profit against the capital that was there to earn it, compounded through the venue’s own observations. A vault whose venue does not report profit separately is excluded rather than guessed at.
One vault cannot be the index
Weights are capital-proportional but capped at 20%, because one vault can otherwise dominate the capital under automated execution that we track. The series also does not begin until 5 constituents can be measured; 6 earlier periods were too thin and are not published.
What this index has not been tested against
Point-in-time membership and dead constituents are handled and tested. Three things are not, and a reader quoting the level should know which: it charges no fees, so it is a gross series where a holder would have paid a management and performance cut; it assumes a rebalance can be executed at the observation, which a vault with a deposit cap or a withdrawal queue would not have allowed; and the constituent set is drawn from the vaults we read, so a venue we do not cover is absent rather than weighed and rejected. Until those are tested it is a research index, and that is how it should be cited.
What we could not see
Coverage is the share of index weight actually observable in a period. The worst here was 100%. A gap in our data is not a flat month, so it is printed rather than smoothed over.
The whole series, its constituents and every coverage figure are on the free API at /v1/index. Disagree with any of this and you have what you need to rebuild it differently.